By Gavin Mackintosh And Sammie Jones-
British schools must have greater say on the pupils they admit into their schools, after High Court ruling on Monday . A high Court judge’s ruling that Medway council acted unlawfully by compelling a school to allow an autistic child attend its school gives school heads in Britain the power and control they need in deciding which kids can join their school.
Medway Council changed the Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP) of an autistic pupil in order to force a nearby mainstream primary school to take him on. The school cannot be named following an imposition from the court protecting its identity.
Ed Duff, lawyer at HCB Solicitors, which won the case on behalf of the school, said councils must be able to “clearly evidence the process they have gone through when deciding a school is suitable”.
Despite the school giving Medway six reasons it could not take on the eight-year-old pupil with severe communication and sensory difficulties, the case ended up before the High Court for a judgement. The school pointed out that its environment was not suitable to the pupil’s ECHP, written up by Greenwich council. The pupil, who also cannot be named for legal reasons, needed to use a sensory room for one hour a day, but the school pointed out it had no space for one.
None of the teachers in the school knew how to use a picture exchange communication system or British Sign Language and the school had also never delivered a P-level curriculum, which is for pupils working below national curriculum assessments. The school’s leaders also expressed serious concern about the pupil’s welfare in any event he attended a sensory room if they had one.
Instead, the High Court judgement ruled that Medway “‘eviscerated’ the special educational provision set out in the Greenwich plan”. This included removing the need for a sensory room. The council also only offered the school an additional £3,000 a year. A request for the intervention of Damian Hinds by the school in the case was unproductive. The Education and Skills Funding Agency, acting on Hinds’ behalf, agreed with the embarrassed Council, saying that the SEND Code of Practice requires councils to work on the “presumption of mainstream” provision for high needs pupils.
MISTAKEN
This was mistaken, and raises questions of why a misguidance of this nature occurred. Schools that have devoted their resources to developing a high standard school of good behaviour of quality academic standard should not be forced to take on pupils that could seriously compromise that standard. Autistic or special needs individuals should not be forced on just any school. Schools must have greater say on the pupils they admit to mix with other pupils who have been trained to work towards their vision of attaining a very good education. Where there is no racial, sexual, or gender discrimination involved, individuals should not be forced unto any school, without properly and effectively considering the objections of the school
The new judgement shows councils must make a “detailed consideration of all available mainstream schools” rather than just the one parents choose, said Duff. The court said: “Whilst a new local authority could lawfully form a different view of the provision required, without some change in evidence such a wholes Scale and fundamental revision would be irrational.” Medway Council was also instructed to find suitable provision for the pupil until an appropriate school can be found.
The case also makes clear a local authority has a “heavy financial duty” to make mainstream schools available to all pupils and should not ignore the advice of schools and experts in how much extra funding a school will need. Making mainstream schools available to all pupils is not the same as making ‘all’ mainstream schools available to all pupils. It means all pupils should have access to a mainstream school, but this must sometimes depend on particular expert assessment of the pupil and the mainstream school.
Schools should have the same flexibility on expelled pupils from other schools with a factual history of violence, persistent disruption and who are not serious with their academics.