Careful own research

Sometimes a school seriously questions whether the team can provide appropriate education for a student. In that case, it must first determine what support the student needs. Then the school should investigate whether it can provide the extra support itself, in the form of effective adjustments with or without additional funding or arrangements. In recent rulings by the Disputes Committee for Appropriate Education, that investigation of the school's capabilities is very important.

The main rule here is that the school is obliged to make effective adjustments, unless these constitute a disproportionate burden. Last month, the Disputes Committee for Appropriate Education (hereinafter: the Committee) issued a number of rulings regarding this obligation to investigate. The rulings make clear what obligations a school has when it comes to determining its ability to provide extra support.

Verdict 1: Research beyond school recommendation

In the first ruling, a regular VO school rejected a student with ADHD, referring to the elementary school's school recommendation. The elementary school advised secondary special education: VMBO-kader

within cluster.

However, the pupil's mother reported him to a regular secondary school. The school rejected the pupil, claiming it could not meet the pupil's additional support needs. The school had investigated this by having the student, without additional support, participate in a trial week.

Verdict 2: Research in addition to application letter

In criminal law, the "one witness is not a witness" rule applies. In this ruling, the Commission seems to have reached a similar conclusion. Namely, the Commission ruled that the refusal to admit a pupil to the regular school cannot be based on the school recommendation alone. In addition, an investigation must be conducted into whether the school can meet the student's additional support needs. The school, according to the Commission, had not sufficiently investigated whether the pupil, with additional support from the school and the partnership, could be admitted.

In this regard, the Commission considered it important that the school had more often accommodated a student with ADHD and had repeatedly informed the student's mother that the student could cope with regular education.

The school's "trial week examination" was not considered an adequate method by the Commission. After all, the school was aware from the time of application that the student had additional support needs. For this reason, it did not make sense to have him participate in a trial week, where no form of extra support was provided and where teachers had not been informed of his background. In fact, the student was sent home with an argument as a result.
Verdict 2: Research in addition to the application letter
In a second ruling, parents registered their two children at an elementary school due to a move. In the application letter, the parents indicated that both children needed support due to dyslexia, dyspraxia and ADD. The elementary school had no space at that time and placed the children on a waiting list. After the students on the waiting list had their turn, the school reported that they could not be placed at the school.

The Commission ruled that the school was entitled to infer from the information provided at the time of application that both pupils needed support. However, this was insufficient reason to reject the pupils. What support should be given still needed further assessment. Moreover, it had to be considered whether the support should be given from basic support or extra support.

The school concluded that both students needed mild and/or intensive support. It was unclear to the Commission on what basis the school had come to this conclusion. Indeed, it was not apparent that the school had discussed the children's support needs with the parents. According to the Commission, the school should have done more of its own research. The school further pointed out during the proceedings that only a limited number of pupils with intensive support were admitted to the school and that it had no capacity to admit two more pupils in need of support. This numerical approach, according to the Committee, does not do sufficient justice to the support needs of pupils. The individual support needs had to be the starting point. Therefore, this cannot be an argument in the procedure.

Excerpt 3:

Examination alongside the offer of another school In the third ruling, a regular elementary school gave the advice vmbo basisberoepsgerichte leerweg with leerwegondersteuning to a pupil. The vmbo school where the student was enrolled then refused to admit the student because it believed it could not provide the intensive guidance the student needed in regular classes.

According to the Commission, the school was entitled to infer from the information provided at the time of application that the student needed support. However, as in ruling 2, the school could not determine the type of support and the extent to which the student needed that support at that time. The school should have determined the student's precise support needs. Moreover, what the school stated did not correspond to the educational report, among other things. According to the Committee, it would therefore have been logical for the school to conduct its own investigation.

During the processing of the student's application, there was an offer from another school to admit the student. The Commission ruled that it could not be assessed whether this offer was appropriate. To this end, there had been insufficient investigation into whether the school of application could meet the additional support needs. Therefore, the other school's offer did not relieve the school of notification of its duty of care.

Consultation obligation

According to the Commission, the schools in all the aforementioned decisions had not consulted the parents sufficiently after the refusal. The admission of a pupil in need of additional support may, according to the Commission, only be refused after the school has ensured that another school is willing to admit the pupil. This should be done in and after consultation with the parents and taking into account the support needs of the pupil and the school support profiles of the schools involved. In the consultation with the parents, the school should discuss which schools should be considered, also in light of the wishes of the parents with regard to, for example, the distance between home and school.

Conclusion: careful own research is important!

The above rulings demonstrate the importance of a careful own investigation in which multiple documents and interviews form the basis for the reasoned enrollment or rejection of a student. The Commission strictly enforces this obligation. A school is well advised to look at what (specific) support a student needs in addition to the advice of an elementary school and the parents' application letter. The method of investigation should also be well thought out, using the information the school already has. Importantly, any offer from another school does not relieve the registering school of its obligation.

Moreover, we see reflected in the judgments that even after rejection, the school has not fulfilled its duty of care. The school has not fulfilled its duty of care until another school has been found willing to admit the students. It is also its duty to consult with the parent(s) and discuss other schools that may be considered.

1 Ruling 106975 dated September 28, 2015.

2 Ruling 106841 dated September 22, 2015.

3 Ruling 106975 dated September 28, 2015.