Case overview

This case concerned an autistic child who had been following a programme of education at home which was intended to prepare him for integration into school. This was initially funded by his parents, then by the local authority (LA). The LA then issued a statement of special educational needs (this would now be an EHC plan) naming a special school. The parents appealed for education otherwise than in a school (EOTIS, sometimes known as EOTAS).

In the end there were various appeals and the case ended up in the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal decided when considering education otherwise, it was not enough for the LA to simply ask  “can” the school make the special educational provision in the child’s statement (now EHC plan). The question to be asked is whether it would be “inappropriate” for the provision to be made in a school (this is the test for EOTIS now contained in section 61 of the Children and Families Act 2014 too).

What does this mean?

The Court of Appeal clarified how to approach whether provision in a school would be “inappropriate”, and therefore whether it should be provided via EOTIS.

It said that the LA has to consider if “a school would “not be suitable” or “would not be proper”.

In answering that question the LA has to take into account all the circumstances, which might include (but this isn’t an exhaustive list) the:

• child’s background and medical history
• particular educational needs of the child
• facilities that can be provided by a school
• facilities that could be provided other than in a school
• comparative cost of the possible alternatives to the child’s educational provisions
• child’s reaction to education provisions, either at a school or elsewhere
• parents’ wishes,
• and any other particular circumstances that apply to a particular child. 

The full report for TM v Hounslow [2009] EWCA Civ 859 is available online.

 

For more information see our page on home education and education otherwise.