A PARENT’S fight against what they argue is “structural” discrimination at a Jersey school has reached the Royal Court.
An Employment and Discrimination Tribunal held last year heard about bungled special needs education provision at the school and found in the parent’s favour on several points.
The tribunal found there were three acts of discrimination and awarded the parent £9,750 in compensation. It dismissed four more claims and found there was no discrimination in three more situations.
The child was discriminated against when they were taken out of lessons to attend a riding lesson but, when the lesson was cancelled, the child was shown a video about horses.
The child, the tribunal heard “had been upset while watching the video and… the reason [the child] gave for this was because [the child] felt excluded knowing [the child] was watching a video instead of attending a lesson with their peers”.
The Education Minister was liable for a second act of discrimination when the school failed to tell the child they could use a laptop. The school’s 1-to-1 support worker also could have shown the child how to use it but his was not done.
The minister was also at fault for not providing enough differentiated homework for the child, the tribunal decided last year.
Now, the child’s parent has appealed to the Royal Court about the tribunal’s decision to dismiss the remaining four discrimination claims. It is the first appeal of its kind, the JEP understands.
The parent, who cannot be named so as not to identify the child, appeared in the Royal Court this month claiming that the child was at a “structural disadvantage” because staff were not trained to deal with the child’s specific disability.
The parent said the disability entailed “a huge range” of needs which are different for each child and outlined specific adjustments made – but argued that the child was needlessly being pulled out of classes.
They recounted the child being given activities like “mindful colouring” and watching dance videos on an iPad, adding: “That’s not what [they are] at school for. [They are] at school to get an education.”
Advocate Steven Meiklejohn, representing the Education Minister and Chief Minister, said: “The appellant’s case is that if staff are not specifically trained in [the disability], there must be structural disadvantage. That’s simply not the law.”
He argued that the child had not been placed at a “substantial” disadvantage.
He said the tribunal’s findings had not been perverse and that it did not have to refer to every piece of evidence in its judgment.
Commissioner Alan Binnington, presiding, reserved his judgment.
