DE
Reference: D_06_ 2011
Gender: Male
Aged: 10
Type of Reference: Placing Request
1. Reference
(‘the Appellant’) made a Reference, R/051/2011, under Section 18 (3)(da) of The Education (Additional Support for Learning)(Scotland) Act 2004, as amended by The Education (Additional Support for Learning)(Scotland) Act 2009 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the 2004 Act’] against a Decision by The City of Edinburgh Council (‘the Authority’) confirmed in writing on 26th April 2011 to refuse a Placing Request made by the Appellant in respect of her son The Child born 2001.
2. Decision of the Tribunal
The Tribunal hereby CONFIRMS the aforementioned Decision of the Authority, first intimated to the Appellant in writing on 26th April 2011 to refuse the placing request being satisfied, in terms of Section 19(4A)(a) of the 2004 Act being (i) satisfied that one or more of the grounds specified in Paragraph 3(1) of Schedule 2 to the said 2004 Act exist or exists, and (ii) in all the circumstances it is appropriate to do so.
The Decision of the Tribunal is unanimous.
3. Preliminary Issues
There was a substantial amount of Late Evidence received in this Reference. The Tribunal sought the views of both parties who both confirmed there was no objection to either party lodging Late Evidence.
In view of the nature of this evidence, the representations from parties, their mutual consent and agreement to late lodging, and the said evidence being relevant to this Reference, the Tribunal was satisfied that, in all the circumstances, it would be fair and just to allow all Late Evidence pursuant to Rule 34 of the Rules of The Additional Support Needs Tribunals for Scotland (Practice and Procedure) Rules 2006 as amended by The Additional Support Needs Tribunals for Scotland (Practice and Procedure) Rules 2010 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the 2006 Rules’].
The Tribunal itself requested further productions and information during the five days of evidence. We thank both Representatives for their very full cooperation in providing same.
All additional Late Evidence was therefore lodged into their respective sections and numbered accordingly within the bundle.
There were three Case Management Calls leading up to the hearing (28th September, 19th October, and 15th November 2011).
The Representatives assisted the Convener to manage wherever possible the attendance of the witnesses to reduce any avoidable inconvenience for them.
A Convenor Direction dated 28th November 2011 was issued in this case.
In addition to the five days of evidence the Tribunal members reconvened to discuss the evidence and finalise our deliberations. This took place on 20th December 2011.
The Tribunal wish to thank both representatives for the presentation of their case and their professional representation and assistance throughout.
4. Summary of Evidence:
The Tribunal considered a detailed bundle of evidence (including all the Late Evidence). The Tribunal also had careful regard to (a) the Appellant’s Case Statement, and
(b) the Authority’s Case Statement in respect of each reference. Written submissions were also lodged by both parties.
We do not intend to list all the documentary productions lodged by both parties.
In addition to the above, the Tribunal heard oral evidence from both The Appellant, and the aforementioned witnesses, namely: Witness A (Teacher, School A), Witness B (Principal Teacher, School B), Witness C (Depute Head Teacher, School A), Witness D (Head Teacher, School B), and Witness E (Visiting Teacher).
The Tribunal noted the written evidence of the father of The Child. We thank him for his written evidence and for the obvious support he extended to The Appellant throughout the hearing.
The Tribunal noted the oral evidence of the Advocacy Worker together with her written Report. We also noted the written submission of the answers to two specific (and agreed) questions from the current classroom teacher.
The Tribunal further considered detailed oral submissions from both Parties. We observe that they lodged written submissions. The Tribunal wish to record their appreciation to both representatives for their written submissions.
5. Findings in Fact:
[1] The Child (hereinafter referred to as ‘The Child’) is a ten year old boy (born 2001), who resides with the Appellant, his mother, and his father. The Child has a younger sibling.
[2] The Child was diagnosed with Asperger’s Syndrome in 2010. This was confirmed by Dr Anon, Associate Specialist, in a letter dated 10th March 2010 [R116].
