DM & Anor v Essex County Council

Under section 324 of the Education Act 1996, a local education authority must arrange the special educational provision specified in a statement unless the parent has made suitable arrangements. A provision is unlawful if it requires the parent to formulate or deliver the educational programme, rather than merely to support or cooperate with professionals. Such a programme may lawfully meet the child’s needs where the parent consents to that role. Without consent, the authority has failed to discharge its statutory duty.

The parents of a child with autistic spectrum disorder appealed against a statement of special educational needs maintained by Essex County Council. The Special Educational Needs Tribunal had rejected their challenge to the provision specified in the statement.

The authority’s Good Beginnings programme required substantial parental involvement in the home. The parents argued that the programme imposed on them responsibility for delivering their daughter’s special education, contrary to the authority’s statutory duty. The central issue was whether the parents’ role was lawful support and cooperation, or an obligation to formulate and deliver the educational provision.

1. The statutory appeal succeeded. The tribunal’s decision was quashed and the matter was remitted to the tribunal. Costs were to be assessed if not agreed.
2. Section 324(5)(a) of the Education Act 1996 requires the local education authority, unless the child’s parent has made suitable arrangements, to arrange the special educational provision specified in the statement.
3. The court distinguished between ordinary partnership, support and cooperation by parents, and the provision of special education itself. Educational programmes may involve parents in a supportive role without transferring legal responsibility for the provision.
4. On the evidence, the Good Beginnings materials went further. They referred to parents implementing professional advice and planned programmes, developing and delivering the programme, and teaching the child at home. Taken together, those provisions imposed responsibility on the parents to formulate and deliver the programme, with professional support.
5. That arrangement would have been permissible if the parents had consented to it. They had expressly declined to participate in that way. Their refusal did not discharge the authority’s statutory obligation, nor did it make the programme lawful.
6. The authority had therefore failed to arrange appropriate provision, and the tribunal had erred in law in upholding the statement.

• Special Educational Needs Tribunal: rejected the parents’ appeal against the statement of special educational needs on 19 September 2002.
• High Court (Administrative Court): quashed the tribunal’s decision and remitted the matter to the tribunal.