Complaint

The complaint was submitted to the Office by a mother on behalf of her son, then aged nine, who attended a mainstream national school. The child concerned has a number of medical difficulties which have been identified by professionals working with him. These difficulties included bone age delay, low muscle tone, hyper mobility, dyspraxia and cleft palate. Although the child had these medical difficulties, no specific diagnosis had been identified. The complaint made to the OCO related to the decision of the Department of Education and Skills to refuse an application of Assistive Technology made on behalf of the child. The projected cost of the Assistive Technology (lap top and appropriate software) was in the region of €1000. The application was made with supporting documentation from a range of medical professionals. The grant was refused on the basis that there was no specific diagnosis in respect of the child. The complainant contended that these issues were causing her son difficulties in school with hand writing, fatigue, fine motor coordination and concentration levels. The Department stated that the Scheme is designed to provide technology to support children with a disability and distinguished between an assessed disability and a medical condition.

Examination

Following an investigation by the Office the OCO found that there appeared a lack of clarity between the bodies concerned – the National Council for Special Education (NCSE) on the one hand and the Department of Education and Skills on the other – with respect to responsibility for decision-making under the relevant scheme each considering that the other was the decision-maker. There is no clear appeals process to challenge decisions made. The Department did not appear to be monitoring the implementation of its policy by the NCSE. This lack of clarity adversely affected the child concerned. In this particular case the young person was not considered eligible for assistive technology on the basis that, while the Department understood that there was a strong indication that he had a physical disability, he did not have a definitive diagnosis of a disability.

As a result the Office recommended, among other things, that the Department provide for:

• the reasonable inclusion in the Scheme of children for whom a specific medical diagnosis cannot be readily determined but whose education may be impeded by significant medical difficulties;

• Provide for an appeals process under the Scheme that is clearly communicated to schools and families, and

• Provide for effective mechanisms for monitoring the operation of the Scheme.

The Department should also ensure that clear and comprehensive information about the Scheme and its eligibility criteria is communicated to schools and parents.

While these issues are being determined, the Ombudsman for Children recommended that the child concerned be provided with the necessary assistive technology.

Outcome

Following the intervention of the Office the Department asked the NCSE Special Needs Organiser to review the support currently available for this child and to advise as to whether any additional support is required. The Department also confirmed that a review of the assistive technology scheme is underway and a new Circular on the scheme will be forthcoming. It is intended that this new Circular will provide for instances such as those above where there is no diagnosis but the equipment is necessary to access the curriculum.

Complaint

A number of complaints were submitted to the Office by parents on behalf of their children who were pupils in, or were due to start in, a Special School in September 2011. The complaints related to the decision made by the National Council for Special Education (NCSE) to reduce the Special Needs Assistant (SNA) allocation to the school. The school determined it could not meet the educational needs of these children and as a result contacted parents ahead of the upcoming school year, significantly reducing the timetable for some pupils and advising that they were not in a position to provide any hours to others.

While the actions of the NCSE are not currently within its investigative remit, this Office was concerned with respect to the impact that this would have on the children’s education and also the background planning and preparation that is invariably required by families in those circumstances. The Office was concerned that children and their families were getting caught up in a resource issue which was clearly not of their making, but affecting them directly.

Examination

The Office engaged with the school to ascertain how it had managed the SNA reductions, the discussions which had taken place with the NCSE, and the Department of Education and Skills regarding the matter. This intervention reflected the Office’s key emphasis on promoting the local resolution of any complaint or concern where possible and appropriate.

Outcome

Following the intervention of this Office local discussion occurred between the relevant parties and an increased SNA allocation was granted by the NCSE. Consequent to this development, it is the Office’s understanding that all the children in question were enrolled without restriction on school hours. The Office is currently taking steps to have the Ombudsman for Children Act 2002 extended to include NCSE in its remit. Further work will be carried out on this in early 2012.

Complaint

A complaint was received from a mother on behalf of her daughter who is diagnosed with Down Syndrome, an intellectual disability and is visually impaired. She raised concerns that under Department of Education and Skills practice her daughter would not be able to complete her two-year Leavers Programme in the special school she was attending on the basis that she had recently turned eighteen. The mother contended that the Department’s procedure was unfair to young people with special needs since if her daughter did not have additional needs, the fact that she had turned 18 would not hinder her from completing her education. She advised that the second year of the programme would assist her daughter in transitioning to a training centre. The professional team in the school was of the view that a removal from the school would have been disruptive to the girl and her mother was also concerned about the lack of transitional support to her daughter, ordinarily covered in the second year of the programme.

