ASNTS_D_09_2008_07.07.08

 

 

 

 

ANONYMISED DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL

 

 

 

Reference:              d/009/2008

 

Gender:                   Male

 

Age:                        11

 

Type of Reference: CSP not required

 

 

 

 

 

1. Reference

 

The Appellant made a reference dated 19^th December 2007, received on 24^th December 2007, under Section 18(1) of The Education (Additional Support for Learning)(Scotland) Act 2004 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the decision, dated 29^th November 2007, by the Council (‘the Authority’), that  a Co-ordinated Support Plan is not required for her son, applying Section 18 (3) (b)(i) of the Act.

 

 

2. Decision of the Tribunal

 

In terms of Section 19(2)(a) of the Act, the Tribunal confirm the decision of the Education Authority that  the child  does not require a co-ordinated support plan.

 

 

 

3. Preliminary Matters

 

A considerable amount of Late Evidence was received in this case, including additional assessments and detailed records.  The Tribunal sought the views of both parties who confirmed that there were no objections to either party lodging Late Evidence.

In view of the nature of said Late Evidence, the representations from both parties, their mutual consent and agreement to lodging, and the relevance of said evidence to this Reference, the Tribunal were satisfied that, in all the circumstances, it would be fair and just to allow said Late Evidence pursuant to Rule 34 of The Additional Support Needs Tribunals for Scotland (Practice and Procedure) Rules 2006 (‘the Rules’).  The Tribunal also requested further productions during the hearing of evidence and we thank both representatives for their full cooperation in providing same.

 

A Decision to adjourn was issued after the first day of evidence. A Direction was also issued requesting further documentation and the attendance of specific witnesses.  

 

All additional Late Evidence was therefore allowed to be lodged and numbered accordingly.

 

[Note: There were Case Management Conference Calls in respect of this Reference]

 

 

4. Summary of Evidence

 

The Tribunal considered a bundle of evidence (including the Late Evidence)

comprising:

 

1. Appellant’s Case Statement
2. Authority’s Case Statement
3. All reports/assessments and letters to and from specialists
4. All school/class reports/pupil profiles
5. All school minutes/review reports and correspondence
6. All correspondence to and from the Appellant
7. The Reference
8. CSP Guidance – NHS (for SALT)and the Authority (for Social Work)
1. Speech and Language reports and pupil record documentation
10. Section 23 Assessment (Social Work)
11. IEP’s including targets
50. All other mail and reports

 

[The above is not an exhaustive list of all the documentary productions lodged by both Parties].

 

In addition to the above, the Tribunal heard oral evidence from the child’s parents and a number of witnesses.  Detailed submissions from both Parties were also carefully considered including references to relevant case law.

 

 

5. Findings in Fact

 

 

1.  The child is an eleven year old boy who resides with his mother, (the Appellant) and his father in Edinburgh.  The child also has a younger brother who also resides in the family home.  The child’s brother has a CSP. He has autistic spectrum disorder and attends the Language Unit of a mainstream Primary School.

 

2.  The child is a boy with an autistic spectrum disorder.

 

3   The Authority accepts that the child has additional support needs arising from this condition.

 

4.  The child attends a Special School in Edinburgh which make provision for children with autism spectrum disorders.

 

5.  The child had a Record of Needs.

 

6.  The Authority accepts that they are responsible for the school education of the child.

 

7.   The Authority accepts that the child has additional support needs which are likely to continue for more than one year.

 

8.   The Additional Support for Learning (ASL) Team Leader for the school undertook a statutory assessment process to determine whether or not the child required a CSP in response to a request from the appellant to the Authority to assess the child with a view to him having a Co-ordinated Support Plan. The ASL Team Leader sought advice from the relevant practitioners from the appropriate agencies providing support for the child to ascertain their level of support.

 

9.   Three practitioners provided information in respect of their level of support – namely two Speech and Language Therapists employed by the local NHS and the Social Worker employed by the Social Work Authority.

 

10.  The NHS for the area produced guidance on criteria for levels of service in-put for its staff in respect of responding to such requests from the ASL Team Leader.  The Children and Families Department of the Authority has also produced equivalent guidance for Social Work Authority staff on receipt of a similar request.

 

11.  Both Speech and Language Therapy and Social Work provided their assessment of their input to the child. Both stated that the support provided was not significant having regard to the aforementioned NHS and Authority guidance and criteria for levels of service.

 

12.  In respect of Speech and Language Therapy they stated in their response to the ASL Team Leader that ‘substantial’ support, as defined in the NHS guidance, namely ‘substantial, direct and continuing’ is not required, that liaison with school staff regarding the areas targeted in therapy will be necessary, that the child will require blocks of teacher-led intervention throughout the school year to be continually monitored in order to facilitate the child’s ability to access the curriculum, and that collaboration is required to continually monitor and evaluate targets and intervention to ensure that the child’s needs are being met.  When requested to identify the level of additional support that the child requires from Speech and Language Therapy they categorise this as ‘high’, falling short of significant support.   The health professional signed her response on 23^rd March 2007.  In oral evidence presented to the Tribunal from Speech and Language Therapy Service Therapists, this is still the level of therapy support required to meet the child’s current needs and  will enable him to attain the targets set for him in his IEP.  The child participates in a weekly Social Communication Group provided by Speech and Language Therapy. The last individual session for the child from Speech and Language is recorded to have taken place on 27^th March 2007.

