Charities Attack Autism Schooling Judgment

Charities and legal campaigners yesterday attacked a court ruling, claiming it would limit the choice of school for parents of children with severe learning difficulties.

The warning follows a judgment at the Court of Session in Edinburgh which found that cases where families wanted a residential place for their child should be decided on educational grounds, rather than other factors, such as social needs.

The judgment follows a case involving the mother of a 14-year-old boy from Edinburgh who has autism and severe learning difficulties.

The child, who has not been named, currently attends a special day school run by Edinburgh City Council. His mother wants him to go to a residential special school in Ayrshire as she feels he does not get the support he needs when he is not at school.

She made a placing request to Edinburgh City Council seeking to have her son moved to the school of her choice, but was refused on grounds that education on offer at his day school was suited to his needs.

After an unsuccessful appeal, the case was taken to the Court of Session, where lawyers acting for the family argued that the decision to refuse the placing request was wrong as it was based entirely on the quality of provision during teaching time. They argued that other support factors had to be considered in assessing a child’s needs, including his family situation.

However, in his judgment, Lord Wheatley ruled that the refusal of the placing request was correct, particularly given the large difference in cost between the two institutions.

His judgment states: “The entire legislative scheme is in respect of education, and the educational needs of children. It is not in respect of the social and care needs of the child and still less in respect of the social and care needs of the child’s family.”

The judge agreed that the distinction between what needs were educational and what were not was “difficult to draw”, but said education authority officials and the tribunal which deals with contested cases were set up to make that distinction.

Iain Nisbet, from the education law unit of the Govan Law Centre, who helped represent the parent, said the decision “will have come as a surprise to everyone working in the education sector”.

“Having adopted the principle that additional support needs might arise for a range of reasons, to be told that additional support needs relate only to those in a teaching environment and not to social or environmental needs is just astonishing,” he said.

“One of the effects of this judgment is that virtually no parent will ever again be able to make a successful placing request to a residential school unless the authority agrees it.”

A spokeswoman for the National Autistic Society said: “It is absolutely crucial that all children with autism receive the right support at the right time in their lives.

“This can, in many cases, extend to the need for education within a residential setting to ensure they can fully participate in school life and fulfil their potential. There is a need in some instances for 24-hour support beyond the traditional school day.”