Examination

The Office contacted the Department of Education and Skills which advised that education is provided for children in special schools up to the age of 18. However, the Department’s policy is to facilitate the ongoing attendance at a special school for children for a further year following a student’s birthday under certain circumstances. Subject to an application to the Department, schools are permitted to retain pupils over the age of 18 who are pursuing courses leading to accreditation at level 3 or above of the National Qualifications Framework (NQF) for one additional year, where they are progressing to the final year of the course and having started the course prior to their 18th birthday. In this case the parents advised that their daughter had not reached a stage where she is in a position to follow a course leading to level 3 or above of the NQF.

Outcome

Following the Office’s intervention the Department of Education and Skills reviewed an application from the school on behalf of the girl. As a result the Department advised that it had decided to allow her to enrol for the 2011/12 school-year in order to facilitate and complete her transition to adult services. The Office encouraged the Department to ensure that all applications are assessed in a prompt manner and that parents are kept informed in that regard. The Office also noted that while the young person in this instance had reached the age of majority, the decision to allow her to enrol in a two-year programme was made prior to this and therefore the Department were giving appropriate consideration to the young person’s best interest in this instance by allowing her to pursue the second year of her programme.

Complaint

The complaint submitted to the Office concerned the refusal of a post primary school to enrol a young person. The complainant, her mother, contended that the refusal was based initially on the fact that the girl was pregnant and subsequently on the grounds that she was a single young mother.

The young person had attended two previous post-primary schools changing from one after her Junior Certificate and the other because she did not settle there. When she became aware that she was pregnant and she decided then to return to school. She approached the school and she was provided with an enrolment form and information about subject choices and the uniform. She understood that she had been accepted. At the same time, her mother contacted the school to let her know that she was pregnant. The young person was then informed by the School Principal that they would not accept her as she was pregnant.

The young person enrolled in another school for the duration of her pregnancy and after her baby was born she sought to enrol in the school again to complete her Leaving Certificate. Again the young person was informed that they the school does not accept single mothers.

Examination

Having decided to investigate the matter the Ombudsman for Children’s Office wrote to the School to request information relevant to the matter under investigation including its enrolment policy, its complaints procedure, details of the management structure and copies of relevant correspondence. None of the information sought was provided by the School. A meeting sought with the school’s representatives was not forthcoming.

Following its investigation the Office found that the School does not have a written enrolment policy; its decision to refuse to enrol the young person in this instance was based on the school’s ethos; the school’s refusal to enrol the young person because she was pregnant and then a single mother has resulted in her being treated unfavourably and suffering discrimination on the ground of her family status.

The School does not have a Board of Management and a single person acts as the school’s owner, manager and patron. As a result, there is no scope for a complaint from the decision to refuse admission to the school to be independently determined meaning that there is a lack of fair and impartial process for addressing any complaint.

The Department of Education and Skills provides funding and policy direction for schools but it has no legal powers to instruct individuals to follow a particular course of action with regard to individual complaints. No procedures have been prescribed under section 28 of the Education Act 1998 resulting in no regulated complaints process in schools.

The Office has established that there is work ongoing in the Department of Education and Skills to provide a statutory basis that can better ensure that school’s enrolment policies are non-discriminatory. It is clear from this investigation that such improved regulatory procedures are necessary.

This Office made recommendations directly to the school in relation to its enrolment and admissions policy, and it also recommended that the school should write to the young person involved to acknowledge her experience of its actions and to apologise for how she has been treated.

The Office also recommended that the Department of Education and Skills should carry out an inspection of the School in order to evaluate school policies, specifically enrolment/admissions and complaints procedures and to review the management structure including issues of accountability and governance with respect to complaints and appeals. The Department should also consider the matters raised by this investigation in its consideration of the proposed regulatory framework for school enrolment.

