Appropriate education was introduced to prevent students from sitting at home as much as possible. But in my practice I regularly encounter parents who do not agree with an admission decision. They want to prevent their child from going to special education. Often they think their child will be worse off there than in regular education. However, if things are no longer going well at the regular school, sometimes the undesirable situation arises where a student sits at home and receives no education.
Such a situation was at issue in the ruling on a June 22, 2017 opinion of the National Objection Advisory Committee on Admissions (LBT - 107676). The six-year-old pupil has been sitting at home since April 1, 2017. His parents disagree with the issued tlv for special education.
The student entered from another school with a support arrangement. At the new school the support was continued, extended and expanded. After less than a year, the school concludes that it is not able to act and applies for a special dispensation. This tlv is granted by the partnership. The school then makes a proposed removal decision.
Parents do not agree and ask the preliminary injunction judge to suspend the AOC and the intention to expel. The judge rejected both claims. The reasons for this are not clear from the advice of the LBT, but it is possible that the judge took into account that the provisional provision for special education only gives parents the opportunity to register their child for special education and in no way obliges them to do so. In addition, the court may have ruled that the provisional provision had been carefully issued.
Parents do not resign themselves to judge's ruling and object
Parents claim that their son's support needs have not been properly investigated and that they have wrongly not worked with an PPP. Neither have they investigated whether another school for regular education could meet their son's needs. Parents find it careless that the partnership did not want to wait for the results of the process diagnostics. This investigated the cause of their son's behavior. The outcome is now known. The expert judges that their son does not have a developmental disorder and is extremely learnable.
The partnership emphasizes that the school worked with a growth document. The student's support needs were determined based on extensive observations. A small group with as much individual support as possible was necessary for the student. In the school, the group grew so that it could no longer provide the support that was needed and acted inadequately.
The LBT advises the partnership to maintain the tlvv and declare the parents' objection unfounded
The partnership has done sufficient research into the support needs. The documents in the file sufficiently support this opinion. The school did not proceed too quickly to apply for the provisional residence permit. The support provided did not yield sufficient improvement. In addition, the safety of other pupils and teachers was at stake.
In short, the tlv is upheld and the removal is continued. After all, another suitable school has been found that is willing to admit the student. This will most likely lead to a new home sitter in this case. Parents do not want to register their son for special education.
Although from a formal point of view I can follow the advice of the LBT that the provisional residence permit was rightly issued, I cannot see from it whether a real solution has also been sought. Can the partnership not be expected to make more of an effort?
