ANONYMISED DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL
**This decision was appealed to the Court of Session. The opinion of the Court was issued on 15/04/2008. The appeal was refused. **
Reference: d/05/2007
Gender: Male
Age: 15
Type of Reference: Placing Request
1. Reference:
The appellant (“the mother”) made a reference May 2007, under Section18(3)(e) of the Education (Additional Support for Learning)(Scotland) Act 2004 ( “the Act”) against the refusal May 2007 by the Respondent (“the Authority) to grant a placing request for a preferred school, made March 2007 in respect of the child born January 1993. A Coordinated Support Plan was opened for the child June 2007 but at the time the placing request was refused it had been established by the Authority that the child required a plan, applying Section 18(4)(b) of the Act .
2. Decision of the Tribunal:
The Tribunal confirms the decision of the Authority and is satisfied, in terms of Section19(5)(a)(i) of the Act, that one or more of the grounds of refusal as specified in Paragraph 3(1) of Schedule 2 of the Act exists, and furthermore is satisfied in terms of Section19(5)(a)(ii) of the Act that in all the circumstances it is appropriate to confirm the decision of the Authority.
The Reference is refused.
3. Preliminary Matters:
There was a conference call August 2007 between the Convener, and the representatives for the Appellant and the Education Authority. This call dealt with practical aspects of the forthcoming Hearing including witnesses to be called, possible additional evidence/productions, the accommodation provision for witnesses, who would lead, assessing the calling order of all witnesses and when they should attend the Tribunal or be available through telephone link and thus reduce unnecessary inconvenience to witnesses.
4. Summary of Evidence:
The Tribunal considered a large bundle of evidence containing, amongst other documents:
(a) Appellant’s case statement together with the Reference;
(b) Respondents’ case statement;
(c) All additional evidence lodged by the parties during the course of the hearing of the evidence;
(d) All school reports and reviews;
(e) All assessments;
(f) Support Plan issued December 2006;
(g) CSP dated June 2007;
(h) All reports/letter from Consultant Paediatric Neuropsychologist;
(i) Section 23 assessments;
(j) The child’s written statement of his views August 2007;
(k) Speech and Language therapist report February 2007;
(l) All information re the preferred school including two OFSTED Reports;
(m) All letters to and from the appellant and the Education Authority;
(n) All correspondence to and from Educational Psychologist;
(o) Summary of Assessment by a medical professional, dated January 2007;
(p) All pupil Protocols;
(q) Statements of SEN;
(r) HMIe report on current school January 2002;
(s) Independent Educational Psychologist’s Report February 2007 commissioned by preferred school
The above is not an exhaustive list of all the documentation productions lodged by both parties.
In addition the Tribunal heard oral evidence from the witnesses, the appellant and the child. The Tribunal also heard submissions from both parties’ representatives. The hearing of the Reference was completed after the separate day’s evidence.
5. Findings in Fact:
- The child is 15 years old, he was born January 1993. He is one of five children. He lives with his siblings, his mother and step father and has fairly regular contact with his natural father.
- The family are awaiting re-housing by the local authority.
- The family moved into the area in 2001. The child attended his local mainstream primary school where a number of agencies were involved in his education. The school had enhanced staffing to provide additional support for learning. The appellant elected to educate the child at home (December 2001) for the rest of P4 and part of P5, thereafter he returned to primary school where he completed his primary education.
- The child transferred to the local High school in August 2005 and remains a pupil at that mainstream local authority school. He is currently in S3. He has moderate learning difficulties and lacks fine motor skills appropriate to a young person of his age. He also exhibits significant social and behavioural difficulties.
