The Learning Trust v MP & Anor Rev 2

A tribunal deciding special educational needs must identify the child’s educational needs before specifying the provision required to meet them and the school appropriate to provide it. A need for consistency across home, school and other settings does not, without more, establish a need for educational provision beyond normal school hours. Social needs which are not also educational needs fall outside the statement, although the tribunal may consider the wider factual context. The tribunal must address substantial arguments, material evidence and realistic alternative provision, and give sufficient reasons even though its reasons may be in summary form. Material errors in recording or evaluating evidence, failure to distinguish educational from social needs, or failure to follow the statutory sequence may amount to errors of law.

The Learning Trust appealed under section 11 of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992 against SENDIST’s decision that P’s statement of special educational needs should name a residential school. P had autism and attended an autism resource base at H School. His mother sought residential education, while the Learning Trust maintained that his needs could be met through day schooling, supplemented where necessary by community and after-school support.

SENDIST found that P required a consistent waking-day curriculum and that H School was unsuitable. The appeal concerned whether SENDIST had misunderstood material evidence, failed to identify the educational provision required outside school, confused educational and social needs, failed to give adequate reasons, and overlooked relevant evidence and proposed support.

1. Appeal allowed and matter remitted. SENDIST’s decision was set aside and the appeal against the statement was remitted to a differently constituted tribunal.
2. The court’s jurisdiction was confined to errors of law. Fresh evidence was generally inadmissible, but evidence could be admitted to establish that the tribunal had materially misstated oral evidence or proceeded on a mistaken view of the evidential facts. The handwritten and typed notes supplied by the tribunal, together with Ms Burleigh’s witness statement, were admissible for that limited purpose.
3. SENDIST had materially misunderstood Ms Burleigh’s evidence by attributing to her a view that P’s educational needs could be met only through a consistent and continuous placement throughout his daily life. The disputed phrase was not supported by the contemporaneous notes or the evidence as given. Because SENDIST had relied heavily on that evidence, the error was material.
4. A consistent approach throughout the waking day was not equivalent to a need for an educational programme outside normal school hours. The decision in R (Tottman) v Hertfordshire County Council was instructive, and the approach in T v Hertfordshire County Council confirmed that consistency between home and school did not itself require detailed educational provision outside school.
5. Under Education Act 1996, section 324, the tribunal had to proceed from the assessment of special educational needs in Part 2, to the provision required in Part 3, and only then to the appropriate school or institution in Part 4. SENDIST had identified no educational need requiring residential placement and had put the proposed school before the necessary diagnosis and prescription.
6. The statement had to address educational needs, while the tribunal could consider the wider circumstances. SENDIST was required to distinguish social needs from educational needs, including under the guidance in W v Leeds City Council and London Borough of Bromley v Special Educational Needs Tribunal. It failed to explain why the argument that residential education was sought principally to relieve parental strain should be rejected.
7. SENDIST failed to take account of the later, more favourable educational psychology report, failed to match several criticisms of H School to Parts 2 and 3 of the statement, and did not explain why the offer of one-to-one autistic-specific support at after-school facilities was inadequate. These were material omissions.
8. The Special Educational Needs Tribunal Regulations 2001 required reasons in summary form, but the tribunal still had to deal with substantial points so that the parties could understand the decision. The standard was not met here.

• Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal: on 23 January 2007 directed amendment of P’s statement to name a residential school and made related amendments to Part 3.
• High Court (Administrative Court): set aside SENDIST’s decision and remitted the appeal to a differently constituted tribunal.