Outcome

Further to the Office’s intervention the Department of Education and Skills committed to bringing forward firm and clear guidelines in relation to admissions policies. They also committed to submitting the school in question to an additional inspection as soon as possible.

At the time of publication the school had not issued an apology to the young person in question.

Complaint:

The parents of a boy, aged 4, submitted a complaint to the OCO, raising concerns that their child, who has been diagnosed with autistic spectrum disorder and a moderate intellectual disorder, had been refused at short notice a Home Tuition Grant (HTG) for the coming school year, as the Department of Education & Science had stated that a placement was available for him in a mainstream primary school.

The complaint contended that the placement in the school was unsuitable for the child’s needs as he was a non-verbal child, not yet toilet-trained, suffered from a feeding disorder and had temper and screaming tantrums when agitated and frustrated. Documentation was attached from the principal of the school in question, the child’s doctor, and the HSE’s Early Years Support Team, all supporting the position that the child was not ready for primary school. In addition, the complainants expressed the opinion that placement in the school’s ASD unit would be inappropriate as all the children attending the class were 7 or 8 years old, were all verbal and toilet-trained.

Furthermore, the complainants stated that the primary school was over 25 miles away from the family home. Due to the distance and time that would be involved in transporting the child to school, and in light of his specific needs and circumstances, the complainants expressed the opinion that it was not a feasible arrangement for the child to make the trip to and from school on a bus, or in a car with his parents, at this stage in his development.

Their Home Tuition Grant had previously been used to pay for a tutor in a private autism specific pre-school facility. As such, the parents contended that, given the child’s apparent unreadiness for primary school, and the fact that without the grant, they could no longer afford the specialised pre-school, the removal of the grant would have a serious adverse effect on the child’s development. They also argued that the timing of the decision to refuse the grant, communicated to them on the 1st September 2009, meant that there would be no transition period for the child between pre-school and mainstream primary school. The redress sought by the complainants in this case was the approval of a Home Tuition grant on behalf of their son for at least another year.

Investigation:

Following receipt of the complaint, the OCO initiated a preliminary examination and wrote to the Department of Education & Science, seeking an outline of their understanding of this particular case.

The OCO also requested an account of the process of finding, applying and enrolling in a school a child with a diagnosis such as this, as well as information on how the appropriateness of an educational placement is determined, including details of the liaison process that takes place between the relevant HSE professionals when deciding whether a child should attend preschool or primary school.

Given concerns raised by the parents regarding the distance of the school and the travel arrangements for this child, the OCO sought confirmation that the school selected, 25 miles away, was the nearest suitable school and if the child was entitled to school transport. The OCO queried if any other school nearer to the child was considered.

The OCO had previously been advised by the Department of Education & Science that over half of children enrol in primary school in the September following their fifth birthdays and that there is evidence to suggest that this later start in school is of benefit to children both educationally and socially. The Office thus sought clarification of the rationale for this child with autism to be enrolled in primary school at age four.

Outcome:

In response, the Change Management Unit of the Department of Education & Science stated that it was their belief that the Home Tuition Grant had in fact been approved in respect of this case, despite the existence of correspondence from the Department which stated that the Grant had been refused. The following day, the complainants phoned the OCO to state that the HTG had been granted for the school year and that the payment was backdated.

It was concluded by this Office that the Department of Education & Science had now offered adequate redress in the matter for the complainant.

The complaint

K has an acquired brain injury resulting from an accident. An application for exemption for K from the study of a subject was made to the Department of Education and Science. The criteria for exemption are set out in Circular M10/94. The Department of Education and Science Inspectorate determined that K did not meet the criteria for an exemption as set out in Circular M10/94 and the request was turned down. An appeal of the decision to the Department of Education Inspectorate upheld this decision.

Investigation

In considering this complaint the Ombudsman for Children is obliged to have regard to the best interests of the child concerned. She is obliged to consider whether the child has or may have been adversely affected by the action and whether the action was contrary to fair or sound administration. During the examination of the case it emerged that the Department of Education had strictly adhered to the guidance offered by Circular M10/94.However there was clear evidence, supported by the child’s parents and by medical and other professionals that the study of this subject was causing the child considerable distress.

