[2025] UKUT 323 (AAC)

The appellants submit that the First-tier Tribunal failed to take the proper legal approach to considering whether Ali needs an extended day curriculum. They submit that the First-tier Tribunal should have considered, in relation to each of his special educational needs, and each aspect of the specific educational provision that was in dispute in Section F of the Working Document, what he reasonably required to meet his special educational needs and whether that constituted education or training so as to be special educational provision that needed to be specified in Section F. The appellants submit that the First-tier Tribunal wrongly proceeded from its view that Ali was not at School Y receiving “structured educational programmes” outside the normal school day to a conclusion that he did not require an extended day curriculum.

In particular, the appellants submit that the First-tier Tribunal failed to engage with what provision was required to meet Ali’s daily living and self-care needs, which the parties agreed constituted special educational needs rather than social care or health needs in Ali’s case. There was ample evidence as to the provision that was being made in that respect on an extended day basis at School Y and as to Ali’s progress in those areas, which included as outcomes achieved or developing in the residential setting: learning to pass urine in the toilet; using knife and fork at mealtimes; setting the table; accepting self-care tasks such as hair and nail-cutting. The appellants submit that the Tribunal failed to provide any reason for concluding that Ali did not require extended day provision to meet those needs, save for stating that, “It is also important to note that [Ali] is only ten years’ old; he is not yet preparing for adulthood and independent living. We considered that his age and stage in life was relevant to our considerations.” They submit that was not an adequate or rational reason for concluding that Ali did not require education or training extending beyond the normal school day in relation to toiletting, eating, cleaning, dressing etc., all of which activities normally need to be mastered before adulthood.

They submit that the First-tier Tribunal was in error in saying there was “no evidence” that Ali required an extended day curriculum because the evidence was there in the progress that he was making at School Y, as well as in the opinion of Dr Grace, on whose report the appellants relied.