CSP Report

At the end of November, the short-life working group on Co-ordinated Support Plans (CSPs) released its Final Report. The purpose of the report was to identify barriers to the effective implementation of the CSP legislation and to make recommendations to support progress.

The report begins, as these things often do, with a statement of principles. In this case, we are reminded that “Scottish education is based on the belief that education is a human right and that all children and young people should be supported to reach their full potential.” The Scottish Government’s intention to incorporate the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child is referenced, as are the four key features of inclusion, which we first saw in the guidance on the presumption of mainstreaming.

It also highlights, helpfully, that “Support is not dependent on a diagnosis.” and “Where the legal tests are met for a CSP, the child or young person must have a CSP – even where other plans are in place.” These short reminders could usefully be tattooed on the forearms of everyone working in the sector – although this is not one of the report’s recommendations.

As I am involved in the My Rights, My Say project, I was pleased to see that the report notes the right of children aged 12-15 with capacity to ask the education authority to be assessed for a CSP and to challenge CSP decisions at Tribunal.

So, to the recommendations. The report notes that the legislation and policy in this field is “commendable and well-intentioned” but that there is “a significant gap between policy and practice”. It highlights the need for “consistency and a common understanding of the language used in relation to CSPs”. To that end, it recommends promoting awareness and knowledge. This should involve “a set of tailored ‘key messages'” to be “widely shared with children and young people, parents and carers and professionals across agencies” – including social work and health.

However, I think there are already some really good materials out there, both those created by some education authorities, and those made by the third sector, by organisations like Enquire. The difficulty, as always, is getting this information to the right people at the right time.

The report does concede that the statutory criteria are complex, and that (over 15 years on!) there is still a “variable interpretation of what ‘significant additional support’ means when considering whether a CSP should be opened.” This is as close as the report gets to suggesting that the legislation itself needs to be looked at again. In fairness, this was outwith their remit, and is a fairly heavy hint.

The Code of Practice is due to be refreshed shortly, and the report sees this as an opportunity to ensure that it is more accessible, and clearly explains the “complex legal duties” in this field. While this is obviously easier said than done, it is definitely a worthwhile goal. The report also notes that the 4th edition of the statutory Code should clarify the relationship between the CSP and other plans used for children.

The report does understand that to help professionals become more familiar with the rules and policy around CSPs will take a commitment in time, and so recommends that professional (both in education and in other agencies) be allocated specific time to access the appropriate professional learning resources, and that this should lead to those professionals being able to “proactively provide families with the information they require about CSPs”.

Further recommendations include:

  • “ensuring that clear and appropriate signposting is available on local authority web pages”
  • further guidance to be developed “to remove barriers to effective engagement”
  • the Additional Support for Learning Implementation Group (ASLIG) to engage with work on “streamlining planning processes”. Specifically we are told that “the next phase of the refresh of the GIRFEC policy and practice materials .. will focus on the Child’s Plan, with the aim of moving towards a ‘one child one plan’ approach.” This is expected to lead to “[s]trengthening guidance around a single planning process”
  • ASLIG to consider the issue of resources (often the elephant in the room), having regard to “the need to ensure that there are sufficient numbers of appropriately trained staff to provide support”.
  • ASLIG to support “the planned audit of outcomes for children and young people with additional support needs undertaken by Audit Scotland.” Given that this has been something of a hobby horse for ASLIG for a while now, I’d imagine that this support would be enthusiastically forthcoming!

The renewed focus on the Child’s Plan in this report is interesting, given that the baby of the Child’s Plan appears to have been (legislatively) thrown out with the bathwater of the Named Person in the proposed repeal “in due course” of sections of the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014, following the Supreme Court‘s decision in The Christian Institute & Ors v. The Lord Advocate [2016] UKSC 51.

So, what happens next? “This report has been shared with ASLIG who will publish a response to the report and consider its findings as part of their future work programme and priorities. This will include consideration of how to monitor delivery of the actions identified and the expected impact on improving outcomes for children and young people.” I’ll try to keep you posted as that happens.

