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.

Posted in: Investigations Education