News

Case Study

The names of the family have been changed

Situation: Robin and Sally Madigan, like most parents, are keen to sort out school arrangements for their two-year-old daughter, Natasha, who will be going to primary school in September 2007. Robin is a wheelchair user with impaired sight, while Sally is registered blind and has impaired hearing.
Problem: The Madigans live in a remote, rural part of a large county but they are close to a respected primary school, which is the only one for some miles. But it is also oversubscribed. Robin and Sally are not only keen for Natasha (who is able-bodied) to attend but want to play an active part in her education also. They feel that, because the school can be choosy, its unhelpful and negative attitudes and inaccessible buildings and communication are, in effect, excluding them. All school information is in written form (no Braille or large print is available) and, although Robin has some sight, it is deteriorating and it does sometimes fail completely. At a recent open day Robin  was partly excluded because the school is two-storey and has no lighting or colour contrasting. Also, parking outside the school by other interested parents obscured the dropped  kerbs so their car could not be parked nearby. Indeed, transport also seems a potential  problem - it is available for disabled children only, not the parents.


Panel Responses

Stuart Drabble
Because of the remote rural location, Natasha should already meet the school's criteria for accepting her placement as a local student.
Also, because of their disabilities, Robin and Sally are limited on transport, which could cause difficulties if Natasha were placed further away. The school should therefore give them special consideration. The Human Rights Act 1998 would suggest that Robin and Sally's "right to normal family life" would be compromised if Natasha were refused a place at her local school.

The school cannot legally discriminate against Natasha on the grounds of her parent's disabilities, as this would contravene the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. A social worker or voluntary sector advocate could support the family in challenging discrimination. Also under the act, the school has a responsibility to provide access and to make reasonable adjustments for parents visiting the school for parents' evenings, open days and so on. The school, as a public building, must provide parking and access for wheelchair users - and reasonable adjustments for people with sensory disabilities would not be costly or difficult to achieve.

To meet Robin and Sally's sensory needs, the school may need to take advice from a specialist social worker or rehabilitation officer. It would be possible for the school to provide a fixed loop system in meeting rooms and reception which would allow Sally to participate more effectively in meetings or discussions. A portable loop system could be provided if other areas of the school were to be used. Providing contrasting and suitable lighting for Robin and Sally's sight impairment needs could be achieved easily and inexpensively if advice was sought and the provision of a staff member on open evenings to guide or provide directions for the couple would be an effective way to meet their needs.

A huge challenge for people with sensory impairment is accessing information. The school has a clear legal responsibility to communicate with Robin and Sally in a way that includes them in decision-making about their daughter's future. The school should work in partnership with sensory specialists to find out what method of communication the couple prefer, and could use Braille, large print or taped messages.

Julie Heath
Derbyshire uses an outcomes-focused assessment framework developed with the social policy research unit at York University. This work is to be fed back to the Department of Health.

Outcomes are not services, needs or wants but are results, goals and achievements. This approach enshrines the social model of disability in practice, with explicit focus on access to desired outcomes rather than focus on individual functional impairment.

The benefits of the framework could be seen clearly in this case. Within an assessment of Robin and Sally's needs a worker would have considered issues regarding their autonomy, including access to their locality and wider environment and communication aids. Social participation is another field in the framework and would routinely address areas relating to support in parenting roles, advocacy, peer support and citizenship.

Together we look at what the service user wants to achieve in their life and their long-term goal. In this instance Robin and Sally wish to fully participate in making decisions about Natasha's education. Staff and service users negotiate which desired outcomes social services can assist with. Some of the outcomes may be outside our remit or the service user may not be eligible for support under the Fair Access to Care criteria. However, outcomes are still valid and are recorded within care plans.


Robin and Sally may feel they would benefit from involvement with peer support - a service provided here by the Derbyshire Centre for Integrated Living - as they may find that there are other disabled parents who are experiencing the same difficulties. As well as providing support the centre may also take on a "lobbying" role with the education department.

The experiences of the Madigan family could be shared with Derbyshire's disability partnership board; its membership includes representatives from social services, primary care teams and voluntary organisations, including groups working with people with a sensory impairment, the centre and carers. In line with the philosophy of the Social Services Inspectorate (now Commission for Social Care Inspection) report, Independence Matters, issues of importance to disabled people can be raised at the partnership board and dealt with corporately by the council's departments.

User View 
It's a pity that this situation needs to be dealt with immediately: the government has promised an extension to the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, to include public services such as education. When this comes into force, it could be argued that parents will be consumers of education services and will have a right to full access under the act, writes Simon Heng. 

Even so, part of each school's rigorous inspection processes should include an audit of its efforts at social inclusion and accessibility. If the school is accessible for disabled pupils, then it will be accessible for disabled parents. 

I wonder what the parents mean by the word "choosy". It would seem unlikely that candidates are chosen on the basis of class, needs or ability - it's more likely that, if the school were oversubscribed and needed to whittle down its applications, selection would be on the basis of proximity or whether the child had a sibling at the school. Perhaps the parents' first step should be to arrange to discuss the circumstances and the admissions policy with the head teacher and also what facilities the school offered for parents with special needs. 

The school's inaccessibility may be due to a lack of awareness rather than deliberate policy. Ditto  the "unhelpful and negative attitudes". It may be  that the school would welcome a chance to review  its facilities and policies by focusing on this  particular case. 

As a wheelchair-using parent, my experience has been positive. My children's schools have attempted to be as helpful as possible. A wheelchair-accessible room is set aside for meetings, a parking space reserved for my vehicle and someone is assigned to show me the most accessible route. My guess is that, if I had communication problems, materials would be produced in accessible formats on request. Some people may argue that facilities and communications should be universally accessible at all times, but we don't live in a perfect world (yet). 

Robin and Sally probably need another assessment of the help they require from social services. They may be entitled to extra help to get Natasha to and from school, or social services might negotiate for Natasha to have a place on the school bus. 

Although it is nearly three years before Natasha is due to start school, Robin and Sally are right to anticipate potential difficulties and attempt to resolve them before a solution is forced upon them. 

Simon Heng is a Community Care columnist  and a disabled service user