School must pay €12k for excluding pupil with Down syndrome from classroom
Boal/rollingnews Ie Picture: School Disability The Have Of Discriminated Sam Pupil Grounds Was To Against The The On Found
A primary school has been ordered to pay €12,000 compensation to the family of a child with Down syndrome who was excluded from class and made to sit in the foyer for most of the school day with a special needs assistant.
The school, which has not been named to protect the identity of the child, was found to have discriminated against the pupil on the grounds of disability under the Equal Status Act by the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC).
The WRC also found that the school breached its obligation to the child by curtailing her opportunity to fully access and participate in education.
The child had been timetabled to spend the majority of her day sitting outside of class in the foyer where her workstation was set up. Her special needs assistant (SNA) essentially became her primary teacher, the WRC heard.
The school said that the foyer was a comfortable space, warm and bright and allowed the child to be vocal and move without disturbing the class.
The school said it had to balance the needs of the rest of the children in the class with the needs of this child, who they said could be disruptive.
But WRC adjudicator Thomas O’Driscoll said that the school's "unprecedented actions" of excluding the child from class, keeping her separate from all other children out in the foyer "foreseeably re-enforced the idea to the other children, and alarmingly for her sister who was in the same school, that it might be normal to exclude children with special needs".
This should never have been the case, he said.
The little girl entered junior infants in September 2016 and was taken out of the school by her parents in April 2019, in first class. The complaint under the Equal Status Act 2000-2015 was submitted on behalf of the child by her mother.
Multiple experts, familiar with the child’s situation, had advised the school of the perils of exclusion, the WRC heard.
An education officer with Down Syndrome Ireland said that the school refused an offer of help, saying there were adequate supports in the school.
Mr O'Driscoll noted that it was "an unfortunate case" and accepted, in the main, that the school was not resourced as fully as it should have been. "But nevertheless I found that there were aggravating factors," he said.
"I am satisfied that the complainant could have been reasonably accommodated by a workstation in the classroom and only to be withdrawn when she was tired or significantly disruptive. This measure would have been cost neutral," Mr O'Driscoll said.
"The failure of the respondent (school) to do so leads me to no other conclusion but that the complainant’s [child's] prima facie case of discriminatory treatment on the grounds of disability was not adequately rebutted by the Respondent. I am satisfied, therefore, that the respondent discriminated... on the grounds of disability.
"Furthermore, I find that the respondent breached its obligation to the complainant by curtailing her opportunity to fully access and participate in education.
"I accept that the school could have been more resourced with SNA teachers and also the realistic contention that perfect solutions were difficult to attain. This is a legitimate position to hold, and I accept that the school faced a challenge in seeking some equilibrium between what may be perceived as conflicting needs.
"However, the fact of the matter is that the evidence suggest that the school came up considerably short in meeting its obligations under the Act and the balance was significantly skewed away from the needs of the complainant."
"Undoubtedly, the complainant’s behaviour was challenging for the staff, as they described it but instead of seeing the 'challenge' as how best to deliver and meet the educational needs of all in their charge they attributed the problem to the complainant. Their solution was to remove her from the situation."