Findings

The Ombudsman for Children upheld the view that the child had been adversely affected by the decision not to exempt her from this subject. However she concluded that the Department of Education and Science had adhered to criteria for exemption and did not find any evidence of maladministration on the part of Department of Education and Science. This then left the question of whether the circular itself was flawed or needed review given that there was no apparent maladministration and yet a child was clearly adversely affected by the action.

Recommendations

– That the Department of Education and Science reconsider K’s case.

– That the Department of Education and Science explored, perhaps in conjunction with medical experts, whether the criteria in the circular needed to be widened to include children like this child with an acquired brain injury.

Response

– The Department of Education and Science reviewed the case and K was awarded an exemption.

– The Department of Education and Science stated that the widening of this circular Would be considered in a root and branch review of the criteria for subject exemptions which is currently in progress.

The complaint

The Office has received a number of complaints from non-Irish nationals who considered that their child was being denied their right to an education. The Department of Justice Equality and Law Reform had informed the parents that, due to conditions set out in their visa, their children could not avail of public education.

Action

This is an issue which raises important human rights and policy considerations. This Office made contact with the relevant authority and indicated that all children have the right to an education and that a child should not be denied this right on the basis of the immigration status of their parents.

Response

The Department of Justice Equality and Law Reform agreed to consider making an exception for the current school year (2007). All of the children concerned have remained in public school.

Postscript

The immigration legislation is currently changing and will most likely determine the situation into the future. In this case the Ombudsman for Children has continued working on this issue in accordance with Section 7 of the Act which provides that the Ombudsman for Children can advise on any matter related to the rights and welfare of children. The Ombudsman for Children was invited to comment on the new Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill, 2008. In her Advice, the Ombudsman expressed concern at the extent of Ministerial discretion provided for in the Bill for the setting of conditions for residence in the State.

She emphasised that children’s Constitutional rights – including the right to free primary education – and their rights under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child are nondependent on their nationality. She recommended that an explicit requirement for the Minister to have regard to those standards – especially the best interests principle contained in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child – when making such regulations be included in the Bill.

Complaint:

A complaint was received from a mother on behalf of her 10-year-old daughter, regarding the handling by her daughter’s school of an incident in class. It was alleged that the child was struck on the hand by her teacher and subsequently ‘harassed’ in an inappropriate way by both the teacher concerned and the Assistant Principal. This culminated in her offering an apology for alleging the teacher had hit her. Furthermore, it was contended that despite the child expressing a wish to talk to her mother and go home, no contact was made with the mother by staff. The parent expressed disappointment that in its handling of this complaint, as well as a previous incident, the school had been difficult to contact and procedures had not been made clear.

Investigation:

In accordance with the Ombudsman for Children Act 2002, the OCO determined that a preliminary examination would be commenced to assess the admissibility of the complaint, to better understand the issue from the perspective of all parties involved and to decide on the level of intervention, if any, required from the Office.

Three main issues were identified as examinable by the OCO. These were:

– the nature of the interview which took place with the complainant child by the teacher

concerned and the Assistant Principal;

– the concern that parental consent was not obtained before this interview took place;

– the adverse affect that the school’s administrative actions may have had on the child.

The OCO had no authority to determine whether the alleged incident involving the child and the member of staff actually occurred or not. The Office was aware that the Board of Management was satisfied, on the evidence available, that there was no inappropriate behaviour on behalf of the teachers concerned. However it was made clear to the Office that this was not accepted by the complainant. The role of the OCO, therefore, was to examine the administrative actions of the school and subsequently the Board of Management in dealing with the alleged incident.

Firstly, the Office did not find evidence of maladministration in the Board’s handling of the formal complaint with respect to their own complaints procedure. However, administrative questions remained regarding the original interview/investigation process that took place on the afternoon of the alleged incident. After careful consideration of the information received during the course of the preliminary examination, the Office was sufficiently satisfied to determine that:

– The child was involved in an interview/investigation with the Assistant Principal and the member of staff about whom the allegation was made, which focused on the substantive issue of whether the alleged incident occurred or not.

– Parental consent was not obtained for this investigation meeting with the child.

– The child got upset during this interview.

The information provided by the school did not specifically identify any administrative procedures for interviewing a child in such circumstances. In general, the OCO is aware of a lack of guidelines pertaining to how schools should determine the circumstances and manner in which children should be interviewed. This is a matter that the Office has raised directly with the Department of Education & Science.