[3] The Child has Additional Support Needs in terms of Section 1 of the 2004 Act.
[4] The Child attends School A
[5] The Child is a very articulate boy who can display obsessive behaviours symptomatic of his learning difficulties. He plays life like a script and can often repeat what he has heard without understanding what he is saying. He can therefore be perceived as articulate with good coping strategies. In reality he does not have a full understanding of all conversations and would not understand the wider concepts beyond the script he has learned.
[6] The Child has a short concentration span. He can find it hard to focus on a task, especially when he finds it uninteresting. The Child works best when he has individual support or is part of a small group with a high level of adult support. The Child has demonstrated that he can also work in a variety of other groupings and settings.
[7] The Child has support from Speech and Language Therapy (hereinafter referred to as ‘SALT’). This has been arranged by his parents in conjunction with Health Trust. The input is provided in blocks of 10 sessions. The Child first attendance was from 23rd April 2010 till 25th June 2010 [see A24/25]. . The Child continues to attend SALT. Although School A are aware that The Child attends SALT they do not coordinate this provision. SALT specifically focuses on skills development in writing, social interaction, following rules and understanding idioms.
[8] The Child has difficulties with organisation and co-ordination. The aforesaid Dr Anon noted in said letter at [2] that The Child has difficulties with his gross motor skills and at that time was assessed as a clumsy boy. He was referred to Occupational Therapy (hereinafter referred to as ‘OT’) for assessment and support. The OT noted that The Child requires exercises to improve his co-ordination and sensory development [A45]. In the most recent OT Report from Senior Occupational Therapist, dated 15th June 2010, it is noted that The Child still had ongoing difficulties at that time with writing [R141].
[9] The Child experiences difficulties with peer relationships and can become frustrated during social interactions. This is confirmed by Educational Psychologist, in her Report dated 17th February 2011 [R100-103]. She states that The Child has a history of difficulty with social communication skills and settling to and completing work. She concluded in her said Report that The Child is cognitively able and a communicative child with Asperger’s Syndrome. She further stated that The Child is progressing academically in his local mainstream school but records the frustrations expressed by The Appellant. Recommendations are made in said Report for the types of support that are needed for The Child at R103.
[10] In the Profile of Individual Needs at A26-27, dated 21st January 2010, The Child is described as struggling to maintain friendships and being aggressive to his peers. It is noted that The Child likes to follow his own agenda and finds it difficult to see things from other people’s perspective. He is described as very challenging and attention seeking, requiring a high level of one to one support to deliver effective learning.. The Profile states that The Child is becoming increasingly difficult to manage as he gets older. The Child accesses his class support from a Learning Assistant..
[11] The Child has difficulties with his diet and the Appellant has found it difficult to encourage him to increase his dietary repertoire. The Appellant is concerned about The Child’s lack of danger awareness. School A has not perceived this as a particular issue. The Child walks to and from his home to school. The aforesaid Educational Psychologist stated in her said Report at A17 that The Child would require ‘considerable support at breaks, lunch-times and during group work at times throughout the school day’.
[12] As part of the process of making a Placing Request for The Child, the Appellant visited School B
[13] School B is a special school for primary and secondary age pupils, from 5-18 years old. The school roll is around 100. The school provides for pupils with social communication difficulties, almost all of whom have an autistic spectrum disorder. The school is divided between two buildings on the same campus. The primary school children are accommodated in one of these buildings. The general classrooms have a capacity for 6 pupils and have a high staff pupil ratio - a teacher, learning assistant and a nursery nurse. There is a place available for The Child at School B. Currently The Child attends School A in a class with 24 other pupils. At a review Meeting at School A on 23rd June 2011 the Appellant expressed the view that The Child would work better in a smaller class noted at A12.
[14] The Child is above average cognitively but his behaviour can affect his ability to reach his full learning potential and render him vulnerable.
