Children out of school or not getting a full-time education

R v East Sussex County Council, Ex p Tandy / In re T (A Minor) [1998] 2 WLR 884: The LA is under an absolute duty to provide suitable education for children of compulsory school age who are out of school due to illness, exclusion or another reason. An LA cannot take its own financial constraints into account when deciding what is an appropriate education for a child.  

G, R (on the application of) v Westminster City Council [2004] EWCA Civ 45: Whether it is reasonably possible for a child to attend any existing suitable education (such as their current school), or whether they need alternative education under section 19 Education Act 1996, must be looked at objectively, taking into account all the circumstances. 

R (R) v Kent County Council [2007] EWHC 2135 ELR 648: When a compulsory school age child is out of school and this is not because they are being home educated or due to illness or exclusion, the LA must arrange alternative education for them if it’s not reasonably possible for the child to take advantage of any existing suitable schooling. To work out whether this is the case the question is whether, objectively, the schooling/education offered by the LA “is available, is possible and is accessible to the child.” Additionally, parents should explore all reasonable opportunities and suggestions before making a claim against the LA for breaching this duty under section 19 Education Act 1996.

RD and GD v The Proprietor of Horizon Primary (Responsible Body) (SEN): [2020] UKUT 278 (AAC): Whether or not a part-time timetable is discriminatory will depend on whether it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim – the school needs to consider whether the disadvantages caused to the child by the part-time timetable outweigh or are disproportionate to the school’s aim. In this case, on balance, the part-time timetable was determined to be proportionate and therefore it was not discriminatory.

R (on the application of Y) v Croydon LBC [2015] EWHC 3033 (Admin); [2016] E.L.R. 138: The mother of a child with learning disabilities had been unable to get him to attend school despite significant efforts. The LA refused to change the school named in the Statement (now an EHC plan) or provide other alternative education. The LA was found to be in breach of its duty under section 19 Education Act 1996 to provide suitable education; as no further plan had been put forward, it was not reasonably practicable for the child to attend that school. 

R (LB) v Surrey County Council [2022] EWHC 772 (Admin): Where there is a duty under section 19 of the Education Act 1996 to provide alternative education, an LA must actually provide it and not merely attempt to provide alternative education. It is a duty which can be enforced by a mandatory order.