A JERSEY school placed a disabled pupil at a “substantial disadvantage” by failing to provide appropriate homework and assistive technology, a tribunal has ruled.
The Employment and Discrimination Tribunal upheld claims against the Education Minister – who has statutory responsibility for education and is answerable for the conduct of the school – for failing to make reasonable adjustments, and for discrimination arising from disability in relation to a specific missed learning opportunity.
The case was brought by a parent on behalf of a secondary-school child with a recognised disability and additional needs. All other claims were dismissed.
The tribunal accepted the child required, among other things, a differentiated curriculum, repetition and over-learning, staff training and the use of technology to support access to lessons.
A central finding was that the school did not take reasonable steps to ensure the pupil could access learning materials visually and independently.
At primary school, the child had used an iPad that was linked to teachers’ boards, allowing work to be enlarged and revisited. But when they moved to secondary school, different systems were used.
The tribunal found there was no evidence that workable alternatives were properly implemented, or that the child was shown how to use available devices in a way that met their needs.
It concluded that the child was therefore placed at a “substantial disadvantage” compared to their classmates, and that the school’s duty to make reasonable adjustments had not been met.
The tribunal also found that the school failed to provide regular, suitably differentiated homework for the child, with only a small number of homework tasks provided over an extended period.
In delivering its findings, the tribunal said: “The lack of differentiated homework put [the child] at a disadvantage to their peers as [the child] was not given the same opportunity to consolidate learning and reinforce key concepts at home.”
It was not satisfied that the school had ensured the child was given the same opportunity as peers to reinforce learning at home, and ruled that this also amounted to a failure to make reasonable adjustments.
The tribunal also upheld a claim of discrimination arising from disability linked to a single incident.
On one day when a riding session was cancelled, the pupil spent the afternoon watching videos of horses rather than accessing alternative structured learning.
The child became distressed and missed lessons they would otherwise have attended.
The tribunal found that “this amounted to unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of [the child’s] disability”.
The majority of the remaining allegations – including claims relating to timetabling, withdrawal from some mainstream lessons, and staff training – were dismissed.
The tribunal accepted evidence that staff were often acting in what they believed to be the child’s best interests, and stressed that not every disagreement about educational approach amounts to discrimination.
Claims of direct discrimination against individual staff members were rejected, but the school accepted that it “could have done better” in some matters including communication with parents and the handling of certain incidents.
The tribunal added: “In the future, rather than seeking to attribute blame, we hope [the parent and the school] can, for the benefit of [the child], listen to and take on board each other’s views, work together and, when appropriate, agree a compromise on the best way to proceed.”
In October, an independent review of the Island’s education provision for children with special needs concluded that “the current leadership, organisation, systems, strategies, oversight and accountability arrangements are not sufficiently effective”.
The review also found “inconsistencies in experiences and outcomes”, “insufficient transparency” over funding, an “absence of coherent and coordinated strategy”, and a “lack of clear leadership and management, coupled with changes in priorities at the highest level, [which] have resulted in an enduring sense of turbulence and uncertainty.
In response, the government, as part of Jersey’s first neuroinclusive strategy, pledged to cut the “exclusion rate” for children with conditions such as ADHD and autism after an independent review found that some pupils who simply struggle to “fit in” are still being moved out of mainstream classrooms.
Thee strategy is part of a three-year plan to improve support for neurodivergent Islanders.
