TS, R (on the application of) v Bowen (Chair of Sendist) & Anor

A tribunal determining special educational needs must identify the child’s educational needs and the provision required to meet them before deciding the appropriate placement. A need for consistency across school, home and community settings does not necessarily require residential education or a waking-day curriculum. The tribunal may prefer one body of expert evidence over another, provided that it considers the material evidence, applies the correct legal framework and gives intelligible reasons. Its reasons must be read as a whole rather than subjected to an excessively technical analysis. Placement must reflect the educational provision required, while parental preference remains subject to compatibility and the avoidance of unreasonable public expenditure.

TS, an 11-year-old child with severe and complex learning difficulties and autism, appealed under Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992 section 11 from a decision of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal. SENDIST had confirmed a maintained day school in Part 4 of his statement of special educational needs, rejecting the parents’ preference for an independent residential school with a waking-day curriculum.

The appeal alleged that SENDIST had failed to consider expert evidence, misunderstood the relationship between cognitive ability, progress and the ability to generalise skills, and failed to determine whether educational provision beyond the school day was required. The central issue was whether the tribunal’s decision was unlawful, perverse or inadequately reasoned.

1. Appeal dismissed. SENDIST was entitled to conclude that the maintained day school could satisfactorily meet TS’s educational needs.
2. The structure of a statement of special educational needs is material. Educational needs and the provision required to meet them should be considered before placement. The tribunal’s decision was imperfectly structured because material concerning educational need appeared under Part 4, but the determination had to be read as a whole.
3. On that reading, SENDIST had considered the competing evidence about a waking-day curriculum. It was entitled to accept the local authority’s evidence that TS’s need for consistency across school, home and community settings could be met through liaison and coordinated provision in Part 3, without residential education.
4. A need for consistency beyond the school day is not necessarily an educational need requiring educational programmes throughout the waking day. Nor does recognition of such a need determine the form of placement.
5. The tribunal had properly balanced the expert evidence. It was not required to accept the appellant’s experts, and there was no sufficient basis for concluding that it had confused cognitive profile with educational progress or the ability to generalise skills.
6. The tribunal’s reasons were adequate. Applying the approach described in W v Leeds City Council and Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal [2005] EWCA Civ 988, reasons need explain in broad terms why a party has won or lost and permit an appellate court to identify any question of law. They need not be formalistic or exhaustive.
7. SENDIST had correctly weighed the educational advantages of the preferred placement against the additional public expenditure. Its decision was neither perverse nor otherwise unlawful.

High Court (Administrative Court) — SENDIST’s decision dated 23 June 2008 was challenged under section 11 of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992. The appeal was dismissed.