Welsh lessons

So, I came across an article on Special Needs Jungle on the new Additional Learning Needs and Education Tribunal (Wales) Act 2018, which came into force on 1 September 2021. This seems to represent a sweeping change in the special educational needs framework (now to be known as additional learning needs). You can read about the changes here: The new “rights-based” Additional Learning Needs system in Wales

Welsh Government Factsheet

Based on what I have read, there are some interesting and welcome features in this new legislation:

  • Covers ages 0 to 25, as opposed to 3-18 (roughly) in Scotland
  • A single statutory plan for everyone with additional learning needs, as opposed to a tiny proportion who fit with the arcane criteria for a Co-ordinated Support Plan (CSP)
  • A focus on local resolution of disagreements, backed by wide and consistent rights of access to the Education Tribunal for Wales
  • A “whole system” approach, including external agencies and the stages before and after school
  • A Code of Practice which embeds principles from the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

As you know, the ASN Review is now in its implementation phase, and we are currently waiting for the review on CSPs to report and a revision to the Code of Practice (I think). So, plenty of opportunities to adopt some of these ideas from Cymru.

Image by Pete Linforth from Pixabay

Potential Energy (Part 9)

Theme 8 in the ASL Review is “Understanding Rights”. As a lawyer, and a former law centre lawyer at that, you would expect me to be in favour of a rights-based approach – as indeed I am.

Things have moved on since the Review was published. It notes the Scottish Government’s commitment to incorporation of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child into Scots law. Now, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Bill has been passed by the Scottish Parliament. The Bill has been referred to the Supreme Court under section 33 of the Scotland Act 1998 by the Attorney General and the Advocate General for Scotland, which may delay implementation a little, but is unlikely (as I understand it) to have any significant impact on the main operation of the law.

Continue reading “Potential Energy (Part 9)”

Educational Continuity Direction (21 May 2020)

After nearly two months of schools in Scotland being closed, the Scottish Government have issued a formal direction, providing a legal basis for this state of affairs.

In terms of their powers to do so under Schedule 17 of the Coronavirus Act 2020,  Scottish Ministers have issued an Educational Continuity Direction, which came into force at 2pm on Thursday 21 May 2020.

As required by law, in making the direction Scottish Ministers a) had regard to advice regarding the coronavirus from Scotland’s Chief Medical Officer; and b) were satisfied that the direction was a “necessary and proportionate action” in relation to the continued provision of education.

Educational Continuity Direction

So, what does it do?

Geographical Coverage

The Direction applies across Scotland, and to all thirty-two education authorities.  There is no mention of independent or grant-aided schools, although the Act certainly allows for a direction to be issued which covers those schools (as well as further and higher education institutions).

Preparing to Re-open Schools

The direction requires education authorities to plan and prepare “for children to resume attendance at schools” – including nursery classes “at the earliest time it is safe to do so”, having regard to Scottish Government guidance.  In doing so, support for children at key transition points should be prioritised.

Staff may access schools from June 2020 for the purposes of planning and preparing (including any necessary alterations to premises) for the provision of:

  • learning and teaching on school premises and remotely “from August 2020”; and
  • early learning and childcare (i.e. nursery provision).

Continuing Provision

The direction also requires education authorities to support in-home learning “in accordance with appropriate local arrangements”.  This also applies (though perhaps to a lesser extent) to children receiving education at schools under the arrangements for vulnerable pupils and children of key workers.

Education authorities must provide education and childcare “pursuant to appropriate local arrangements” for:

  • the children of key workers (including NHS and social care staff); and
  • vulnerable children (including those eligible for free school meals, with complex additional support needs and at-risk children).

In doing so, the authority must have regard to relevant Scottish Government guidance.

Where the authority is unable to provide free school meals for children eligible for them, they are required to provide reasonable alternatives (e.g. other food and drink, vouchers, or cash).

In making provision or otherwise acting under this Direction, the authority must have regard to “the objective of preventing the transmission of coronavirus, to the welfare of children and young people and staff, and to the importance of continuity of education.”

Ancillary Provision

The direction requires education authorities to restrict access to their schools and nurseries, except as may be required for any of the above purposes, or for:

  • providing pupil estimates and grade rankings to the SQA;
  • maintaining the buildings and facilities;
  • using the buildings and facilities as part of the local authority’s pandemic response.

Legal Impact

One very significant effect of the direction is that it means that any failure to comply with a duty or time limit listed below is to be disregarded “to the extent the failure would be attributable to this Direction” –

A parental duty to comply with the duty to education your child (Section 30(1) of the 1980 Act) will be similarly disregarded.

Not that I am one for cross-border comparisons, but the position in England & Wales (as I understand it) is that the special educational needs (SEN) duties have largely been downgraded to a “reasonable endeavours” duty i.e. the LEA/school has a duty to make reasonable endeavours to make the required provision.

