Case update – Education

Damien Welfare

2-3 Gray’s Inn Square

Human Rights

• Ali v Head and Govs of Lord Grey School [2006] UKHL 14.

• Whether Article 2 of Protocol 1, ECHR (right not to be denied education) gave guaranteed right to education in particular school, or not to be denied access to general level of education provision available in a state.

Ali (cont)

• HL allowed appeal by school

• Exclusion was breach of domestic law

• Guarantee in Article 2 was deliberately weak

Human Rights (cont)

• R (Begum) v Head and Govs of Denbigh High School, 2006 ELR 273, HL.

• Whether right to freedom of religion (Article 9(1), ECHR) violated by school uniform policy which prevented wearing of shalwar kameeze (exposing only hands and face).

• No interference with freedom of religion. School had been chosen outside catchment area, and went to unusual lengths to inform parents of uniform policy

Begum (cont)

• Necessary to consider proportionality of schools’ interference with SB’s right to manifest belief by dress.

• School fully justified

• If school had infringed, would have been justified under Article 9(2)

• No violation of right to education (Lord Grey school case)

School attendance

• LB Bromley v C [2006] EWHC 1110 (Admin):

• record of attendance is starting point only. Mags should take account of parents’ explanations

• Taking of unauthorised holiday without leave not “justified” under s 444(1), EA 1996. “Leave” meant granted by school, not “justified” in view of Mags

Bromley (cont)

• Question whether LEA had a continuing duty to make arrangements for transport where parent moved house through lack of choice did not arise.

Negligence

• Skipper v Calderdale MBC [2006] EWCA Civ 238 CA.

• Failure to identify dyslexia. Failure to take steps to ameliorate, or mitigate consequences. Claim for damages struck out.

• Appeal allowed. If could show disability had real effect on ability to cope with school or work, loss of amenity could sound in damages.

• Claim with limited prospect of success could not be struck out.

Disability Discrimination Act

• Lawrence v Cambridge CC, 2006 ELR 343

• Younger son with cerebral palsy; taken with older child to school in double buggy. Claimed discrimination because refused entry to school in pushchair

• Argued should be reclassified as wheelchair from age 2.

Lawrence (cont)

• Later allowed to take folded buggy into reception area for 10 mins at a time

• Access not different to another child

• Reasonable to regard as wheelchair from age 2

• No violation of s 21, DDA, in allowing folded pushchair in reception for 10 mins.

Special Needs

• W v LB Lewisham [2006] EWHC 1853 (Admin). Where contending professional viewpoints, Tribunal gave sufficient reasons by relaying on evidence of one side as to sufficiency of provision, given track record of dealing with similar needs.

Special Needs (cont)

• F v LB Croydon [2006] All ER (D) 137 (Aug). Pupil suffered Autism and Aspergers. Statement named B school. Parents appealed, seeking C school, on basis that B school was for emotional and behavioural disorders. Tribunal not told that B school not registered with National Autistic Society: held material fact. Realistic possibility of different decision. Appeal allowed.

Special Needs (cont)

• LB Havering v SENDIS Tribunal [2006] EWHC 2344 (QBD Admin). Tribunal decision quashed where no evidence heard from either LEA involved after they missed deadline for Statement of Case. No evidence to displace statutory presumption in favour of parental preference.

Education otherwise

• R (on application of O) v LB Brent – CA – 12th April 2006. Exclusion following violence. Background of bullying of pupil. LEA recommended PRU. Claimant and parents visited, and considered it unsuitable. Claimed LEA failing to comply with duty (s 19, EA 1996) to provide suitable education because too rigid. Dismissed.

School organisation

• P v Schools Adjudicator [2006] EWHC 1934 (QBD). JR of Adjudicator’s decision re governing body proposal to discontinue school in expectation of Academy. Dismissed:

• 1) Adjudicator has no power to to insist on particular terms in funding agreement: may only approve specified event by a date (eg making of agreement)

P v Schools Adjudicator (cont)

• 2) question for Adjudicator was not whether arrangements were different to maintained sector. Entitled to conclude that standards would be protected.

• 3) Obligation to give reasons did not require point by point analysis. The issues, test, decision and matters relied on were plain.

Local Ombudsman

• R (on application of M) v Commissioner for Local Administration in England [2006] All ER (D) 375 (Oct). Commissioner has no jurisdiction to consider complaint concerning LEA’s complaints procedure, where subject matter [conduct] is outside his jurisdiction.

• Exclusions: instruction, conduct, curriculum, internal organisation, management, discipline (paragraph 5, Schedule 5, LGA 1974)