- A co-ordinated support plan was opened for the child June 2007. A meeting of the CSP screening group April 2007 discussed the child and accepted that issues were arising within the school in relation to his social integration and behavioural difficulties. It was specifically noted at this meeting that after a recent assessment of the child by a speech and language therapist it was concluded that intervention was not required. They further noted that an assessment by a clinical psychologist showed consistently with previous assessments that he has general learning difficulties and that his weaker area is in relation to perceptual reasoning rather than verbal skills. The Screening group concluded that a CSP should be opened for the child. The placing request was made March 2007 after a written offer of a placement was made at the preferred school February 2007. This offer followed upon a residential visit by the child at that school and an assessment by an independent Chartered Educational Psychologist resulting in a written report February 2007.
- The placing request was refused by the Authority in writing May 2007 on the basis that:
(i) The child does not have additional support needs requiring the education or special facilities normally provided at the preferred school.
(ii) The specified school is not a public school and provision can be made for the child’s additional support needs in an alternative school and;
(iii) it is not reasonable, having regard both to the respective suitability and to the respective cost ( including necessary incidental expenses) of the provision for the additional support needs of the child to place him in the preferred school; and
(iv) we have offered a place to the child in an alternative school.
An alternative school was therefore offered as a suitable placement for the child in the refusal letter. The Reference appealing said Refusal is dated May 2007 and was received May 2007.
- Both parties agree that the child should not remain a pupil at his current school and that a more suitable placement must be achieved.
- The child has been excluded from school on a number of occasions. His mother is very concerned about such exclusions and their use has recently increased.
- A clinical psychology assessment of the child carried out in February 2007 by Consultant Paediatric Neuropsychologist stated that “the child has mild learning disabilities and at present I do not think he fits criteria for any other significant development or psychiatric disorder”.
- There were increased concerns about the child throughout S2 and there was ongoing monitoring of his progress by school staff and the educational psychologist. His S2 pupil profile stated that he “had moderate learning difficulties and dyspraxia which results in him having a short attention span and a tendency to move off-task and become verbally aggressive and offensive. He can lose his temper easily” The principle area of concern was his social and behavioural adjustment.
- The child was referred to Speech and Language in 2001. In 2004 his language skills were found to be within normal limits for his age. He was reassessed in 2007 and a view was formed that intervention was not appropriate.
- The current school is a large mainstream school. The child finds the social demands of such an environment difficult to manage. He exhibits signs of anxiety and stress within the school.
- The child requires an alternative school with reduced social and emotional demands. This is not disputed by the Authority.
- The alternative school is the closest non denominational primary and secondary school which caters primarily for children with moderate or severe and complex learning difficulties. This school provides small class groups, individualised education programmes and pastoral care.
- The Authority is willing to offer a place to the child in this alternative school. The child has not visited this school although his mother has.
- The Authority has also identified a further school as a possible alternative provider. This special needs school provides for secondary pupils with moderate learning difficulties.
- According to their Prospectus the preferred school is a residential and day special needs school for children and young people whose special education needs arise from their difficulties in speech, language and communication, They state that they are the largest specialist school in the
- OFSTED reports on the preferred school from 2005 indicate that the school was emerging from an “unsettled period” indicating that generally pupils make satisfactory progress. A subsequent follow up OFSTED report in 2007 gives the same overall Leadership and Management rating while accepting that there has been limited progress in addressing improvement objectives. They state in their 2007 report that there has been too little progress in improving quality assurance processes and procedures and these continue to be unsatisfactory.
- The Authority is able to make provision for the additional support needs for the child and have offered a place in an alternative school.
- The provision of education at the alternative school is suitable for the additional support needs of the child who currently remains on the roll of a mainstream school.
- A place is available at both schools. The estimated additional cost to the Authority of a residential placement at the preferred school is £73,150. The estimated cost of a place for the child at the alternative school is £24,687. If he were to transfer to the alternative school there would be an offset to the costs of £11,236 to the Authority, resulting from a reduction in the need for the assistant hours in his current mainstream school.
- There is a significant difference in the anticipated respective cost of the provision at both schools
- The specified preferred school is not a public school.