Here, the equivalent duty is to be disregarded entirely – although only to the extent that non-compliance was attributable to the direction itself. This is, in fact, stricter than it sounds.  As the guidance note points out “That means that any failures which cannot be attributed to a Direction would continue to be treated as a failure to comply with that duty or time limit.”

Duration and Review

The direction took effect at 2pm on Thursday, 21 May 2020 and remains in force for 21 days (or until revoked – if earlier). Effectively it will be reviewed and probably amended as we go on – every 21 days.  As the guidance note states: “It will be reviewed no later than 10 June, and it is expected that a further Direction will be made by 10 June to modify, replace or supplement it as appropriate.”

It does leave open the question – on what legal basis were the schools closed during the last two months, and what is the position re: the legal duties during that period?

Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay

Placing request timescales amended

The Education (Miscellaneous Amendments) (Coronavirus) (Scotland) Regulations 2020 came into force on 23 April 2020, having been laid before the Scottish Parliament at 4.30pm the day before.

In short, they give the education authority more time in which to take a decision on placing requests, and education appeal committees more time in which to hear appeals.

Changes to the Education (Placing in Schools) (Scotland) Regulations 1982

  • The date on which a placing request (if not decided upon) is deemed to have been refused (if made on or before 15 March, for a place at the start of the next school year) is 31 May. This is effectively the deadline by which authorities should be taking these decisions. It has been extended from 30 April to 31 May.
  • For other placing requests (e.g. those made after 15 March, or for a placement starting immediately) the date on which it is deemed to have been refused is at the end of 3 months following the receipt of the placing request by the education authority. This has been increase from 2 months to 3 months.
  • Where an education appeal committee has failed to hold a hearing of a placing request appeal within the period of 4 months following receipt by the committee of the appeal reference, the committee will be deemed to have confirmed the decision of the education authority (i.e. to have refused the appeal). This has been increased from 2 months to 4 months.
  • Where an education appeal committee has failed to fix a new date following an adjourned hearing of a placing request appeal within the period of 28 days following the adjournment, the committee will be deemed to have confirmed the decision of the education authority (i.e. to have refused the appeal). This has been increased from 14 days to 28 days

Changes to the Education (Appeal Committee Procedures) (Scotland) Regulations 1982

  • An appeal committee must now acknowledge receipt of an appeal reference within 28 days (an increase from 5 “working days”).
  • A hearing of the appeal must be held by the appeal committee as soon as reasonable practicable within the period of 3 months following receipt of the reference (an increase from within 28 days). If this is not possible “owing to circumstances beyond their control”, the hearing should be held “as soon as reasonably practicable” (changed from “as soon as possible”). The same applies to combined hearings.
  • The education appeal committee must now give notification of the date and other details of a hearing as soon as reasonably practicable (changed from 14 days after receipt of the reference in most cases).
  • The format of hearings may change, as the regulations allow for a hearing to be conducted in whole or in part by video link, telephone or “other means of instantaneous multi-party electronic communication”.
  • The appeal committee may also (if all parties agree) decide an appeal reference without a hearing, based on consideration of written submissions and evidence alone.
  • Education appeal committees have 28 days to notify parties of their decision, and the reasons for it (changed from 14 days).

Changes to the Additional Support for Learning (Placing Requests and Deemed Decisions) (Scotland) Regulations 2005

These are the equivalent regulations to the Education (Placing in Schools) (Scotland) Regulations 1982, in relation to children and young people with additional support needs.

  • The date on which a placing request (if not decided upon) is deemed to have been refused (if made on or before 15 March, for a place at the start of the next school year) is 31 May. This is effectively the deadline by which authorities should be taking these decisions. It has been extended from 30 April to 31 May.
  • For other placing requests (e.g. those made after 15 March, or for a placement starting immediately) the date on which it is deemed to have been refused is at the end of 3 months following the receipt of the placing request by the education authority. This has been increase from 2 months to 3 months.
  • Where an education appeal committee has failed to hold a hearing of a placing request appeal within the period of 4 months following receipt by the committee of the appeal reference, the committee will be deemed to have confirmed the decision of the education authority (i.e. to have refused the appeal). This has been increased from 2 months to 4 months.
  • Where an education appeal committee has failed to fix a new date following an adjourned hearing of a placing request appeal within the period of 28 days following the adjournment, the committee will be deemed to have confirmed the decision of the education authority (i.e. to have refused the appeal). This has been increased from 14 days to 28 days.
  • The deadline for the authority making known to the appellant and the committee all of the information relevant to their decision is now “as soon as reasonably practicable” (changed from “immediately”).