[15] Effective teaching and learning takes place for The Child when school staff have a clear understanding of Asperger’s Syndrome and the effect of social communication difficulties on behaviour. Learning Strategies should be consistently implemented. Both School A and School B demonstrated such an understanding and the need for consistency to the Tribunal.
[16] Whilst the Tribunal noted the provision offered at School B, including their strong ICT usage, their multi-disciplinary approach, their level of support, their strategies, their knowledge and the regular training for support staff, including having their own on-site chef, School B do not consider their school to be an appropriate placement for The Child. Witness D, Head Teacher stated that The Child would find mainstream school challenging but that is where he will best learn. She stated that School B has children with very challenging behaviour and that The Child needs to be with neurotypical children. Witness D stated that The Child would not have that peer group at School B. She further stated that School B have children who exhibit peculiar behaviour in the playground, classroom and in the lunch hall. The peculiar behaviours can include flapping, swearing, aggression and complete withdrawal. Witness D stated that The Child would be disturbed by this. She commented that The Child would be a child who tried to tell other children what do. Witness D emphasised that it is very important for children on the autistic spectrum to model good behaviour since they can be vulnerable to modelling negative behaviour. Witness D expressed her concerns that the curriculum on offer at School B was not significantly challenging to meet The Child intellectual needs. She reflected that in recent intakes the trend has been towards a less able group of young people with a higher degree of complex learning difficulties. In the past individual pupils were able to attend a class at Anon High but this pupil group has significantly declined. Whilst part-time inclusion at Anon High is still an option it is rarely possible given the current pupil population at School B. She stated that the current primary school population at School B have pre-reading – early reading skills as measured within a Curriculum for Excellence. Their reading age is significantly below their chronological age. In comparison The Child at 9years and 5months has a reading age of 11 years and 6months.
[17] The Child attends the Autistic Society Playscheme (hereinafter referred to as ‘ASP’). He attended the Summer Playscheme in 2011. He received 1:1 support. He appeared to have had difficulty successfully interacting with his peers and required the support to do this. In the Report at A30 it is concluded that The Child seemed to respond really well to the supportive environment he was in and appeared to be quite attentive during his time at playscheme. Witness D commented that ASP works very well as a support to parents but commented that the children are 1:1 with adults at the playscheme and not truly interacting with other children. Witness D stated that interacting with mainstream children is a very powerful and positive experience for autistic children.
[18] The Appellant expressed a number of concerns about School A including the level of support offered, the extent of their understanding of Asperger’s Syndrome, problems with writing and producing school work, homework, the way SALT and OT provide input, inconsistent use of strategies within the class for The Child, the level of support provided within the playground, The Child’s vulnerability in social interactions and incidents which the Appellant regarded as bullying.
[19] School A utilise a number of tools and methodologies in an attempt to meet The Child’s social communication, associated behavioural issues and written language needs.
[20] Transition for The Child requires long term planning and must involve careful consultation with the child’s parents. The Child does not handle change easily. Early planning should be put in place for his transition to secondary school. Planning should also be in place for The Child’s next year and his move to a new class at primary level.
[21] The Appellant was unaware of the Scottish Government’s Dispute Resolution Service.
[22] The Child is regarded as a polite, bright boy with an advanced use of verbal language skills. He demonstrated this when he visited School B. Witness D observed that many of the children he met at School B did not reciprocate and continued with what they were doing. He ended up playing alone and very few of the boys actually spoke to him. At times The Child became bored in some of the classrooms he visited because very few of the children interacted with him. The Child’s second visit to School B was on the morning of 17th November 2011. Witness D remained in the class throughout the visit. She replaced and took on the role of the nursery nurse. Her presence did not add to the normal staff complement within the room. A game took place and The Child was the only child to notice that the class teacher hadn’t received any dominoes and he remarked on this. He demonstrated a very high level of interaction with the staff asking many questions. At lunch time he chatted to the cook and did not take part in conversation with the other children. At one point another child started repeatedly hitting a bin. The Child was distressed by this and Witness D noted that The Child told the child “You need to stop that and stop that now”. The other child did not understand what The Child was saying. Witness D observed The Child converse with another child when he asked if he could look at the timer on the child’s desk as it looked very interesting. The other child did not understand what The Child was saying.
