Upper Tribunal Administrative Appeals Chamber

[2023] UKUT 223 (AAC)

Fecha: 13-Jul-2023

The decision’s reasoning

The decision’s reasoning

The decision dismissed the appeal against the school named in Q’s EHC plan – Shenstone School – on the basis of s39(4)(b)(i) above.

10.

The decision’s reasoning as to why Q’s attendance at Woodside Academy would be incompatible with the provision of efficient education for others, set out at [55-61], proceeded as follows:

it first set out the parties’ submissions and referred to their key evidence. In particular, as regards the evidence of Mrs Freame – the head teacher of Woodside Academy (and the Respondent’s witness) – the decision noted that this was to the effect that

Q has needs beyond those that can be met in Woodside Academy

ii.

Q requires continuous adult support

iii.

there is limited space for “probably necessary” individual learning assistance and “possible” 2:1 assistance during the transition period (as Q requires a play-based curriculum (not available at Woodside Academy) and constant supervision;

the decision then said that the tribunal panel were impressed with Mrs Freame’s evidence (and explained this (at least in part) by saying that Mrs Freame had

significant knowledge of pupils with ASD, based on experience and training; and

ii.

knowledge of the different curricula in Woodside Academy and Shenstone School);

the decision then said that the tribunal panel were satisfied that both schools could devise, and have the knowledge to deliver, an appropriate curriculum; and both were potentially suitable;

at [59], the decision said that

the tribunal had detailed evidence of Woodside Academy’s pupil numbers and organisation;

ii.

evidence from Woodside Academy and from Mrs Freame stated that the academy was “full” and did not have the space to admit another pupil without affecting the provision for existing pupils;

iii.

Mrs Freame’s oral evidence spoke of the particular difficulties of accommodating additional dedicated teaching assistants that Q would require.

then, at [60], the decision made two main points:

it first explained its view that Q would (contrary to OO’s view) require “additional support”. This is because

even if within the range of needs in his class, Q would be at an extreme; he could not easily fit in with the teaching described;

Section F of Q’s EHC plan is “particularly full”; it emphasises input for speech and language and sensory difficulties;

the tribunal panel accepted Mrs Freame’s expertise and experience and attached weight to her views;

ii.

it then stated that the quality of provision for existing pupils would be materially affected. It explained this by saying that

the other children involved had ASD and required space and limitations on disturbance and activities present;

the provision (at Woodside Academy) had been carefully designed and staffed; and so there was little leeway at Woodside Academy;

consideration such as those above are even more significant for a pupil with Q’s requirements;

iii.

it concluded that Q’s attendance at Woodside Academy would lead to the inefficient education of others; and then stated the Woodside Academy was “effectively full”.