After examination, the OCO was of the view that a school seeking to conduct an investigation into circumstances such as these should ensure, in the interests of impartiality and fairness of procedure, that any staff member who is the subject of an allegation should not be present when the complainant is being interviewed. From the information provided by the school, the OCO understood that the issue of contacting parents at the request of pupils is dealt with on grounds of reasonableness, and judged at the discretion of the staff concerned. It is the view of this Office that if the school was insistent in conducting the investigation interview in this way then parental consent should have, in the first instance, been sought and obtained. It appears to the Office that this failure to seek consent was an undesirable administrative action.

The Office noted from the information received that the child protection policy of the school is reviewed on a regular basis. The OCO encouraged the school to consider the above points when reviewing both its child protection policy and general policies related to conducting interviews and contacting parents.

The OCO understood that the child was upset during this particular interview process, but could not, however, determine whether the adverse effect which occurred was due to the inherent nature of a child being subjected to an interview/investigation process, the nature of what occurred during that interview, or if it was linked to the original alleged incident.

Outcome:

After a full examination, it was considered that further investigation of these matters was not required by the Office at this time. The OCO commented, however, on the administrative actions taken and encouraged further action by the school to address the issues raised. The OCO wrote to the school, informing the Principal and Board of Management of the conclusion of the preliminary examination and outlining the findings and views of the Office as detailed above. This correspondence afforded the opportunity for the school to respond to the OCO with any comment that they wished to make regarding any of the findings.

The school responded accordingly and indicated that the suggestions made by the Office are to be taken on board. The Office understood that the matter was to be discussed and progressed at the next Board meeting.

Complaint:

A mother contacted the OCO on behalf of her son, aged 12 at the time and diagnosed with an Autistic Spectrum Disorder since 2002. He had been attending mainstream primary school and in receipt of maximum resource teaching hours since 2003 as a result of this diagnosis. In 2006 she became aware of the availability of home-based tuition under the July Provision scheme, administered by the Department of Education and Science.

This scheme provides for the extension of educational provision through the month of July for children with a diagnosis of severe to profound learning disability and for children with a diagnosis of autism. This is usually provided by the school, though where the child’s school does not participate, the family can apply for a grant for home tuition.

The mother’s complaint related to a lack of information and awareness about her son’s entitlement to apply for this service and the Department’s refusal to offer retrospective payment for the years he had missed out on the scheme.

Investigation:

The Office sought information from the Department of Education and Science, including the scope of the July Provision scheme, criteria for eligibility, and the process for informing potential recipients of its availability.

Having investigated the matter, the Office found that the administrative actions of the Department of Education and Science had adversely affected the child concerned, were the result of negligence or carelessness and were based on an undesirable administrative practice.

During the investigation the Office was advised that the July Provision scheme was initially developed for children with severe to profound learning disability. In 2000 the scheme was extended to enable children in autism classes to benefit from additional educational input. The DES initially advised special schools and mainstream primary schools with special classes of the availability of this scheme for children with autism. In 2002 grant aid was provided to facilitate home-based provision in order to ensure that children were not disadvantaged if their school did not participate in the scheme.

The Office found that a central issue pertaining to this complaint appears to have been that children with a diagnosis of autism attending mainstream school were not considered when the initial administration of the home-based tuition scheme was introduced.

However, when parents of such children did apply, these applications were sanctioned by the Department where the eligibility criteria were met. Nonetheless, this lack of planning resulted in parents of children with autism attending mainstream school not being notified of its existence, and moreover, there seemed to be no mechanism in place able to identify these families in the first instance.

Recipients of the scheme in these circumstances only became aware of its availability by word of mouth and their applications dealt with individually. Thus, it appeared to the OCO that there had been inadequate planning by the DES with respect to identification of children who could benefit from the scheme when it was introduced, specifically children with a diagnosis of autism attending mainstream school. This has resulted in children whose families were unaware of the scheme’s availability being disadvantaged.

Outcome:

During the course of this investigation, the DES took steps to improve the process of identifying children who may benefit from the July provision scheme and communicated its availability to all primary schools in receipt of resource hours for children with autism.