[23] Witness B is Principal Teacher at School B. She stated that she discussed The Child with Witness E, Witness C and Witness D. She visited The Child at School A on 9th September 2011 for 20 minutes. It is Witness B’s professional view that it would not be in The Child best interests to be placed at School B. His cognitive ability and his current level of social communication skills are in stark contrast to the current pupil population at School B.
[24] Witness E from the Visiting Teacher and Support Service gave evidence over two days. She was strongly against School B for The Child. She supported his current placement in School A. She stated that The Child would not meet his potential at School B. She was clearly of the view that The Child would become very frustrated if he went there. Witness E stated that in the past she has recommended children as suitable for School B. She has shadowed children in class at School B and is very familiar with School B. She argued that School B manage children with complex autistic spectrum disorder and associated challenging behaviour. She concluded that the children who currently attend School B are functioning well below The Child’s cognitive ability.
[25] The Tribunal explored the provision for The Child at School A. We heard oral evidence from Witness C and Witness A, complimented by the written documentary evidence. It is accepted that The Child faces many challenges in a mainstream setting arising from his additional support needs. Witness C stated that The Child benefits from staff setting boundaries regarding The Child’s behaviour. This can include Witness C challenging
The Child about his behaviour.
[26] School A applies a wide range of appropriate strategies to support The Child’s additional support needs. School A state that The Child’s functioning in school has improved significantly over the course of the last school year and continues to improve over the course of the current school year.
[27] The staff at School A demonstrated an understanding of Asperger’s Syndrome. They do not punish The Child for behaviour relating to his diagnosis. The school have developed a good understanding of The Child’s behaviour. School A do not accept that The Child is being bullied at school but recognise the need to be vigilant and take appropriate action when incidents are brought to their attention. Witness C stated that School A provide The Child with appropriate educational stimuli commensurate with his needs. He further stated that The Child has demonstrated educational potential that could not be fully reached at School B.
[28] School A is able to make adequate and efficient provision for the additional support needs of The Child. Education provision at School A is suitable for the additional support needs of The Child.
[29] Witness E stated that there is a number of well trained staff at School A. She further stated that it is a model school in terms of their knowledge and understanding of autism and of applying a flexible elaborated curriculum.
[30] The Child’s parents wish him to move to School B. They feel that School A is not adequately meeting their son’s needs. They do not believe that his needs can be met within the mainstream environment and that School B would be a more suitable learning environment for their son. Both parents are clearly very caring about their son and seek to do what they believe is right for The Child.
[31] The Authority accepts that at this time The Child has expressed a degree of unhappiness with School A at this time and that currently he may wish to attend School B.
[32] School B is not suited to the ability or aptitude of The Child. Furthermore The Child does not have the additional support needs requiring the education or special facilities normally provided by School B.
[33] In all the circumstances presented to the Tribunal, it is not appropriate to grant the appeal. We therefore confirm the Decision of the Authority to refuse the Placing Request for The Child to be placed in School B.
6. Reasons for Decision
The Tribunal considered all the evidence within the productions initially lodged, together with all the late evidence lodged, and the oral evidence of the witnesses who attended over five days, including the Appellant and The Respondent Representative. The Tribunal had regard to the views of The Child having considered the Report lodged and the oral evidence of the Advocacy Worker. The Tribunal had regard also to the written evidence of the father and the current teacher. The Tribunal also considered the submissions made on behalf of both parties on the final day (both written and oral).
It is not practical, appropriate or necessary to narrate every aspect of the evidence in this written decision. We note that many of the witnesses lodged written mini biographies to assist the Tribunal. We thank all witnesses for this.
The Statutory Provisions
The Authority moved the Tribunal to confirm the decision of the Authority in terms of Section 19(4A) of the 2004 Act.
