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.

Posted in: Investigations Education