Case summary

The parents in this case appealed the contents of their child’s EHC plan. As part of its decision, the SEND Tribunal decided the child needed to be educated in ‘small groups’.

The parents then appealed the SEND Tribunal’s decision to the Upper Tribunal. They said the SEND Tribunal should have specified the teaching group size, not simply ‘small groups’. The parents did not have any evidence as to whether their child required a class of a specified size, but felt the SEND Tribunal had not been specific enough.

The Upper Tribunal said:

• In some cases, a particular minimum staff:pupil ratio is needed for effective teaching and class size itself is not the real issue - what matters is the number of staff available in the class.
• In other cases, class size may be the real issue. It gave the example of a child with sensory difficulties who might have difficulty coping with a larger class size, so that a smaller class would be an important factor in the child being able to learn effectively.

The Upper Tribunal said the SEND Tribunal had not made an error of law in this case as while teaching groups had to be small enough to allow effective delivery of the other provision within the plan, the size of the group should not be specified in the light of the child’s special educational needs.

What does this mean?

It may be necessary to specify staff:pupil ratio and/or class size where this is required to deliver the provision your child or young person needs.

Provision needs to be based on evidence. If you think that a particular class size or staff:pupil ratio is important (for example, in support of a request for a particular school), you should try to get evidence as to why this is required.

If you have such evidence, request that your local authority (or the SEND Tribunal, on appeal) specifies the size of the group by reference to a lower and upper range (such as ‘8-10 children’) in Section F of the EHC plan, not simply ‘small groups’, unless your child’s special educational needs mean it is in their best interests for the provision to be flexible.

The full case report for SB v Herefordshire County Council [2018] UKUT 141(AAC) is available online.

Please see our pages on what an EHC plan contains, what should be in the sections relating to education, and appealing to the SEND Tribunal for more information.