Section 22 of the 2004 Act is the relevant section in so far as it states that ‘Schedule 2 makes provision about placing requests in relation to children and young persons with additional support needs’.
Turning to Schedule 2 of the 2004 Act, this deals with the Authority’s duties to comply with a placing request.
Paragraph 2 of Schedule 2 of the 2004 Act relates to the duty to comply with placing requests.
Paragraph 3 of Schedule 2 of the 2004 Act [headed ‘Circumstances in which duty does not apply’] provides a list of grounds which the Authority could seek to argue in support of non-compliance with the duties in the aforementioned Paragraph 2.
Section 19(4A) of the 2004 Act states the power of the Tribunal and the two stage test which the Tribunal must apply.
In the first stage, the Tribunal requires to determine whether it is satisfied that the Authority has established that one or more grounds of refusal, as provided within Schedule 2, paragraph 3(1) of the 2004 Act, exist or exists.
If the Tribunal is thus satisfied that one or more grounds exist or exists then, and only then, the Tribunal moves to the second stage.
In this case the Respondent relies on Schedule 2, Paragraph 3 (1) (b), namely that the education provided at the specified school (School B) is not suited to the age, ability or aptitude of The Child and on Paragraph (1) (d) that, if, where the school is a school mentioned in Paragraph 2(2) (a) or (b), the child does not have additional support needs requiring the education or special facilities normally provided at that school.
In the second stage, the Tribunal must exercise its discretion and determine whether, in all the circumstances, it is appropriate to confirm the Authority’s decision.
In this case The Appellant’s Representativeargues that in all the circumstances The Child should be placed in School B.
The onus is on the Authority to establish that one or more of the grounds exist or exists, and to satisfy the Tribunal that in all the circumstances it is appropriate to confirm the decision of the Authority.
The Tribunal considered all the evidence before it of the ability of the Authority to make provision for the additional support needs of The Child. A critical issue for the Tribunal is whether School B
The First Stage:
[Whilst the Tribunal had careful regard to all of the evidence presented to us we now explore some aspects of the evidence in further detail].
We have already highlighted above some of the evidence we heard.
It is clear to us that none of the witnesses from School A or indeed School B supported the Placing Request to School B. The evidence presented assisted us to better understand The Child’s needs and the provision at School A and School B.
Whilst we understand there was a place for The Child to attend School B, and there were no arguments before us about expenditure, we note that the Authority continue to oppose the Placing Request.
The Tribunal noted the process that led to the initial decision of the Professional Assessment Group (PAG). We note that Witness D was part of the panel and she remains opposed to the suitability of School B for The Child. We note that she has been Head Teacher of School B since 2008 and has also observed The Child within her school. We note that she has worked in the field of autism for some 15 years. We formed the view that she was a reliable and credible witness. We formed the view that she well understood Asperger’s Syndrome and the provision within School A and School B. The Tribunal found her evidence very informative and highly convincing.
As narrated above Witness E was very firm in her opinion regarding the suitability of School B for The Child. We note that she had also recently spoken to the classroom teacher who said that The Child was very settled and that things were going extremely well. She was clearly of the opinion that moving The Child to School B would be a decision detrimental to his future educational achievement. The witness had knowledge of the staff at School A. She was very impressed by their training, skills and knowledge. Witness E stated that the Circle of Friends has been an excellent input for The Child and that it had made a significant difference for him. She told us of the use of social stories in the classroom. She told us of the specific strategies being used for The Child, commenting on some she had not seen before. Witness E stated that The Child is a very happy child and that she had not personally observed or heard of any bullying. She commented that The Child was very well liked and supported by his peers. Witness E in supporting School A was of the view that good role models were the best possible thing for The Child and that School A were better placed to provide this than School B. The Tribunal noted carefully the updated VTSS Report dated 24th October 2011 (R229/230), We note that VTSS is a short term service and their support has come to an end for The Child. Witness E concluded that The Child had now settled into his new P6 class. She recommended that the Circle of Friends group continues along with the lunchtime Nurture Group.