Observations

The changes to the education appeal committee regulations will impact on exclusion cases as well as placing request cases.

The deadline for a parental appeal to the education appeal committee remains the same at 28 days.

The deadlines applicable to appeals to the First-tier Tribunal for Scotland (Health and Education Chamber) remain the same. However, these were never as stringent in the first place, and are currently subject to the Guidance to Tribunal Members No 01/2020 “Hearings and the Covid-19 Outbreak” – which means that only time critical cases can currently proceed to a hearing (with a fairly strict definition of “time critical”).

As you know, most placing requests (including for children or young people with additional support needs) are heard by the education appeal committee. Appeals on placing requests for special schools (or special units), or for children and young people with a Co-ordinated Support Plan are heard by the Tribunal instead.

The implication of this is, of course, that if placing request decisions are not being taken until 31 May, and the appeal committee has up to four months to hear an appeal, in all likelihood that leads to significant numbers of appeals on placing requests not being heard until well into the next academic year. Apart from anything else, this makes transition planning for such cases challenging, to say the least.

The final point to make is that these regulations are not made under the new powers conferred by the Coronavirus Act 2020 or the Coronavirus (Scotland) Act 2020. They are made using existing regulation making powers. As such, there is no expiry date on these changes, and no scheduled review date. These changes will remain in force until further regulations are passed to amend them.

Image by mac231 from Pixabay

IPSEA Manifesto 2019

It will not have escaped your attention that there is a UK General Election campaign underway at the moment.  IPSEA (Independent Provider of Special Education Advice) have released a manifesto asking the next Government to address a “SEND system in crisis”.  SEND is an acronym for Special Educational Needs and Disability.

Now, IPSEA is an organisation which does not operate in Scotland, and education is a devolved issue, so this is not directly relevant to the situation north of the border.  The education system and the ASL framework in particular has significant differences.  However, it remains of interest to see what the position is like elsewhere in the UK, and to compare that to the Scottish situation, in relation to each of IPSEA’s 7 “asks”.

1. A robust system of accountability so that local authorities know there are serious consequences if they flout the law.

The complaint here is that SEN law seems to be disregarded with few consequences for local authorities.  In Scotland, there are fairly well developed and reasonably accessible mechanisms for dispute resolution and for putting right things which have gone wrong at the time they do.  It is far less straightforward to seek restitution for things which have happened in the past (even in the relatively recent past).

IPSEA mention the ability of a family to pursue a complaint to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) – and indeed there are examples of compensation being recommended by the Ombudsman in SEND cases.

In Scotland, the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman (SPSO) generally refuses complaints related to additional support needs, as these should be dealt with by the Tribunal or other statutory mechanism instead.  It can, in theory, recommend compensation, but basically doesn’t.  Professional negligence claims in education cases are difficult legally, and vanishingly rare.  All in all, it remains the case (as IPSEA state) “so much of the burden is placed on parents when things go wrong”.

One “simple fix” would be to give disabled pupils facing discrimination at school the right to seek compensation (including damages for “injury to feelings”) in the same way that disabled persons facing discrimination in any other field can do, and that pupils facing any other form of discrimination can do.  This would require the amendment of the Equality Act 2010, so it is a matter for the UK Government, and therefore this election, even in relation to Scotland.

Why is it – uniquely among victims of unlawful discrimination – that disabled school pupils are prevented from seeking compensation for the wrongs done to them?

2. Better joined up working across education, health and social care, particularly during the EHC needs assessment process.

There is no doubt that this is an issue in Scotland as well.  A Co-ordinated Support Plan is required only where there is a need for co-ordination of support, but it can often be difficult to get “appropriate agencies” to contribute, attend meetings etc.

Is there an opportunity for a revised, statutory Child’s Plan scheme (freed from the shackles of the Named Person debacle) to facilitate this joined up working for children and young people with additional support needs?

3. Mandatory SEND law training for all those involved in assessing and meeting the needs of children and young people with SEND.  The national qualification for SENCOs should also include a module on the SEND law framework.

I am a lawyer, and often deliver ASL law training to those involved in assessing and meeting the needs of children and young people with additional support needs.  So, I clearly think it has its place – I would probably say that it’s not anyone’s top priority though.

The SQA recognise and certify HNC and HND courses in Additional Support Needs. While the HNC is described thus, “Candidates may work or wish to work as an assistant within a mainstream or specialised school”, there is no national or required qualification for Support for Learning Assistants in Scotland.