- The child does not have identified additional support needs requiring the education or the special facilities normally provided at the preferred school.
- The child enjoyed his residential visit to the preferred school. He was very positive about said school and expressed no real concerns about boarding away from home. He is aware of the need for an alternative school. He wants to go to a smaller class size and to have work that he can understand.
- The child has never previously attended a residential school for his education.
- It is not reasonable, having regard to the respective suitability and to the respective cost of both schools, to place the child in the specified preferred school.
- It is appropriate to confirm the decision of the Authority to refuse the placing request.
6. Reasons for the decision:
The Tribunal considered all the evidence, both oral and in written form. We are satisfied that there was sufficient evidence available to the Tribunal to reach a fair decision. Section 22 of the Act states that schedule 2 of the Act makes provision about placing requests where a young person has additional support needs. Paragraph 2(2) states that:
“Where the parent of a child having additional support needs makes a request to the education authority for the area to which the child belongs to place the child in the school specified in the request, not being a public school but being a school in England, Wales or Northern Ireland the managers of which are willing to admit the child and which is a school making provision wholly or mainly for children (or as the case may be young persons) having additional support needs, it is the duty of the authority, subject to paragraph 3, to meet the fees and other necessary costs of the child’s attendance at the specified school.”
The said Paragraph 3 of Schedule 2 of the Act lists the exceptions. In this Reference the Authority argue that they do not require to comply with the placing request for the preferred school in terms of the subsections (d) and (f). The parties agree however that subsections (f) (i) and (iv) do not apply, and that the preferred school is not a public school and the Authority have offered and continue to offer a place to the child at and alternative school.
Section 19(5)(a) of the Act provides a two stage test.
At the first stage, the Tribunal is required to determine whether the authority has established one or more of the circumstances provided in schedule 2 paragraph 3 (1) of the Act. If the Tribunal determine that the Authority has succeeded in establishing one or more of these circumstances then, and only then, the Tribunal is required to move to the second stage of the test.
At the second stage, the Tribunal is required to exercise its discretion and determine whether, in all the circumstances, it is appropriate to confirm the authority’s decision.
The Tribunal firstly heard from the Deputy Head teacher from the child’s present school. We formed the view that she knew the child well. We noted that there is support in nearly every subject and that there is a Support for Learning teacher who possibly knows they child the best and works with him in developing strategies for coping around the school. There is a support plan which is regarded as a working document. It is age and stage and situation appropriate with protocols implemented when required. It is currently the view of the school that the child’s main problem revolves around his social skills and dealing with other people in the school surroundings. We noted that in school the child can be loud, boisterous, use inappropriate language and can be easily wound up. The deputy head teacher confirmed that the school must utilise sanctions for inappropriate behaviour, including exclusions as the ultimate sanction. She stated that he is however an endearing young man who expresses humour and who likes to take part. She also stated that he likes both one to one and small group settings. He contributes positively. She stated that she was fond of him. She stated that he finds it challenging to cope with the pace of the school, the social aspect of the school and moving around the school. The school has approximately 1400 pupils. She stated that he can “spark off very quickly” but will take responsibility for that behaviour when appropriately challenged. She stated that he is a very open and honest young man who works positively and successfully with positive support. She considered that he would benefit from a transfer to another school which might be able to provide a more fostered environment, where they can be more supportive of him and spend more time addressing social life skills.
She formed the view that the child would benefit from a smaller school providing a slower pace and support in smaller more structured task related groups throughout the day.
She again reiterated that his greatest barrier was his social skills. She provided and example of this at the current school namely at lunch time, when with a sea of people he would be quite daunted. We noted that 30 hours support is currently in place at this time for the child. It was further noted that when he leaves the school whilst hours are lost there will be no loss of staff. The said hours will be redeployed to support other pupils and there will be a saving of £11200 in respect of the child’s placement at this school. It was suggested to us by the deputy head teacher that in a smaller calmer setting the child might not display the same behaviour as described above. She was of the firm view that the social environment is very critical for the child. She could not specifically comment on either of the alternative schools from any direct knowledge and could not therefore comment on the quality of either school.
