The council has agreed to pay compensation to a mother whose daughter did not receive English tuition for six months as required in her education, health and care plan (ECHP).
A tutoring service was commissioned by the council to provide a qualified English tutor for the teenager identified in the decision as “C” before she her GCSE exams last summer.
It didn’t – and the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman found the tutoring service and Brighton and Hove City Council both “at fault”.
The ombudsman said: “When a council commissions another organisation to provide services on its behalf it remains responsible for those services and for the actions of the organisation providing them.
The council had even asked the tutoring service to find a new tutor during the relevant period – from October 2022 to last April.
The girl’s plan required five hours of weekly English and maths tutoring from June 2022 but by October the mother, “Ms X”, told the council that her daughter had missed two English lessons because the teacher had cancelled.
The council’s casework officer contacted the tutoring service and was told that the teacher was unwell so a new tutor was sought.
Ms X told the ombudsman that her child’s previous school had offered English tuition but this was inappropriate because her daughter could not attend and the sessions were cancelled.
In November 2022, a new English teacher was appointed but did not have qualified teacher status or a special educational needs qualification.
Lessons were again cancelled due to tutor sickness in December and January and a third tutor was found in April, six weeks before the girl took her GCSEs.
The ombudsman’s report said: “Ms X said she told the council about the tutors missing sessions on several occasions.
“She said she felt the council lacked concern or curiosity and abdicated responsibility for the issue.
“Ms X complained to the council in early May 2023. It (the council) issued a stage one response in the middle of May and a stage two response in the middle of June.
“The council said it had raised the issues with the managing director of the tutoring service who confirmed the previous teacher was no longer working for the company and a new tutor had started working with C.
“It said the tutoring service had taken a more rigorous approach to staff accountability and was investing in recruitment.
“It apologised for the poor service Ms X and C had received and was confident the changes made by the tutoring service would improve the situation in the future. It assured Ms X it would monitor the situation.”
During the six-months when the girl received no English tuition, the council increased her maths provision.
The ombudsman’s report added: “The council explained to Ms X that it commissions the tutoring service because it uses qualified teachers with experience in SEN and has a record of providing a good standard of education.
“In C’s case, the tutoring service allocated a tutor who was not qualified. This goes against what the council expects of the service provided by the tutoring service.”
The tutoring service no longer employs the unqualified teacher and all teachers later allocated to C were qualified.
The ombudsman found the council at fault for failing to provide an English tutor.
As well as the apology and service improvements, within four weeks of the ombudsman’s decision, the council agreed to pay Ms X £450 for C, to recognise she missed six months of English tutoring.
The council said: “We’re really sorry we did not deliver the tuition required in this instance and have apologised to the family concerned.
“The ombudsman has recognised that we have since acted to improve our service and ensure similar situations do not happen again.”
There is something missing in this narrative. WHY did the child require tutoring? Was she a migrant? Was she disabled in some way? Who was paying for the legal costs in this case?
The public have a right to know what their hard earned money is being used for.
It’s being used to educate children. ..
Needed it because it was determined she needed it.
And just because it’s English does not mean the child is a migrant.
Teaching English for the GCSE exam isn’t the same as teaching to speak and read. It’s about grammar and syntax and comprehension.
The question I asked was not answered. Instead there were the nonsense comments above which did not address my query.. I didn’t say the child was a migrant; I asked was this the case.
It was stated the child’s previous school had offered English tuition but this was inappropriate because her daughter could not attend and the sessions were cancelled.
Why was it inappropriate if the child had attended that school? The lessons were available but deemed ‘inappropriate’. Baffling.
The clue is in the teacher not being SEN qualified. The daughter has special educational needs and I guess therefore needs her own private tutor which the education department has to pay for.
I do wonder why they’re has been this absolute explosion in the number of children with special educational needs… In my day you just went to school and got on with it. These days the list of diagnoses for children’s needs is as long as your arm!!! I’m not being critical I just wonder what has changed.