4. The extended powers of the SEND Tribunal currently being trialed under the national trial for a single route of redress should be made permanent, but also strengthened so that the Tribunal can make binding orders in relation o children and young people’s health and social care needs and provision.

SEND Tribunals are currently in the midst of a two-year national trial.  During this time (April 2018 to March 2020), SEND Tribunals can make non-binding recommendations on:

  • the health and social care needs specified in EHC plans;
  • the health and social care provision specified in EHC plans related to the learning
    difficulties or disabilities that result in the child or young person having SEN; and/or
  • the social care provision specified in EHC plans that is made under Section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970.

There are no current plans to confer similar powers on the First-tier Tribunal for Scotland (Health and Education Chamber), even on a trial basis.  Perhaps the assessment of the trial period in England will prompt consideration of extended powers in Scotland, too.

5. Stronger guidance on SEN Support to ensure there is clarity over how children should be supported at this level and what good quality SEN Support looks like.

It is a difficult task to describe “what good quality SEN Support” looks like as it is, inevitably, going to vary from child to child, even where children share a diagnosis.  “Supporting Children’s Learning”, the Code of Practice in Scotland, is being revised at the moment, and already contains some very useful examples illustrating the variety of approaches needed to meet the diversity of needs encompassed by the broad term “additional support needs”.

6. The jurisdiction of the LGSCO should be extended to enable it to investigate complaints about schools who fail to deliver SEN Support.

In Scotland, I feel that the process of independent adjudication effectively fills this role.  Regular visitors to the blog will know that I am a fan of this system.  The main problem is a simple lack of awareness.

7. Adequate funding to ensure that all children and young people with SEND receive the support they need to meet their individual needs whether that’s under SEN Support or through an Education, Health and Care plan.

It’s hard to argue with a call for “adequate funding” – agreeing what level of funding is actually adequate is another question.  One point to note is that any additional funding for SEN Support in England would, in terms of the “Barnett consequentials“, result in a corresponding increase in the Scottish budget, though it would be for the Scottish Government (or potentially Scottish local authorities) to decide whether or not any such increase would go to additional support for learning.

Scottish Parliamentary elections are due to take place in 2021.  Perhaps organisations working across the additional support needs sector in Scotland should even now be thinking about a similar manifesto?

Included, Engaged and Involved Part 1

New Attendance Guidance – is it any good?

Last week the Scottish Government published revised guidance on school attendance.

The guidance is called Included, Engaged and Involved Part 1: A Positive Approach to the Promotion and Management of Attendance in Scottish Schools.  As the name suggests, there is an immediate link being made here with school exclusion – Part 2 of the “Included, Engaged and Involved” is the exclusions guidance (which is, by and large, very good).  Anyone who has read the Not Included, Not Engaged, Not Involved research will know the very real overlaps between non-attendance at school and informal exclusions from school for disabled pupils / pupils with additional support needs.

I come across issues of attendance and non-attendance in my capacity as a solicitor and also as a member of a local attendance council for a Scottish local authority.  More often in the first capacity, the situation is that a child with additional support needs is “not coping” with school and this is manifesting itself in behaviour which makes it not safe for them to attend, or in a refusal to attend school – often expressed in very definite terms.

Note already the terminology used – it is the child who is not coping, rather than the school environment (say) or teacher practice (for example) which requires amendment.

Pupils with additional support needs have a lower rate of attendance than pupils with no additional support needs, with the difference being particularly stark in mainstream secondary schools (88.6% compared to 92.1%) 2017 stats.  Given this known disparity, it is disappointing that the section on Additional Support for Learning occupies half of one page (in a fifty page document).  There are four paragraphs, three of which explain what additional support needs means as a term and a little bit about Co-ordinated Support Plans.

The other paragraph, however, does sort of get to the heart of matters (in all fairness):

Providing additional support may help children and young people to engage more fully with school and promote good attendance. Schools should recognise that poor attendance can often be related to, or be an indication of, an additional support need and they should use their staged intervention processes to ensure that any barriers to learning are identified and appropriate support is provided.

My concern is that this gets lost in a document which has much more to say about the traditional means of responding to absence: work being sent home; attendance orders; references to the children’s panel; and prosecution of the parents of the absent child (five pages devoted to the “Measures for compulsory compliance” appendix!).  None of which is helpful or effective in relation to a child whose autism means that they are unable to function effectively (let alone learn) in the busy environment of a large mainstream school.  These systems were set up decades ago to deal with truancy and are ill-suited to other purposes.  Further, once you are in the enforcement process, it is difficult to get out.

