[2025] UKUT 187 (AAC)

‘The central issue is whether G needs 1:1 for 32.5 hours or a high level of adult support. The evidence is not straightforward or one way. Ms McHugh, educational psychologist’s, report dated 14.9.2022, says he needs a small nurturing environment and flexibility. She does not mention either a high level of 1:1 or full time 1:1. Ms Ali Sana, SaLT in her report dated 1.8.2022 stated that G can focus for large chunks of time on subjects of interest to him and he can access an age appropriate curriculum and she states that he needs a small nurturing environment which works with children with social communication difficulties. Denise Anthony, Consultant Education and SEND Specialist in her report dated 8.11.2023 stated that he was in year 1 when she observed him and there are 2 pupils in his class and 3 days a week 3 pupils including from the year above for English and Maths. There is a TA for 80% of the time and he accesses this support. During breaks he is able to find a teacher and speak to her and during lunch he is able to choose lunch and eat it and he is very settled and relaxed. Dr Eldred in her report with Harjinder Kaur dated 4.1.2024 states that G needs a high degree of 1:1 adult support to access learning and wellbeing, small class sizes and a high ratio of adult to children. Ms Fern in her written statement stated that LSA support is throughout the school week, for growing independence skills, 1:1 reading/comprehension, daily 15 minutes and for use of alternative recording methods of ipad, social time support. This does not amount to either a high level of support or full time 1:1. The evidence of Dr Kelly was for 1:1 support for 32.5 hours per week. Dr Kelly is therefore the only expert who contends that 1:1 support from a TA for 32.5 hours is required. The weight of the evidence is against him on this point. That leaves the question of how much support is needed and whether it would be wise to put a number of hours on this or indeed qualify it as “high” as the LA suggests. The evidence is far from clear. Ms Anthony suggests G may be getting 80% of TA time but that is not crystal clear either. It is said that he does not need support at lunch times and is managing break times. The examples of risky behaviours given by Dr Kelly and [Mrs D] are all outside of the school and with family members. It is not clear what the reference to the climbing is and whether it is a one off and no date is given but it is suggested that this is not a very recent incident. Turning to the EHCP itself and the provision, its is clear that 8-10 hours of SaLT 1:1 is indicated and 4 hours of direct OT is also agreed for the year. In reviewing section F the vast majority of this provision is good quality teaching applying Quality First Teaching eg support for independent learning, for moving, for regulation of emotions, for scaffolding, for visual support or mediating language and providing descriptive commentary and so on. There is a reference to monitoring for movement and climbing- but this is not very specific. Sensory provision is already specified in the plan and this requires regular movement break opportunities which should be available to G on a minimum of three occasions in one school day for 10-15 minutes. There is small group work required, but the class is already small and so whether it is 5 or 3 the support in Section F is deliverable by a Teacher and fulltime TA as his EHC Plan does not specify large areas of work which require 1:1 although he does need directing back to task and reminders and other interventions and chunking as well as pre teaching. G will receive the time and attention to focus that he needs and does not require 1:1 support. His EHC Plan when read carefully for section F provision also does not indicate a high level of support. The support he needs under section F leaving aside the 1:1 therapies indicates that he will need some additional support, but not at breaks and lunch as any nurturing environment will have eyes on pupils from various staff and he is able to approach teachers/ staff when needed. It is not appropriate for the Tribunal to add up all the provision that may amount to 1:1 support but suffice it to say that the EHC Plan states when 1:1 is needed and that is for example, prompts and reminders at the beginning and end of tasks, advance warning of changes and countdowns of time are the obvious examples- any other. Other times when 1:1 is needed is for pre-teaching of vocabulary related to a new topic, identifying G’s emotional needs and providing co-regulation to support G to calm down and be ready to continue learning and providing sensory breaks. There is not a “high level” of support indicated in G’s EHC Plan and this is the document which properly identifies his provision in section F. The Tribunal will delete the words 1:1 full time and the word “high” so that it is left that support will be needed and this depends on the individual tasks identified in the EHCP. Although section I follows F, it is difficult to put out of mind the fact the classes are as a matter of fact very small indeed and have a high pupil to staff ratio.’

‘G requires a full assessment of his receptive and expressive

language skills in line with his annual review process G requires

SLT school and home visits until all assessments can be completed to the

best of G’s ability (6 hours per annum). This should include a full

day visit to observe him in both an afternoon and morning session (7

hours) and a home visit (3 hours).

G’s assessment findings will need to be shared with teaching staff

and parents. To plan further communication targets. G will require a

full speech therapy report based on the assessment findings (To include

assessment scoring/analysis and interpretation of data) (10 hours)’