The parents of a child who was the subject of a statement of special educational needs preferred an independent school but the local authority sought to name the child’s existing school in his statement. Section 9 of the Education Act 1996 provides that local authorities 'shall have regard to the general principle that pupils are to be educated in accordance with the wishes of their parents, so far as that is compatible with ... the avoidance of unreasonable public expenditure.' The author ...
|
Delegated funding – unreasonable public expenditure: The local authority appealed against a decision of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal to amend a child’s statement of special educational needs so as to identify the independent special school preferred by her parents. The authority argued that where a school had a delegated budget it was usually expected to meet the cost of the provision for a child’s special educational needs from that budget. Relying on the formulatio ...
|
A key issue in the case was whether cost savings to a local social services department could be taken into account as 'public expenditure' for the purposes of Section 9 of the 1996 Education Act, or whether such was limited to the cost to the local education authority by reference to the interpretation placed on 'resources' in para 3(3) of Schedule 27 to the Act. The mother of a child subject to a statement of special educational needs wished him to go to a maintained special school where he ...
|
Suitable education - Bullying: A local education authority was not in breach of its duty under the Education Act 1996 s.19 (1) in concluding that a local secondary school was available for a child which was suitable and reasonably practicable for the child to attend. The High Court so held in dismissing an application for judicial review of a decision by the authority that the education offered at a school where a child had been bullied was nevertheless suitable and essentially available for tha ...
|
The appellant mother in the proceedings in R (MG) v. Tower Hamlets London Borough Council [2008] EWHC 1577 (above) had appealed against an order made by a family proceedings court under the Children Act 1989 s.91(14), which prevented her from applying for the further assessment of the educational needs of her son (K) without permission from the court. HELD: The s.91(14) direction was not one that it was properly open to the recorder to make, and might have appeared to convey the exercise by the ...
|
The Tribunal had found that the child needed ‘a clear and consistent approach throughout his waking day’. However, it did not identify the educational need which required a placement in a residential school and it did not spell out what it considered that he needed in terms of educational provision outside of the normal school day. The need for consistency is not to be equated with a need for educational provision outside of normal school hours: see R (Tottman) v. Hertfordshire County Council ...
|
Jurisdiction to hear parental appeal against an amendment or a determination to cease to maintain a statement of special educational needs. The case concerned the question as to whether the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear an appeal by a parent in respect of the failure by her Local Education Authority to maintain a statement of Special Educational Needs for her son and to direct the LEA that they should continue to maintain a statement. The child in ...
|
Supplementing of Decision Letters. Where, in the case of a 15 year old pupil with Asperger’s Syndrome, the written decision of an independent appeal panel upholding his permanent exclusion for assaulting a teacher had failed to address the questions required by the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 as amended, that failure was so fundamental that it could not be appropriate to permit the decision letter to be supplemented by later evidence as to the panel’s reasoning process. The decision w ...
|
Failure to deliver a statement of case. A Tribunal had not erred in deciding to proceed with an appeal without input from a local education authority where that authority had failed to file a statement of case within the case statement period even though the effect of the decision was to exclude potentially relevant evidence. Regulation 15(1) of the Special Educational Needs Tribunal Regulations 2001 SI 2001 No 600 was mandatory. It was not permissive. The power to grant an extension of time w ...
|
Free School Transport and Parental Choice of Schools. Where the parents’ preferred school is further away from the child’s home than another school or group of schools that can meet the child’s special educational needs and the LEA decides to name, in Part 4 of the child’s statement of special educational needs, the parents’ preferred school on condition that the parents agree to meet all or part of the transport costs, the LEA must ensure that it identifies, by name, the nearer appropriate sch ...
|
| 1 2 |