KTS v Governing Body of a Community Primary School

The duty to make reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010 applies independently of the special educational needs framework. An education, health and care plan is relevant to reasonableness but does not displace or reduce that duty.

A tribunal must identify the provision, criterion or practice, the substantial disadvantage, and the specific adjustments sought. It must assess objectively whether each adjustment is reasonable. Providing some adjustments does not discharge the duty if further or different adjustments may remove or reduce the disadvantage.

The appellant parents brought claims under the Equality Act 2010 concerning their disabled daughter’s education at a mainstream community primary school. The First-tier Tribunal dismissed their claim that the school had failed to make reasonable adjustments in delivering the curriculum, although two other claims succeeded.

The appeal concerned the interaction between the reasonable-adjustments duty and the child’s education, health and care plan, the First-tier Tribunal’s factual findings about dictation and copying, and whether it had properly assessed the specific adjustments sought. The central issue was whether the First-tier Tribunal had applied the statutory reasonable-adjustments test.

1. Appeal allowed in part. The First-tier Tribunal’s decision was set aside insofar as it concerned the reasonable-adjustments claim. That claim was remitted to a fresh First-tier Tribunal.
2. The reasonable-adjustments duty required the Tribunal to identify the provision, criterion or practice, determine the nature and extent of the substantial disadvantage, and assess objectively whether the adjustments sought were reasonable. The Tribunal had to consider whether existing adjustments removed or reduced the disadvantage and whether further or different adjustments had a real prospect of doing so.
3. The Children and Families Act 2014 framework and the provision specified in an EHCP are relevant factors, but carry no special weight and cannot read down the duty under the Equality Act 2010. In most cases, teaching approaches, strategies and resources properly specified in an EHCP will also be required as reasonable adjustments. The two statutory duties remain distinct.
4. The First-tier Tribunal was entitled to consider professional judgment, time for assessment, competing demands and resources. It was also correct that the duty was not a duty to achieve a particular educational outcome or provide the best possible education. Those observations did not themselves disclose an error of law.
5. However, the First-tier Tribunal failed to make adequate findings about the alleged dictation and copying, confused the evidence of two professional witnesses, and failed to explain why the evidence that some work exceeded the child’s capabilities was rejected. Its conclusion that there was no dictation or copying was irrational or inadequately reasoned.
6. The Tribunal also failed to determine the appellants’ case concerning specific adjustments, including a multi-sensory approach, visual aids and short, simple written text. Its conclusion that the school had made some adjustments did not establish that the substantial disadvantage had been removed or that the further adjustments sought were unreasonable.
7. The claim required fresh case management, including identification of the PCP, disadvantage, adjustments sought and any applicable time issues. The remaining claims were separable and were not disturbed.

• Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber): appeal allowed in part; the First-tier Tribunal decision was set aside insofar as it concerned the reasonable-adjustments claim and that claim was remitted to a fresh tribunal.
• First-tier Tribunal (Health, Education and Social Care Chamber): the reasonable-adjustments claim under sections 20 and 21 of the Equality Act 2010 was dismissed on 16 May 2023.