Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2009 15:24:23 GMT
Hi
Thought this may be of interest to some of the parents visiting the site.
A school was wrong not to make reasonable adjustments for a pupil excluded for disruptive behaviour linked to his ADHD, the High Court has ruled.
The parents of the pupil, who, for legal reasons is identified only as JT, then aged 8, took out a case against the school under the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) after he was excluded for scratching a teacher's arm while being removed from a classroom.
A Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal panel had found that excluding JT in this way constituted less favourable treatment, but that it was justified on health and safety grounds.
The Tribunal also found that the school had failed to make reasonable adjustments in relation to the exclusion and that the school should have taken preventative action by enlisting the support of a specialist team to train teachers in techniques to stop such situations escalating.
The school accepted that excluding JT was an inappropriate way to deal with a pupil with ADHD. But it appealed against the tribunal's decision on the grounds that the only relevant aspect of JT's condition was his tendency to physically abuse other people and that reasonable adjustments were not required because scratching is not defined as a disability under the DDA.
But the tribunal's decision was upheld in the High Court.
The Judge said that although the scratching incident did amount to a tendency towards physical abuse and that the specific incident was exempt from the DDA, JT's condition of ADHD was not exempt from protection.
John Wadham, Group Director Legal, at the EHRC, which funded the family’s successful defence in the High Court appeal, said that the judgement would clarify teachers' responsibilities towards disabled pupils.
He said: “This judgment sends a clear signal to schools that they must provide an appropriate teaching environment with the right support for children with special educational needs and to not wait until an incident has taken place before doing so."
Richard Rieser (pictured), a consultant on inclusive education and a member of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal panel but who was not involved with JT's case, welcomed the High Court ruling which he said gave an unequivocal position that children whose conditions can lead to behaviour problems are covered by the DDA.
But he added that the government needed to be more pro-active by training staff and disseminating information in schools on how to support such pupils.
John Wadham also added that the case had highlighted the need for clarification on what aspects of a disability are excluded by the DDA which the Commission would seek to clarify via the Government’s new Equality Bill.
www.disabilitynow.org.uk/latest-news2/high-court-adhd-ruling-welcomed
Honey x
Thought this may be of interest to some of the parents visiting the site.
A school was wrong not to make reasonable adjustments for a pupil excluded for disruptive behaviour linked to his ADHD, the High Court has ruled.
The parents of the pupil, who, for legal reasons is identified only as JT, then aged 8, took out a case against the school under the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) after he was excluded for scratching a teacher's arm while being removed from a classroom.
A Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal panel had found that excluding JT in this way constituted less favourable treatment, but that it was justified on health and safety grounds.
The Tribunal also found that the school had failed to make reasonable adjustments in relation to the exclusion and that the school should have taken preventative action by enlisting the support of a specialist team to train teachers in techniques to stop such situations escalating.
The school accepted that excluding JT was an inappropriate way to deal with a pupil with ADHD. But it appealed against the tribunal's decision on the grounds that the only relevant aspect of JT's condition was his tendency to physically abuse other people and that reasonable adjustments were not required because scratching is not defined as a disability under the DDA.
But the tribunal's decision was upheld in the High Court.
The Judge said that although the scratching incident did amount to a tendency towards physical abuse and that the specific incident was exempt from the DDA, JT's condition of ADHD was not exempt from protection.
John Wadham, Group Director Legal, at the EHRC, which funded the family’s successful defence in the High Court appeal, said that the judgement would clarify teachers' responsibilities towards disabled pupils.
He said: “This judgment sends a clear signal to schools that they must provide an appropriate teaching environment with the right support for children with special educational needs and to not wait until an incident has taken place before doing so."
Richard Rieser (pictured), a consultant on inclusive education and a member of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal panel but who was not involved with JT's case, welcomed the High Court ruling which he said gave an unequivocal position that children whose conditions can lead to behaviour problems are covered by the DDA.
But he added that the government needed to be more pro-active by training staff and disseminating information in schools on how to support such pupils.
John Wadham also added that the case had highlighted the need for clarification on what aspects of a disability are excluded by the DDA which the Commission would seek to clarify via the Government’s new Equality Bill.
www.disabilitynow.org.uk/latest-news2/high-court-adhd-ruling-welcomed
Honey x