The Tribunal were able to hear directly from a member of the staff at the alternative school. This school provides education from 5 to 19 years old. In the current S3 there are 7 pupils all with moderate learning difficulties. The school role is 101, with 38 children in the primary and 73 in the secondary. The Tribunal noted and considered carefully all the evidence presented to us about the school, pupil profiles, services available, staffing ratios and the provision that would be made for the child if he were a pupil. This member of staff has not met the child but had been given a copy of the independent educational psychologists report. She stated that apart from the 24 hour curriculum there was nothing that she considered did not fit the profile of the pupils at her school. She was of the view that her school can meet the child’s needs. We noted that the school ethos embodied both life and social skills. She stated that they use various strategies to encourage this and to deal with challenging behaviour. She stated that lunch times were very important. The Tribunal noted various approaches adopted in the school, the various coping strategies adopted, the importance of pastoral care at all times and that quality improvement was important throughout the school. We were advised that the school has only “very infrequently excluded pupils”. We also noted the varied activities within the school, the link outwith the school with employers/educational institutions, and the importance of sport, including Special Olympics for their own football team. She concluded that the school is a happy school which offers a “very exciting curriculum” and where “kids are desperate to get to school”. She was further of the view that the child would have a good peer group at her school and that pupils are encouraged to mix throughout the day including at lunchtimes and at breaks. S6 pupils provide a buddy system within the school. Whilst accepting that there are no after school clubs, she commented that many ex pupils continue to have contact with their peer groups even after leaving school. We noted that here might be a split placement for the child after further consideration of his academic performance and assessment of his progress and needs. She stated that if he were to attend as a pupil the school would strive to deliver excellence, to make him a confident learner, to look at the whole person and be holistic, and ultimately to maximise his potential.
She was invited to comment upon the importance of a parent, and presumably a pupil, having a good working relationship with the school. She stated that this was very important and that the school would work hard to build the trust and confidence of both the mother and the child in school. She stated that she has always been able to work alongside parents and again stressed the pupils enjoy coming to school.
The Tribunal further noted the content of the HMIe 2002 Report on this school. The report concluded that it “provided good quality education. Staff worked successfully in partnership with other professionals, parents and other schools. Led by the head teacher, staff were dedicated to improving the quality of the services the provide”
The Tribunal were very fortunate to hear from the child’s mother directly. We considered her a very loving and caring mother not only for this child but all of her children. She stated that he can be both loud and demanding at home. He can be silly and show off. He can also be easily agitated resulting in him shouting loudly or even swearing. We also noted the various activities which can be troublesome including shaving, cleaning his teeth, showering – all problematic due to being tactile issues, and getting dressed. We noted the tremendous stress all the family must be in at this time due to the re-housing issue. She has also approached her MSP on this matter.
We noted the child’s typical daily school timetable from the breakfast club until coming home after school on the bus. She stated that he is very easily wound up with a short fuse resulting in frustration. She stated the he enjoys football and swimming and generally wants to be out and about. She stated that his social skills are very immature and that he has no idea what the boundaries are. She stated that she needs to protect him and that is a very difficult situation for her at this stage in his development. We noted her genuine concerns for her son including school provision for science and languages. She was clearly very distressed about the exclusions from school and their increased usage in recent times. Commenting on her son she stated that “Academic achievement is not everything. He needs to cope socially. They need to get a balance.” She described her views on the preferred school and stated the staff were very professional and could in her opinion “communicate” with her son. We noted that she spent several hours at the school during her visit. She said that her son loved his week there. She said that he had been involved in many activities during the week and made friends. She did not see the school in operation. She stated that he referred to people at the school already as “friends”.