 

13.  In respect of Social Work they stated in their response to the ASL Team Leader that looking at the child’s learning objectives they do not believe that Social Work support is significant in addressing these objectives. They further stated that time, intended for parental respite and provided by Social Work through the allocation of the areas Autistic Society vouchers, has actually been utilised by the family to promote learning through, for example, the child’s participation in the ‘Explore Learning’ programme and activities at the Adventure Centre with a carer. However, Social Work consider this is neither necessary to meet the child’s learning objectives, as set out in his IEP, nor significant having regard to the Authority’s guidance.  The social worker signed her initial response on 25^th October 2007. This is still, in the opinion of Social Work, the level of input required for the child all in terms of oral evidence presented to the Tribunal.

 

 

14. The child attends a weekly ‘music and movement’ group lead by the Occupational Therapist.

 

15.  The ASL Team Leader stated in Form CSP2a (dated 9^th November 2007) that the child did not require significant additional support from other agencies and/or from the Social Work Authority to meet the additional support needs and the educational objectives.

 

16.  The child attends the Podiatry Department to get his support insoles renewed when he grows out of his shoes.  He is described as being ‘flat footed’ and ‘overweight’ in reports.

 

17.  The child has a special interest in computers, numbers, maps, timetables and drawing.  He is also reported to be performing very well in mathematics relative to his other abilities and there is the possibility of him doing standard grade maths. This would require inclusion into another High School for that subject.

 

18.  There is no extended family to support the parents with the care needs of their two sons. The family receive Autistic Society vouchers. The child currently has two vouchers per week.  The child’s brother also has two vouchers.  The family use said vouchers every fortnight for the children to attend a local Adventure Centre. Care package funding from 01/04/2008 till 31.03/2009 has been approved for these Vouchers – namely 2 hours per child per week.  Social Care hours (3 hours) are currently being used for the alternative fortnight. In a Section 23 Assessment, dated 24^th April 2008, the Social Worker stated that ‘this is a short term service and likely to cease.’

 

 

6. Reasons for Decision

 

The Tribunal considered all the evidence, both oral and in written form. We were satisfied that there was sufficient evidence available to the Tribunal to reach a fair decision on the Reference. 

 

There was no significant dispute on the facts relating to this Reference. The dispute related to the needs which arise and the input required, and whether the support provided justifies the child having a Co-ordinated Support Plan. 

 

The Tribunal is satisfied that the Authority is responsible for the school education of the child.

 

The Tribunal are satisfied that there is the presence of one or more complex factors, namely the diagnosis of autistic spectrum disorder.   This condition has given rise to needs which are likely to continue for more than a year.

 

The Tribunal also consulted the Code of Practice in considering the matter. Chapter Four, paragraph 10 states that a factor is a complex factor if “it has, or is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the school education of the child or young person.” When considering ‘significant adverse effect’ the Tribunal considered paragraph 11 under the heading “Disability or health”. 

 

The Tribunal was satisfied that the child fulfilled the requirements of Section 2 (a), (b) and (c) of the Act.

 

The Tribunal considered the requirement of “significant additional support” in Section 2(d) of the Act, together with the guidance provided within the Code of Practice at Chapter Four, paragraphs 15, 16, 17 and 18 and the Flow Chart on page 53.

“Significant additional support” is not defined in the Act.  The Tribunal understand that it is not possible to generalise as to what should be counted as ‘significant’ and that consideration must be given to the circumstances in each individual cases.

 

The Tribunal note that in paragraph 15 of the Code of Practice it states that “These additional support needs must also require the provision of significant additional support from an education authority, and either the local authority exercising their functions other than education (e.g. social work services) and/or one or more appropriate agency/agencies, within the meaning of the Act and associated Regulations.”

 

The Flow Chart on page 53 asks the question:

 

            “Do these needs require significant additional support to be provided, by the education authority exercising their education functions as well as by one or more appropriate agencies and/or the authority in discharging their functions other than education?”

 

Paragraph 16 of the Code of Practice further states that “Judgements about significance have to be made taking account of the frequency, nature and intensity of the support, and the extent to which that support is necessary for the achievement of the educational objectives which will be included in the plan”.

 

All of the oral evidence from the witnesses and the parents, together with the documentary productions lodged by both parties, were carefully considered by the Tribunal

 

The Tribunal is not satisfied that significant additional support is currently required for the child’s additional support needs from, either the Education Authority in the exercise of any of their other functions as well as in the exercise of their functions relating to education, or, by one or more appropriate agencies, as well as by the Education Authority themselves.  The Tribunal do however accept that whilst Speech and Language Therapy input exists it is not significant since it is neither ‘substantial’ nor direct.  We accept that the purpose of Social Work intervention/support is to ensure some respite for the child’s parents.  The child’s enjoyment of and benefit from the activities organised by his parents, using the vouchers allocated by Social Work, did not make Social Work’s support significant in achieving the child’s educational targets.

 

The Tribunal confirm that whilst practitioners in their evidence referred to their  guidance and the category ‘substantial’, the Tribunal in their deliberations independently considered all the evidence before us, both oral and written, and assessed the evidence before us with regard to the legal test of ‘significant’.

 

We therefore are not satisfied from all the evidence before us, that a Co-ordinated Support Plan is currently required for the child.

 

The Tribunal note the genuine dedication of both parents to their sons and to their education. We clearly recognise that there may come a time, in the future, when ‘significant’ additional support may be required for the child. This could result in a further reference if required to the Tribunal to consider future developments.