Michael Catchpole and Another v Buckinghamshire County Council and Another
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | MR JUSTICE LAWS |
| Judgment Date | 20 May 1998 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1998] EWCA Civ J0520-3 |
| Docket Number | CO/4230/97 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 20 May 1998 |
[1998] EWCA Civ J0520-3
Mr Justice Laws
CO/4230/97
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
(CROWN OFFICE LIST)
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2
MR N BOWEN (instructed by Teacher Stern Selby, London WC1R 4JH) appeared on behalf of the Appellants.
MR P OLDHAM (instructed by Head of Legal Services, Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire HP20 1UA) appeared on behalf of the First Respondent.
THE SECOND RESPONDENT did not appear and was unrepresented.
Wednesday, 20th May 1998.
This is a statutory appeal brought under the provisions of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992, against a decision of the Special Educational Needs Tribunal given on 3rd November 1997. It concerns a child, Nicholas, who is the subject of a statutory statement maintained under Part IV of the Education Act 1996 by the first Respondent to this appeal, the Buckinghamshire County Council. Nicholas parents appealed against the contents of the statement under section 326 of the Education Act 1996. Part IV of the statement had named a school called Wye Valley School as being appropriate for Nicholas. The parents desired that to be amended to name Stanbridge Earls School, which is an independent school.
The relevant facts are stated in the Tribunal's decision, where their findings which gives rise to the point of law argued on this appeal are also, of course, set out. It is convenient to read, in effect, the whole of the decision:
"Facts
1. Nicholas, who is now aged fifteen, has specific learning difficulties. Nicholas's potential falls within the low average range. In tests administered at a chronological age of fourteen years and seven months Nicholas achieved a reading age of only 7 years and six months, a spelling age of 7 years and nine months and a reading comprehension age of 9 years. There appears to be no reason why Nicholas should not be able to read and write and spell efficiently. The LEA first issued a statement of special educational needs "for Nicholas on 13th April 1991. Nicholas's present statement was issued on 14th March 1997. Mr and Mrs Catchpole asked us to consider the contents of part 3 of the statement, on the basis that the provisions specified is inadequate, and the school named in Part 4 of the statement, on the basis that the school is unsuitable.
2. Nicholas attended mainstream school until September 1993 when Mr and Mrs Catchpole placed him at Nanhurst School, an independent, residential special school. Nicholas remained at Nanhurst School until July 1997. Nicholas now attends Stanbridge Earls School, an independent school and Mr and Mrs Catchpole would prefer him to remain at that school. The LEA has named Wye Valley School, in a specialist unit for children with specific learning difficulties as a suitable placement for Nicholas.
3. Mr and Mrs Catchpole also asked the Tribunal to consider three specific amendments to Part 3 of Nicholas's statement. The LEA agreed the first two amendments relating to the detail of the provision to be made available for Nicholas. Mrs Darnell was able to tell us that the LEA were in a position to supply the provision set out by these amendments and would intend to do so regardless of which school Nicholas attends. The third proposed amendment concerning the question of Nicholas's self esteem was directly connected to the question of whether Nicholas should attend Wye Valley school or Stanbridge Earls School and could not be agreed. We were able to hear evidence from Mrs Catchpole about Nicholas's behaviour when he was placed in a mainstream school and his perception of himself. Mrs Catchpole told us that she considered it very important that Nicholas did not see himself as different to other children. She pointed out that it was inevitable that Nicholas would be withdrawn from a number of lessons in a mainstream environment and that he would require assistance in others. This would set him apart from the other children and adversely affect his self-esteem. Ms Williams and Mrs Darnell were able to tell us that Wye Valley School had experience of this problem dating back to before 1981. The school would be in a position to address this problem in a sensitive fashion.
4. We were able to hear in some detail about the provision available at Wye Valley school. The school has a total of about 470 children. The unit for children with specific learning "difficulties has a staff of two full time teachers and a specialist welfare assistant. Twenty-four children attend the unit. The LEA would intend to provide a total of twenty hours assistance from a welfare assistant for Nicholas each week. The school has experience educating children with specific learning difficulties and has the appropriate material to ensure that when the children from the unit are being taught in a mainstream class they are able to understand and participate in the lesson.
5. They were also able to hear in some detail about the provision available at Stanbridge Earls School. This school has a total of approximately 190 pupils. Teaching takes place in small groups of 6-8 and the school also has an accelerated learning unit where one-to-one tuition takes place. Nicholas has now attended Stanbridge Earls School for some five weeks and appears to have settled in well at the school. Nicholas has said that he is happy at this school.