The mother was also able to tell us about the various activities her son has been involved in locally. She now finds her sons behaviour harder to handle as he now feels he needs to be more independent. She stated that he needs to be persistently challenged about his behaviour. She described her experience of visiting the alternative school and the preferred school to the Tribunal in detail. We noted that the child would not visit the alternative school which he perceives as a specialist school whereas he sees the preferred school as a boarding school.
The mother stated that the preferred school were able to give the appropriate level of support the child requires. She felt that they would be able to work well with her son. Their provision would be continuous, consistent and 24 hours.
She stated that initially he did not want to leave home; she stated that he loves his home and his family. She no longer has concerns about him leaving home. She stated that his visit to the preferred school had boosted his confidence.
Commenting on the Consultant Paediatric Neuropsychologist diagnosis of the child as someone with mild learning difficulties, she stated that in her view his needs are more significant and complex when they are all taken together.
She stated that her son has a great deal of potential and has a lot to give. She is very concerned that it could all go wrong and he could end up in prison. She expressed to us that her main concern was him requiring the necessary social skills in order to become a “productive member of the community”. She stated that he needs to make friends and sustain friends and that the alternative school would not meet these needs.
The Tribunal were able to meet and speak with the child directly. He clearly stated that he did not like his current school mainly because the work was too hard and people picked on him resulting in him getting into trouble. He obviously is a sporty young man citing football and swimming as favourites. The Tribunal noted very carefully all of his oral evidence, his views and his written views dated August 2007. He stated that he did not think he would like the alternative school as the work would be too hard and would be just like his current school.
He stated that he thought the preferred school was “great” and would offer him “more opportunities”. He described mainly extra-curricular activities but little about any classroom work. He told us that he did not feel annoyed during his stay whilst accepting there had been an incident with another pupil during his short stay. He said he felt “safer” there. He told us that his ideal school would have smaller classes where teachers understood him and he could understand the work he was doing. He was able to tell us about his hopes and dreams for the future. We are very grateful to him and his mother for allowing us the opportunity to meet him and talk to him about his needs and his aspirations.
The Tribunal heard evidence from the Head of Service of Secondary Education and Pupil Support from the local Authority. The Tribunal noted that it was he who refused the placing request by his letter dated May 2007. The Tribunal noted in detail the procedures/time scales followed in reaching the decision about the placing request for the child. He stated that his role was as a strategic manager of the service and he collated a collective picture of the child after a period of discussion and debate. He listed all the various individuals who contributed to the decision making process and stated that they work by “consensus.” He concluded that “a joint view is come to.” That view concluded that the child should leave his current school and that the alternative school was the best and most suitable placement for him. He stated that the child required a smaller class size, pastoral and appropriate welfare, and appropriate support through staffing and class structures in terms of his learning and his education. He stated that the alternative school would fulfil all these requirements and would provide a caring environment, where his welfare would be paramount with good support for social development.
He reflected upon the preferred school and the child’s needs. He stated that his colleagues views were that there was no need for the child to be educated in a residential setting. He stated that the Authority must consider the “respective suitability” of the proposed school (in addition to the respective cost). He further stated that his team were of the view that the child’s needs could in fact be met more locally. He stated that the child was very close to his family and that a placement in the alternative school would allow him to engage with the local community and that maintaining local links is important in the real world situation. He stated that the child was in fact regarded as a popular member of his class and that attending the alternative school would allow him to have a good connection with his peers, build up a network within the school, make lasting friendships and go on to college/employment. In many ways he considered the child’s transfer from primary to secondary school to have been a success. There was concern however about the exclusions from school. He stated that the “tipping point” for him in favour of a new placement was that the child is not coping within the school and finds it demanding due to the large and socially complex size of the structure. There are no appropriate schools within the Authority and therefore he looked to neighbouring authorities for provision.
