Father loses case against school that refused to take son with behavioural issues on school tour

A father has failed in his discrimination case against his son’s primary school over the school’s refusal to take his 11-year old son on a school tour.

The boy is diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD).

One day before the school tour was due to take place on June 7, 2018, the school's Board of Management (BOM) informed the boy’s parents by letter that it was in the boy’s best interest and in the interest of health and safety that he did not attend the school tour.

The letter stated: “We have experienced that changes to the boy’s school routine can be a trigger for unpredictable and aggressive behaviour and we feel that the school trip can be very challenging for him in this regard.”

The boy’s parents took a discrimination case concerning the school's decision under the Equal Status Act in relation to his disability and submitted that the school decision was to punish the boy for previous episodes of indiscipline which had been dealt with by the school.

The parents claimed that the school made its decision on the school tour without any proper investigation as to the feasibility of his attendance or without exploring the options of his attendance.

The parents also claimed that the school did not reasonably accommodate their son’s disability and it did not give him a right to reply to their decision.

In response, at the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC), the school gave a history of the boy’s behavioural issues.

The school said that the most recent incident took place in April 2018 when the boy - born in 2007 - hit a fellow pupil and stamped on his glasses.

The school stated that the boy was suspended due to “premeditated threatening and violent behaviour towards a classmate and destruction of this classmate’s property".

They added that the boy caught his classmate in a headlock from behind, punched him into the stomach and then into the face knocking off his glasses. He then stamped on his glasses and broke them.

The boy was suspended from school for three days which was extended to six days.

At the hearing, evidence was presented of the boy assaulting staff and fellow students due to his disability.

The school’s BOM held an emergency meeting on April 25, 2018, concerning the boy’s behaviour.

The minutes of the meeting state that “concern was raised about whether the Claimant should attend the summer school tour".

"It was generally agreed that the presence of this pupil on the trip could pose a health and safety risk to other pupils".

It said that the BOM has a duty of care to all pupils and staff.

The BOM met again on May 30, 2018, and a report by the school principal said that the boy’s teacher and his Special Needs Assistant (SNA) both felt that the boy “remains a flight risk and a behaviour risk especially with a change to his routine. They are not in favour of bringing the child on the school tour”.

After the letter issued on June 6, the school principal spoke with the boy’s father where the principal offered a trip to a local pet farm or play centre as an alternative to facilitate a school trip for the boy.

However, this was rejected by the parents as they felt that this “would compound his sense of ostracisation from his fellow pupils and his feeling that he was being treated differently to other pupils by the teachers”.

WRC Adjudication Officer, Marguerite Buckley found that on the facts of the case, the schoolboy had established a prima facie case in relation to discrimination on the disability ground and the failure to provide reasonable accommodation.

However, Ms Buckley stated that having reviewed the evidence she preferred the evidence of the school and found that it has rebutted the prima facie case.

She said that participating in the tour was not an agreed goal in the boy’s behavioural plan.

Ms Buckley found that the decision not to allow the boy to participate in the school tour "was reasonably necessary for his own health and safety and those around him".

She said: “I am conscious of the difficult circumstances each side found themselves in. However poor communication between the parties seems to have led to the situation.”