The Office also recommended that the DES:

– ensure that all children who are entitled to apply for the July Provision scheme are made

aware of its availability;

– consider developing programmes for raising awareness of services available;

– develop policies and guidelines specifically in relation to the July Provision scheme in

order to ensure its appropriate administration; and

– with regard to retrospective payment, the Office encouraged the Department of Education and Science to give consideration to what alternative measures could be taken to remedy or mitigate the adverse effect for this particular child.

In response, the Department of Education and Science advised that steps were taken to ensure that all children attending mainstream primary school who are entitled to apply for the July Provision scheme are made aware of its availability, specifically special schools, schools with special classes and mainstream schools receiving additional resources for children with autism. The Office also expressed concern regarding the communication of the availability of home-based provision to pupils at post-primary level, and was subsequently advised that in 2008 the DES had taken similar steps to communicate the availability of the scheme as had been undertaken for primary schools.

The Department also indicated that:

– Consideration would be given to the publication of a circular in relation to the July

Provision scheme; and

– Any new service or scheme administered by the Special Education section will be

advertised on the website.

The Office expressed concern regarding the adequacy of the latter and encouraged the Department to reconsider this proposal in line with the more comprehensive approach taken currently to communicating the availability of the July Provision scheme at primary level. The Department subsequently advised that there is a range of mechanisms for communicating availablitily of new schemes.

The Department also advised that a review of the July Provision scheme is currently underway.

This Office has expressed concern regarding the adverse effect on the child at the centre of this complaint, due to not being able to avail of his entitlement to home tuition under the July Provision scheme during 2003-2005. The Department has advised that as it is not in a position to measure the adverse effect, if any, and it considers that adequate resources are available to the child in his current placement, it is thus of the view that alternative measures are not warranted. The Office accepted that it may not be possible to quantify and measure the exact extent of this adverse effect and determine whether this can be recuperated at a later date. Notwithstanding the difficulties in determining the extent of the adverse effect, the Office nonetheless considers that this does not represent a bar to a public body attempting to offer redress. Given the resources being provided to the young person in the current placement and the extension of the July provision scheme to postprimary schools, no further steps were recommended by the Office.

A parent made a complaint to the Ombudsman for Children in relation to her son with autism, who was attending an autism unit in a mainstream school. The parent stated that her son was required to complete his primary education in 7 years in the autism unit unlike children attending mainstream school who completed their primary cycle in 8 years. The parent was concerned that her child was not ready to start secondary education and the school’s decision did not take the child’s best interests into account.

The OCO requested information from the school on this case including related policies. The Board of Management responded to the Office advising that it was the case that a 7-year cycle was provided in the autism unit admissions policy. However, the Board advised the OCO that it had amended policy to remove the age limit applied to the autism unit.

Therefore, following the OCO’s intervention the child concerned was entitled to remain in school and finish the full cycle of primary education.

The complaint

The Office was contacted separately by two sets of parents about the same issue in the same primary school. As such it was decided to examine both complaints together.

Both sets of parents contacted the Office about practices in a primary school where their children were withdrawn because of how their education was handled. Both children were diagnosed with learning and behavioural difficulties with one child having emotional difficulties such as anxiety and self-confidence issues. Both sets of parents were particularly concerned with how end-of-term and classroom reporting and feedback appeared to be highlighting negative aspects of their educational progress. This negative reporting was happening despite the school being made aware of the children’s conditions through OT and Psychologist reports. The parents also felt the recommendations in these reports were not being implemented sufficiently.

OCO examination

This Office contacted the school as part of a preliminary examination of the complaints. The Office stressed that the examination was looking at overall policies within the school and not concerned with individual practices or decisions made by particular teachers. It transpired that the school had been reasonably pro-active in creating educational plans for both children and at attempting to implement report recommendations. However, the difficulties were arising when the children’s educational progress was being reported on in negative terms and when they felt they were being asked to keep up with their peers in certain areas where their diagnosis indicated that they would have difficulties.

Outcome

The Office made recommendations to the school regarding the possibility of adapting reporting templates to include sections that could relate a child’s progress to targets set in their education plans, rather than rating them against their peers.