Witness E further stated in said Report that The Child now manages collaborative group work particularly well. She stated that this was an indication of the excellent progress he has made over the year. She commented that The Child appears happy in school and has developed his friendships. Whilst it might be argued that Witness E’s involvement with The Child has been over a relatively limited period we did find her evidence of assistance when assessing the overall provision within School A. We note that since October 2011 The Child’s learning assistant took over the running of the Circle of Friends and she has been given training and resources to support her with this.
Witness C is the depute head teacher at School A. He spoke in detail about the strategies in The Child’s current class, including a visual timetable, individual workstation to complement The Child’s other table in the class, chat time with learning assistant at the beginning of the day, laminated time-out listening cards limited to four a day, Nurture Group sessions, and positive behaviour work scheme e.g. tokens / chips. He also spoke in detail of Circle of Friends and his own personal knowledge of and relationship with The Child. The Tribunal considered a wide range of evidence from Witness C. He told us that the current P6 class have been organised with careful regard to creating suitable peer groups and The Child’s classmates are very supportive of The Child. He further told us that The Child’s functioning had greatly improved in the playground so that he does not require 1:1 support. He explained that this was as a result of having a new friend, the success of the Circle of Friends, his enjoyment of assisting a staff member with refereeing and the addition of new playground equipment. The Tribunal noted carefully Witness C’s evidence of seeing no bullying since the beginning of The Child’s P5 year when Witness C first joined the school. He explained to the Tribunal that whilst he was aware of The Appellant’s concerns about various incidents he investigated allegations of bullying and was satisfied that they were not in his mind bullying incidents. That being said Witness C did indicate his concern about the ‘trouser’ incident as this involved 4 boys of a similar age to The Child. The Tribunal note in the email at R184 dated 14th October 2011 Witness C confirmed that one of the four boys is now in The Child’s current class. We note that this boy volunteered to join The Child’s Circle of Friends and was a positive member of the group staying on until the end of the session. The Tribunal however did take account of the incident in the playground on 2nd November 2011 and the email exchange between Witness C and The Appellant at A61-62. The Tribunal recognise the concerns expressed on both sides. It is a stark reminder of the need to reassess for The Child the level of supervision he may require especially in a busy playground. Witness C stated in evidence that the school continue to monitor the support in place. We noted the Anti-Bullying and Equalities Policy lodged by the Authority at R185- 192 at the request of the Tribunal. Whilst we understand Witness C has not visited School B he told us that he knew about the school and its provision when he worked at school. He was of the opinion that The Child would not receive the same interaction with his peer group, would not receive the same stimulation and he further expressed a concern about achieving his academic potential. In his opinion The Child would be better at the current mainstream provision.
Witness A was the class teacher at School A last year. She told us that The Child had a workstation and also had a group-desk which he used often. Witness A stated that The Child was more able to work independently by the end of last year, was able to decide for himself when to take time-out and was much quicker to calm down. Witness A further stated that the problem of talking out of turn had also improved throughout the year, that he had become self-regulating and would put his hand up. The Appellant’s Representative asked Witness A to describe The Child’s difficulties. She stated these were attention-seeking behaviour and a lack of respect for authority. Once again she reiterated that there had been a huge improvement in these by the end of the last school year. Witness A did not, in her professional opinion, consider The Child to be unhappy at School A. She stated that she did not regard The Child to be a victim of bullying. She spoke of what she described as isolated incidents which were dealt with by Witness C and these were not consistent in her opinion with bullying. Witness A told the Tribunal that whilst The Child found ‘co-operative group work’ stressful at first by the end of the last school year he worked best in that environment. The Tribunal note that Witness A was invited to comment on The Child and on aspects of his Additional Support Plan. For example she stated that The Child had stated to her on several occasions he was happier as a result of the Circle of Friends. She told us that The Child “loved the traffic light system” and that he valued ‘choosing-time’ which included a game on his computer which he would not have been able to play at other time. Witness A did not support a move to School B. She emphasised that good role models were the best possible thing for The Child and that he would not get this at School B.
