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.

Posted in: Investigations Education