The Tribunal noted that accordingly the suggestion of the preferred school was taken seriously for the child. He stated that he considered whether such a school would be able to provide appropriate and proportionate support for the child. He stated that in all honesty the preferred school was not appropriate for the child’s needs. It was not a suitable school for the child and that his additional support needs do not require the education or special facilities normally provided by this school.
The Tribunal noted all the evidence carefully provided by all witnesses in respect of the respective cost of both schools. It was accepted by both parties that the cost of the preferred school was inescapably higher. It was stated however that it had been considered how either school would provide for the child for their respective costs. There was no information from any source that there was a need for a residential placement. £60,000 was believed to be the net additional cost to the Authority for this residential placement at the time of refusing the placing request.
The Tribunal heard evidence by telephone link from the Head Teacher of the preferred school. She stated that the school currently has a school roll of 94 students, with 29% of the pupils having speech and language impairment. The vast majority of pupils are on the Autistic Spectrum (Asperger’s Syndrome) and have social communication difficulties, stating that for them social interaction can be very difficult. Pupils range from 8 years to 19 years old. The Head Teacher had commissioned the independent report for the child.
The Tribunal noted in detail the curriculum provided by the school and also recent exam results. We were provided with details of how the school operates and their extensive use of placements in colleges and work. The Tribunal also noted the staffing provision within the school and the extra curricular facilities available. The residential provision was described in detail. The Head Teacher stated that in her opinion the child needed a 24 hour programme in order to build up relationships and friends. She stated that during the day is mainly academic study and that necessary life and social skills require also to be practised with the other pupils and staff after the normal school day is typically over. She provided feedback from the school following the child’s visit. She stated that he coped reasonably well, that any problems were shared, that he enjoyed being there and that he wanted to be there. She also commented that he had already started to form friendships even from this relatively short visit to the school. She recognised that sometimes exclusions are utilised in her school. 15 % of pupils currently have behaviour management programmes. There have been two exclusions in the last six months. She gave evidence in connection with the two OFSTED reports. She expressed concerns about the fairness and accuracy of the two reports and explained that the reports were simply based on two specific pupils. Since her appointment as Head Teacher action plans for improvement have been put in place and followed through. She therefore challenged the reports and stated that “our results speak for themselves”. She argued against the OFSTED assessment of making “satisfactory progress” and stated that the school were “making up a lot for lost time”.
The school currently has 4 other pupils from
The representative for the Education Authority expressed his surprise that the Head Teacher considered the child’s profile suitable for the preferred school. We noted their separate evidence in this matter. The Head Teacher concluded that “the child has identified needs and we can meet those needs”.
When pressed by the representative for the Education Authority about the characteristics of pupils with moderate learning difficulties she stated that she had no direct experience of teaching such pupils and was therefore unable to comment further.
She clarified the actual cost of a place for the Tribunal. The residential fee is £68,626, the OT package is £4524 giving a total of £73,150. The residential aspect of this placement was required to allow the child to make friends, improve his self esteem, relate to others, improve academically and thereafter gain employment.
The Tribunal carefully considered all the evidence before us together with very detailed submissions by representatives for both parties.
The representative for the Education Authority stated that a “balancing decision” emerged over time and that “dialogue is continuous”. He explained that he consulted with colleagues, considered extensive information available to him and referred us to the Consultant Paediatric Neuropsychologist report. With all this information he considers the alternative school an appropriate school for the child. He stated that the child was regarded as a young person with a moderate learning disability in terms of the Consultant Paediatric Neuropsychologist report of May 2007. He is quoted as saying “I do not think the child has attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, nor any aspect of autistic spectrum disorder. I think he can be viewed as a boy with learning difficulties who is struggling to an extent to maintain himself within a social group and is somewhat vulnerable to exploitation.” He also concludes that he did not see any evidence of progressive symptoms that would justify a diagnosis of Tourettes. In conclusion the Consultant Paediatric Neuropsychologist stated “in summary the child is a boy with mild learning difficulties and at present I do not think he fits the criteria for any other significant developmental or psychiatric disorder”.