Tribunal's Decision, with reasons
(a) we were pleased that the parties were able to reach agreement in relation to the first two amendments proposed to Part 3 of Nicholas's statement. We agree that the amendments are appropriate.
(b) Nicholas has specific learning difficulties. His abilities are around the average range. We were concerned that the lack of progress that Nicholas achieved while he was placed at his previous school. Nicholas attended Nanhurst School, an independent residential school, from September 1993 to July 1997. During this period his reading age, for example, has not significantly improved. We accepted the evidence that Nicholas's difficulties are of an atypical nature.
(c) We considered whether Wye Valley School was able to meet Nicholas's needs. We agreed with the conclusion of Mr Rabinowicz (report dated 30th April 1997) that Nicholas is not responding to standard dyslexic teaching methods. We also agreed that Nicholas required a more 'specialised, specialist and concentrated approach' than that he has previously experienced. We were not convinced that Nicholas has an educational need for a residential school. We listened carefully to the evidence from Mrs Williams and Mrs Darnell about the provision that is available at Wye Valley "School and the expertise of the staff within the specialist unit at the school. We were satisfied that the recommendations made by Mr Rabinowicz could be provided in a specialist unit of a mainstream school. We noted that Nicholas would wish to attend college for further study after taking his GCSE examinations. We considered that in the light of the evidence we had heard about Wye Valley School that school is able to meet Nicholas's needs.
(d) We also considered the provision available at Stanbridge Earls School. We agreed that that school may also be able to meet Nicholas's academic needs although we had reservations about the placement of Nicholas in a residential school particularly bearing in mind his wish to attend college in the future. We also considered the expenditure required to educate Nicholas at both Wye Valley School and Stanbridge Earls School. We reached the conclusion that the difference was not material to our considerations.
(e) We carefully considered the submission of Mr Bibby that in accordance with section 9 of the Education Act 1996 Mr and Mrs Catchpole's preference for Stanbridge Earl's School should prevail in the absence of material financial considerations. We agree that this section of the Education Act 1996 sets out a general principle that local education authorities shall have regard to the wishes of parents so far as those wishes are compatible with the provision of efficient instruction and training and the avoidance of unreasonable public expenditure. We considered that this section is qualified by the contents of Schedule 27, paragraph 3 of the Education Act 1996 which is head 'choice of school' and deals specifically with the naming of a school in a statement of special educational needs. Schedule 27 clearly limits the issue of parental preference to maintained, grant-maintained or grant-maintained special schools. We were not convinced that merely because a school is capable of meeting a child's needs the placement of the child at that school is also necessarily compatible with the provision of efficient instruction and training.
(f) We therefore considered the issue of the school Nicholas should attend on the basis of which school we considered to be appropriate for his needs. We considered carefully the evidence from Nicholas's parents about his fears of mainstream education and his preference for Stanbridge Earls "School. We also considered the evidence of Mrs Williams from the LEA who told us that in her view Nicholas needed to be educated within his own community rather than isolated and secluded in a residential environment. We accepted the evidence from Mr and Mrs Catchpole that Wye Valley School is some fifteen miles distant from their home. We were impressed by the evidence we heard from the LEA about the arrangements Wye Valley School is able to make to assist pupils from the unit to enter further education. We were also impressed by the expertise of Wye Valley School in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
CM HS 169 2011
...I return to them below, after consideration of the status and relevance of other authorities. 38. In C v Buckinghamshire County Council [1999] ELR 179, the local authority wanted a maintained school to be named, the parents an independent school. Thus the situation was not on all fours with......
-
Haining v Warrington Borough Council HS 1444 2013
...Sedley LJ analysed the Schedule 27 provisions in his judgment in the Court of Appeal in Catchpole v Buckinghamshire County Council [1999] LGR 321, where all the relevant legislation is set out. In his judgment section 9 applies to all statutory functions under the Education Act 1996 but Sch......
-
K HS 2846 2010
...provisions was best expressed by Sedley LJ in C v Buckinghamshire County Council and Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal [1999] ELR 179, when he said: “The global effect…is that in special educational needs cases a duly expressed parental preference for a state-sector school i......
-
MW S 2292 2009
...a correct understanding of the term “appropriate” may be derived from the observations of Thorpe LJ in C v Buckinghamshire County Council [1999] ELR 179 at 189: “…[I]t is clear from section 324(4)(a) of the Education Act 1996 that the LEA has a duty to ensure that a child with special educa......