[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | ||
England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions >> A, R (on the application of) v Borough of Lambeth & Anor [2005] EWHC 862 (Admin) (29 April 2005) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2005/862.html Cite as: [2005] EWHC 862 (Admin) |
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Strand London WC2 |
||
B e f o r e :
____________________
THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF A | (CLAIMANT) | |
-v- | ||
(1) LONDON BOROUGH OF LAMBETH | ||
(2) SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS AND DISABILITY TRIBUNAL | (DEFENDANTS) |
____________________
Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited
190 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
MS N PETER (instructed by Bennett Wilkins Solicitors) appeared on behalf of the CLAIMANT
MR P OLDHAM (instructed by Trivedy and Virdi Solicitors) appeared on behalf of the FIRST DEFENDANT
The SECOND DEFENDANT was not represented and did not appear
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
Introduction
Facts
"[A] is a pupil in Year 3 at [F] Primary School, which is a mainstream school maintained by the LEA. He has special educational needs as a consequence of difficulties arising from severely delayed receptive and expressive language skills, difficulties with social and interaction skills, and difficulties with attention and concentration. He is currently undergoing assessment as to a possible diagnosis of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). He suffered neglect and emotional abuse when younger, which resulted in a residence order in favour of his father and with no current contact with his mother."
"(a) he has special educational needs, and
(b) it is necessary for the authority to determine the special educational provision which any learning difficulty he may have calls for."
"In deciding whether to make a statutory assessment, the critical question is whether there is convincing evidence that, despite the school, with the help of external specialists, taking relevant and purposeful action to meet the child's learning difficulties, those difficulties remain or have not been removed sufficiently and may require the LEA to determine the child's special educational provision. LEAs will need to examine a wide range of evidence."
"The Panel gave careful consideration to all the evidence submitted but declined to initiate a statutory assessment. The Panel was of the view that there was insufficient information in the documentation submitted to indicate [A's] level of needs. The Panel was also not sure what measures the school has taken to address any identified needs ...
"Whilst the LEA treats all requests for statutory assessment seriously, it is very difficult to discern from the documentation submitted for consideration what [A's] needs are. The LEA wrote to the school on 30/04/04 for information regarding school-based provision when the request for a statutory assessment was made by the parent, but did not receive any response. There is also reference in the documentation to [A] probably having ADHD, but nothing conclusive. The same applies to his speech and language needs. Information provided by the parent also pertains mostly to care/custody issues, with little reference to [A's] special educational needs."
"Up to Christmas 2004 [A] had 2 x 30 minutes per week social skills groups, and also small group work in relation to his literacy skills. [A] had no direct input in relation to his speech and language difficulties.
3. In the current term we were told that he will receive one to one input from a speech and language therapist at school, one session per week, and if required after this term, one to one therapy would be provided by a teaching assistant, monitored by the therapist who is available in school one day per week.
4. The LEA maintain that a statutory assessment is not necessary as [A's] difficulties are understood and he is making progress in literacy and numeracy, as evidenced by his SAT attainments, and the LEA are satisfied that [A's] speech and language needs are met by the provision arranged through the school by the visiting speech and language therapist.
5. [The appellant] has at least 3 concerns in relation to provision for his son's special educational needs. Firstly, he considers that the school is not fully aware of [A's] needs and therefore cannot judge the extent of appropriate provision. Secondly, there has been no direct speech and language therapy in [A's] first term in Year 3, and therapy in the third term by a teaching assistant, as apparently proposed, he does not consider to be appropriate. Thirdly, he is concerned about the absence of documentation from the school as to the provision made, and outcomes, whilst at the same time he is sceptical as to what the disclosed documents show so far. He is also critical of the apparent absence of contact with him as to provision for [A's] needs, and any way in which [he] may assist."
"A. We accepted the evidence from Ms Fyfe-Hudson, Special Educational Needs Co-ordinator (SENCO) from [the school], as to [A's] SAT assessments and scores in June 2004 and January 2005. We consider that these indicated appropriate progress in relation to [A's] literacy and numeracy needs.
B. We were concerned as to what may best be described as 'patchy' speech and language provision in 2003/2004 (6 sessions took place out of 18 planned) and we had no evidence of any particular input from the speech and language therapist, even indirectly, for [A] in his first term in Year 3. However, we accept that appropriate one to one provision, weekly, from the therapist is planned for the current term, and we are satisfied that this one to one provision can continue thereafter, albeit conducted by a teaching assistant, monitored by the speech and language therapist. We find that this is appropriate provision to meet [A's] speech and language therapy needs, and to that extent we disagree with the recommendations of Tanya Herman, speech and language therapist, in her report following her assessment on 28 October 2004. Otherwise her recommendations as to provision are such that we are satisfied, on the evidence of the SENCO, that these will be made by the school in tandem with the speech and language therapist.
C. We had regard to the recommendations of the educational psychology report of Naomi Burgess, of 14 December 2004, commissioned on [the appellant's] behalf. We do not agree with her conclusion as to the need for a statutory assessment. In spite of the range of [A's] difficulties, as detailed in the conclusion of Ms Burgess' report, and the ongoing psychiatric assessment in relation to ADHD and the possible prescription of Ritalin, we consider that the school is still able to co-ordinate and make appropriate provision for [A] from within their own resources and that LEA involvement is not necessary. We find that the school are making appropriate provision for [A].
D. In making these findings, and therefore rejecting this appeal, we would like our concern noted as to what came over to us as a lack of constructive and helpful contact between [the appellant] and the school. Indeed the impression given to the tribunal by [the appellant] was the main issue, for him as [A's] parent, was that he did not know what was happening, and possibly being achieved, with [A] at school. We sincerely hope that the parties are able to find a way of sharing information concerning [A] and his special educational needs, and provision arising, to [A's] obvious benefit ..."
The grounds of appeal
"But if it rejects expert evidence before it, it should state so specifically. In certain circumstances it may be required to say why it rejects it ..." (Ibid)
"[A] needs a speech and language therapy programme that will include:
i) A direct and weekly session of speech and language therapy intervention for a minimum of 45 minutes that will focus on the development of his receptive and expressive language skills. This programme needs to be administered by a speech and language therapist.
ii) A communication programme that is integrated throughout his school day, in liaison with teaching staff and home environment.
iii)Opportunities for small group work to consolidate ideas targeted in the individual therapy session and generalisation of these skills.
iv) Input to IEP targets and regular review of his progress."
"There is clearly interplay of the causative factors in relation to [A's] difficulty in learning, but it is difficult to state specifically which is the best way to begin his support. A full statutory assessment is required, and the recommendations from that will need to include the fact that a key worker will be required to ensure that all agencies work together in developing a language, learning, and behaviour support programme for [A]."
"We do not agree with her conclusion as to the need for a statutory assessment. In spite of the range of [A's] difficulties, as detailed in the conclusion of Ms Burgess' report ..." (Emphasis added).
"We consider that the school is still able to co-ordinate and make appropriate provision for [A] from within their own resources and that LEA involvement is not necessary. We find that the school are making appropriate provision for [A]."
"Firstly, he considers that the school is not fully aware of [A's] needs and therefore cannot judge the extent of appropriate provision."