Fortunately, the Tribunals – and the Court of Session, in the 2018 Inner House case of City of Edinburgh Council v. R, may take a more considered view of this type of case.  The case deals with some fairly technical matters under the Equality Act 2010, but ultimately has no difficulty with the Tribunal’s finding that a CSP for a disabled child refusing to attend school (for reasons arising from that disability) which basically says the school can do nothing until the child attends school – was inadequate, detrimental and discriminatory.

 

Committee Correspondence to John Swinney, Cabinet Secretary for Education

Our collective judgement is that the Education (Scotland) (Additional Support for Learning) Act 2004 (as amended) is sound and fit for purpose. We are proud that Scotland has such progressive legislation in place.

So said the Scottish Government’s Advisory Group on Additional Support for Learning (AGASL) in January this year. At the same time, they recognised the need for a review of its implementation in practice.

Not long after that, a motion was debated and passed by the Scottish Parliament to undertake a review of the presumption to mainstream, and how it is working in practice. It is unclear when this review will take place, or indeed how long it will take, but in a letter to John Swinney, Secretary for Education and Skills, on 9th April 2019 the Education and Skills Committee gave a clear view that mainstreaming in practice needs support. While endorsing the view of AGASL, the Committee outlined their recommendations for the review, based on research carried out over December 2018 through February and March this year. This involved a call for views, a focus group with parents, young people, school staff and others and meetings with other relevant stakeholders, with the Committee aiming to see how the experiences and perspectives of these groups had evolved since the publication of “How is Additional Support for Learning working in practice?” in 2017.

Disappointingly, the Committee found the issues raised by parents and teachers who submitted to the last inquiry remain relevant today. The Committee called for the 2017 recommendations to be considered in any future review and were conscious that: “the policy to include is having the opposite effect in some circumstances due to a lack of resources”. The issues raised for consideration by the Minister will not be news to regular readers, and included:

  • The Scottish Government should consider ways of improving data gathering on individual school’s approaches to issues such as seclusion, restraint, part-time timetabling, unlawful exclusions, and home-schooling as a last resort.
  • A need for increased awareness raising amongst and support for parents.
  • For a meaningful assessment of trends in staffing levels, it is vital to have statistics that reflect the number of support staff with a specialism in supporting those with additional support needs. Work to standardise the nomenclature used by local authorities is a starting point.
  • A need for a financial review to be undertaken by Scottish Government to ascertain the extent to which education authorities are spending in line with the level of need in their area, and identify authorities who have lower spends.
  • The issues with the implementation of CSPs and the associated impact should be the focus of a stand-alone piece of work.

There was also a suggestion that the definition of what constitutes additional support need has become so broad that its impact has been diluted. This may be contributing to an inconsistency in provision.  For instance, children who have English as an Additional Language are included within the definition. While there was no recommendation associated with this, the Scottish Government were asked to provide their perspective.

The Committee has asked John Swinney to respond to their proposals by 15th May 2019, and I await that response with interest.

Photo Credit: DFM gets to work on education, Scottish Government – released under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 2.0 Generic (CC BY-NC 2.0) licence

Additional Support Needs Update (Issue 4)

The latest newsletter is now available to download. Do please read it, share it and subscribe using MailChimp for future editions.

This edition looks in particular at Co-ordinated Support Plans (CSPs), with the support spotlight this edition on Kindred Advocacy.

Do let me know what you think about the newsletter in the comments.

Additional Support Needs Update (Issue 4)

Do Check Plan & Act

Education authorities in Scotland should be paying attention at the back, following a decision under the Equality Act 2010 and its application to the planning of additional support for disabled pupils. A recent Tribunal decision (now upheld on appeal) found that a failure to provide an adequate Co-ordinated Support Plan (CSP) amounted to unlawful disability discrimination by the Council.

The duty to provide a CSP is not found in the Equality Act 2010 but in Section 2 of the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004. The fact that a failure to comply with a duty in this unrelated statute can amount to discrimination is of particular importance – especially for pupils who are both disabled and have additional support needs. Alert readers may recall the case of DM v. Fife Council in which the Council’s failures under the post-school transition duties under the 2004 Act, led to a finding of discrimination under the 2010 Act.

Continue reading “Do Check Plan & Act”