The representative for the Education Authority suggested that there was nothing in the independent report to suggest that what was needed was outwith the provision of the alternative school apart from the 24 hour recommendation, which he argued did not follow conclusively from the assessment results. Nor, he argued was there any real evidence that the child required Speech and Language Therapy. We were directed to the Speech and Language Therapist Report February 2007. This report was based upon a joint meeting between the child and his mother and the therapist, in January 2007, the therapist and the Teacher Support for Learning at the child’s current school later in January 2007, and a second meeting with the mother in February 2007.
The Speech and Language Therapist Report concluded that “from discussion with his mother and support staff at the child’s current school it appears that there have been no significant changes in the child’s language and communication skills since he was last seen by the Speech and Language Therapy department and no formal or regular Speech and Language Therapy input will be provided for him at this time as his needs are being well supported within education and home”.
The representative for the Education Authority submitted that the alternative school would be parallel to the mainstream school, offer a smaller physical environment, a less challenging social environment, smaller class sizes, peers who face that same challenges as the child, more pastoral support, and a positive and appropriate provision for social and life skills throughout the curriculum.
He stated that the preferred school is not more suitable for the child and furthermore stated that said school had not established itself as having a better reputation than the alternative school. Turning to costs he invited the Tribunal to consider the “respective suitability “when assessing the respective higher costs of the preferred school. Since the Authority concluded that there were no compelling arguments for the suitability of a residential placement for the child, the request for this placement was refused by the Authority. He stated that this refusal was fair and proportionate with regards to the child’s needs. The Authority was of the view that, in addition to appropriateness and the respective costs, reasonableness and proportionally were factors in their decision making process.
The Appellant’s representative stated that the Authority failed to adequately establish the education and specialist facilities the preferred school could provide. It is accepted by both parties that the Authority’s representative did not in fact write to the preferred school until July 2007 (this letter was lodged late at the request of the Convener). The Appellant’s representative stated that this was almost 4 months after the placing request and 2 months after it was refused. She carefully advanced her argument for a residential placement and compared, in a number of ways, the two schools under consideration for placement. She argued that the preferred school would provide a more “holistic approach” for the child who required more independent help.
Turning to cost, the Appellant’s representative argued that certain areas have not been properly costed for in respect of the alternative school placement, e.g. travel costs and social work costs. She did not dispute the cost details provided by the Head Teacher from the preferred school. She argued that the Appellant has lost confidence in the Authority and the Social Work department. She stated that the Appellant has had doubts since P7 that the child’s additional support needs were not being met. She also stated the she does not have confidence that the alternative school can meet her son’s needs.
The Appellant’s representative reminded us of the views of the child who stated that he wished to go to the preferred school, who refused to visit the alternative school as he perceives it as a “special school”, who was happy and relaxed and who appeared to make friends whilst at the preferred school. She reminded us that the child did not have long left at secondary school and that we should make this time a “positive and productive one for the child”
The Tribunal fully considered both the respective suitability and the respective costs in their deliberations of the two schools. We also fully considered the education or special facilities normally provided by the preferred school.
The Tribunal was satisfied that the conditions in Schedule 2, paragraph 3(1)(d) and (f) apply. In those circumstances, the Tribunal is satisfied that the duty in Schedule 2, paragraph (2) does not apply and the Tribunal is required to move to the second stage of the statutory test.
This stage requires the Tribunal to look at the circumstances and to exercise its discretion, either in confirming the decision of the Authority or refusing to do so.
The Tribunal considered all the circumstances of the child and all the evidence before us. We weighed up all those circumstances, as they particularly applied to the child.
The Tribunal is satisfied in terms of section 19(5)(a)(ii) of the Act that in all the circumstances it is appropriate to refuse the placing request for the child for the preferred school.
We therefore confirm the decision of the Authority to refuse the placing request.