The Office suggested that planning and reporting on a child with learning difficulties’ education should be as inclusive as possible, including liaising with parents. The Office also highlighted the need for positive reporting and feedback to children. The school responded positively to these recommendations. Although both children were no longer at the school, both sets of parents were happy with this outcome, and were content that other children in the future may not experience the difficulties their children experienced.

The complaint

A parent made a complaint about the difficulties she had experienced while trying to have her daughter’s new diagnosis of dyslexia included in her Individual Educational Plan (IEP). The process and engagement with the primary school took over six months and affected the relationship between the parent and the school to the extent that the parent felt it was necessary to remove her daughter and to have her educated at a different primary school.

OCO examination

During the examination of this complaint it became apparent that the Board of Management of the school and the Educational Psychologist from the National Educational Psychological Service (NEPS) had differing views on the role of the school in formulating IEPs for children with certain learning difficulties.

The NEPS Psychologist had written to the school to advise of their role. It appeared that the school were of the opinion, and had informed the parents, that it was NEPS’ role to put the IEP in place and to set targets for the child. NEPS clarified to the school that they may have a support role in this process, if requested, but that these roles were primarily for the class teacher, the Learning Support Teacher and should be done with input from parents, and the educational psychologist if required, as per the NCSE’s 2006 Guidelines on the Individual Education Plan Process.

Outcome

As a result of the Office’s intervention, the Board of Management agreed that they had responded to the complainant incorrectly with regard to the school’s function in the IEP formulation process for her child. The Board committed in future to include all relevant parties in the formulation of IEPs where appropriate. Although the child was no longer in the school and direct redress was not possible the Board committed to write to the complainant and clarify any previous misgivings it may have communicated to her regarding the school’s role in the process.

Complaint

The complaint was submitted to the Office by the parents on behalf of their 17 year old son. He was diagnosed with a learning disability and autism, and was attending a Special National School. He was due to leave the school when he turned 18 and transition to an Adult Day Service run by the HSE. However there was no placement available for him in an Adult Service. Although his school had informed the Department of Education and Skills (DES) that they were able to cater for him, as well as the new pupils who were enrolled within their current resources, the DES refused to allow him to stay in school for an extra year.

Examination

The Office intervened to ascertain why DES were refusing to allow him to stay in the school for an extra year, as there was no place for him in Adult Services and the school was willing and able to enrol him.

The DES responded, advising that they had reviewed the situation and had taken into account (1) the effort made by the school to facilitate a transition to adult services, (2) the difficulties they experienced and (3) the availability of a placement in adult services.

Outcome

In this case they permitted the complainant to stay in his school until a placement was sourced for him in an adult facility. The DES also pledged that it would take the same factors into consideration when considering future applications from schools in similar circumstances to retain pupils who are over 18 and do not have a place in adult services to transfer to.

Complaint

This Office received a complaint from a mother who raised concerns that her son’s application for Home Tuition was refused by the Department of Education and Skills (DES). This young person, aged 14, was diagnosed with a rare disorder. As a result of which he suffers from severe epileptic seizures, severe developmental problems and autistic spectrum presentation. In addition, the young person has poor communication skills and requires a lot of care as he is not toilet trained. The parent advised that her son’s seizures had become more severe and frequent in recent years. The parents withdrew their son from his most recent school due to difficulties the school had encountered regarding their son’s behaviour as a result of his condition. At the time of the complaint to this Office the young person did not have an educational placement.

Examination

This Office wrote to the DES to highlight concerns raised and to request their understanding in relation to this complaint. In this instance the DES refused the Home Tuition Grant under the medical category because the criteria stated ‘that he needed to be currently enrolled and attending a school in order to apply under this category’. However, the parent was of the view that it was not appropriate for her son to attend a school as his condition had deteriorated and a school environment was not suitable for him at that time. There was supporting correspondence from medical professionals in support of the young person Home Tuition application.

Outcome

As a result of this Office’s intervention the DES advised that they have reviewed the issue of eligibility criteria applicable to applicants for home tuition on medical grounds. If parents of applicant children can satisfy the DES that the child would be enrolled in a recognised school were it not for their medical condition, then it will not be essential that the child is on the roll of the school.

The DES contacted the parent with a view to considering any further applications of home tuition under the medical category of the scheme. As part of this the DES advised OCO that they may also consider the provision of retrospective funding for home tuition under the medical category