The current class teacher explained in her written submission how she prepared the work for The Child to do when he visited School B. We note her further commentary about the amount of work The Child normally produces at School A. As well as written work The Child would experience teaching, paired and grouped discussion, opportunities to apply learning across the curriculum as well as time for evaluation and reviewing learning. This would happen across a range of subjects throughout the week. She indicated that The Child recently gave an excellent presentation to adults and other pupils at the recent Open Day. We were advised that neither The Appellant nor his father attended this Open Day or any previous open days or the recent curriculum evening where she shared with parents what a typical school day would involve for P6 pupils. The Tribunal noted the response provided to question 2. We note that The Child, along with the other children in his class demonstrate learning through a variety of different modes in addition to the production of written work.
The Tribunal appointed a Children and Young Person’s Advocate to provide a Report on the Views of The Child. This is captured at T38-48. The Respondent Representative challenged the Advocate in respect of certain aspects of her Report and suggested that the Report appeared to contain some personal views of her own. The Tribunal note that she stated on several occasions in her oral evidence that it was never her intention to disclose any personal opinions. She stated that this is not within her remit as an Advocacy Worker. The Tribunal accept that she presented us with a very detailed Report often with direct quotes from The Child. We found the Report of great assistance but we accept that some of the wording could easily be interpreted as appearing to be the views of her own. Whilst we have some sympathy with the observations made by The Respondent Representative we are satisfied that she was attempting throughout her Report to give The Child a voice. We accept for example that the reference to ‘split schooling’ at T48 originated from The Child when he suggested he could attend both School A and School B. She stated that at times The Child appears ‘lost’ not knowing where he ‘fits in’. She stated that this was very noticeable when discussing schools. She records The Child saying: “Well I like School A sometimes but School B will give me the support I need as there are people there like me, and I won’t get into trouble so much there”.
The Appellant challenged many aspects of the evidence both directly and through her Representative. The Tribunal carefully considered her evidence and her request for this Placing Request. The father lodged a two paged document highlighting the complexities of The Child. The Tribunal note that even with the support mechanisms put in place at school, the parents still feel that The Child is facing the same social communication and inclusion issues. We note that The Child has no meaningful social interaction with any children in his school friendship group beyond the school day. The Appellant and the father both clearly expressed their concern about incidents they perceive as ‘bullying’. The Tribunal acknowledge their concerns as the parents of The Child. School A is aware of these concerns. Clearly it is of great importance that any further incidents continue to be fully investigated and dealt with in an appropriate manner. The Tribunal carefully noted the specific concerns of the father, echoed on many occasions by the Appellant, that within School A actions ‘ are invariably slow to manifest, sometimes not appearing at all’. Communication channels between the school and parents are a priority and will continue to be vitally important in delivering a positive, constructive working- relationship. It was eminently clear to the Tribunal that both parents are seeking what is best for The Child’s educational, emotional and social wellbeing.
The Second Stage
If the Tribunal is not satisfied with the First stage there is no requirement to move onto the second stage of the test, namely the appropriateness of the decision.
In this appeal the Tribunal is satisfied that the First Stage has been established and therefore the Tribunal must thereafter consider the appropriateness of the decision to refuse the Placing Request, notwithstanding being satisfied that grounds of refusal do exist specified within paragraph 3(1) of schedule 2 of the 2004 Act.
At the second stage, the Tribunal is required to exercise its discretion and determine whether, in all the circumstances, it is still appropriate to confirm the decision of the Authority.
In this case the Tribunal is satisfied that the First Stage has been established and therefore the Tribunal require to consider the appropriateness of the Authority’s decision. Whilst we are respectful of the wishes of the Appellant for The Child to attend School B the Tribunal, having regard to all of the evidence presented to us, consider School A to be a more appropriate placement at this time for The Child.
