The first hearing of the Special Educational Needs Tribunal took place last week with a case which, awkwardly, summed up fears that the new system will be legalistic, time-consuming and dominated by organised groups such as the dyslexia lobby.
Although the tribunal has released no details, it is known that the very first child concerned was dyslexic, that both sides used solicitors or barristers and that the hearing took twice as long as it was meant to. No ruling has yet been given on the appeal, which was made against Westminster education authority.
This is the first of 235 cases registered since September. The tribunal was established under the 1993 Education Act to provide an independent appeals system for parents and children dissatisfied with their statements of special educational need - the formal promises of help for children with disabilities.
Before last autumn, parents could only appeal to a local authority panel about statements, and only those written by the same authority.
The tribunal will convene panel hearings in different parts of the country. The next hearing takes place this week.
Jessica Saraga, secretary of the tribunal said that more than half the cases so far have been filed on behalf of children with specific learning difficulties (dyslexia).
More than half the appeals were against the contents of a statement. A quarter were against a council’s refusal to issue a statement; a fifth against a refusal to assess in the first place and less than 5 per cent against a decision not to maintain (continue paying for) a statement.
It had been feared that the new system would be overly formal with both sides using solicitors or barristers. The Government and the tribunal have attempted to stress the importance of solving disputes before they reach a legal airing.
The advocates of children with dyslexia have been particularly active in fighting for additional educational funds - through the courts if necessary. Special needs experts have reported little surprise that specific learning difficulties are the biggest single disability source of appeals.
Another issue is time. The tribunal is budgeting to spend only half a day on each case, an allocation which has attracted a degree of scepticism. The first case took all day.
Ms Saraga said that no clear pattern of appeals will emerge for some time and that the first hearing can in no way be taken as indicative. In fact, she said, the majority of LEAs have not so far wanted to employ barristers unless the parent is determined to appear with legal experts.
LEAs, she said, have been efficient at producing the necessary paperwork but not all councils have been informing parents of their right to appeal to the tribunal.
