The High Court found that a nine-year-old boy was not receiving an appropriate education at his school as of November 2021, and declared that the Minister for Education acted contrary to the Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs Act 2004 and the department’s own policy by adopting a policy not to consider new Specific Learning Disability (SLD) classes at all.
Mr Justice Barr’s judgment concerns a judicial review brought by the boy and his mother after the National Council for Special Education (NCSE) withdrew approval for an SLD class at his school. The NCSE had sanctioned the class in April 2021, then said the following month that approval had been given in error. The Minister’s policy was to support pupils with additional learning needs in mainstream classes through special education teaching support.
The boy had been diagnosed with severe dyslexia. An educational psychologist recommended that he attend a reading unit, citing the severity of his literacy difficulties and lack of progress. In November 2021, the school’s principal and deputy principal said the school could not provide the intensive support, small group setting and daily expert tuition described in the psychologist’s reports.
The Minister’s position was that the school could meet the boy’s needs through additional teaching support. The respondents also argued that the inclusive education model was a reasonable policy and that the court should not intervene in education policy. They disputed that the boy was entitled to an SLD placement and opposed the applicants’ separate claims that the model had to be introduced by regulation and that the initial approval created a legitimate expectation.
The court upheld the general inclusive education model and rejected the challenge to its introduction by circulars. It also rejected the legitimate expectation claim, finding that approval had been issued in error and corrected promptly, and that the applicants had not relied on it to their detriment.
However, the judge found that the Minister had countermanded the proposed class without assessing whether it was needed. The evidence indicated a strict policy against funding any new SLD classes, despite the model allowing special classes or schools where mainstream provision is not appropriate. The court declared that a policy not to consider any new SLD classes was contrary to the 2004 Act and the new model.
The court also declared that the boy’s educational needs were not being met under the support available at the school as of November 2021. It did not make a final order. The school had been granted 15 additional special education teacher hours temporarily, and an inspection and review of its allocation were pending. The respondents were directed to liaise with the school after the review, and the school was to tell the applicants how it would use any allocated hours. The case was listed for mention on 20 July 2022; if the parties disputed whether the revised supports would meet the boy’s needs, the court said it would hear oral evidence.