Accordingly, the Tribunal is satisfied that the Decision to refuse the Placing Request is appropriate in all the circumstances as noted above.
The Tribunal in their final deliberations preferred the final submissions of the Authority having regard to the evidence presented to us.
Although the Tribunal upholds the Authority’s decision, thus refusing the Placing Request by The Appellant for School B, we consider it is indeed of great importance for The Child that the Authority and his parents ensure they work proactively together and nurture a good working relationship.
Observations:
The Respondent Representative invited the Tribunal in his Final Conclusions to comment about the provision within School A. He also asks us to comment upon the possibility of Mediation. We make the following observations, in good faith, to assist the Respondent, School A, The Child and his parents in the future.
(i)The Tribunal formed the view that future communications between the Authority, school and home could be significantly improved. We understand that the parents of The Child may wish to explore whether The Child would benefit from and meet the statutory criteria for a Co-ordinated Support Plan. We feel that they should be assisted and enabled in this by the Authority in a positive and open-minded way;
(ii) The Authority should also consider reviewing how parents and schools are provided with appropriate information about additional support needs legislation as required by the Act. This should include information about Dispute Resolution and Mediation. In this case the Authority accepts they failed to provide information about Dispute Resolution to the Appellant. Furthermore, whilst we understand information may be available on their web site this information should, in our view, also be made more readily available within School A;
(iii)The Tribunal consider it is vitally important to quickly rebuild a sound working relationship with The Child’s parents possibly through their Meditation Service and or Dispute Resolution;
(iv)The Tribunal accept that School A use a wide variety of methodologies for The Child. It may assist The Child’s future development if School A were to seek advice from a specialist provision, possibly from School B (since they now know The Child) or another qualified practitioner in social communication difficulties, to review the strategies in use and possibly limit the range of strategies to ensure a focussed framework for The Child, which might provide greater consistency in the selected methodologies. Direct consultation with SALT could further assist School A in deciding consistent and appropriate short and long term strategies to support The Child. This could be further explored and discussed with the parents of The Child;
(v)Having considered all the evidence presented to us, we formed the view that the school should always involve the parents in regular consultation about the ‘long and short term’ targets in The Child’s support plan. The Child should also contribute to his own support plan wherever possible. In the spirit of the Act, The Child should be consulted and his contribution should also be recorded.
(vi)We have already touched on the importance of transition for The Child. All the witnesses from both schools acknowledged this. The Tribunal would suggest that long term planning must involve appropriate consultation with the parents of The Child. Early planning should in our view be put in place for The Child for future critical transitions firstly to his next class in School A and thereafter to his new secondary school;
(vii)The Tribunal consider that the recommendations of the OT be revisited and possibly reassessed. We note there was a failure to provide a ‘sloping board’ to assist The Child with his handwriting skills. We understand it is accepted by Witness C that the use of ICT and a sloping board are not mutually exclusive. We noted the frustration expressed by the Appellant about this lack of provision for their son. The Child should be reviewed annually by the Authority Micro Technology Service;.
(viii)The Tribunal consider it is highly important that The Child’s support plan targets are actively initiated at the start of each term and in particular at the start of a new school year. We observe that continuity from the end of one school year to the start of the next is of great importance for such things as the Nurture Group and Circle of Friends; and
(ix) The Tribunal observe that it may be beneficial for School A to consider the detailed comments of The Child captured by the Advocate within her Report. It may be something they could also constructively discuss with The Child and indeed his parents.
Although refusing the Placing Request we consider it is of great importance that the Authority ensures that they work very closely with The Child’s parents to rebuild their confidence and trust. The parents expressed criticisms and concerns in this regard in their evidence. The overriding factor must be The Child, his education, his specific needs both now and in the future.
The Tribunal thank The Appellant and the father for their attendance and their courtesy throughout this important hearing.
