Equal Status Acts 2000-2015

DEC – S2016-048

A mother on behalf of her son

(represented by Emer Woodfull B.L. instructed by Aisling Glynn, McMahon and Williams Solicitors)

versus

The Board of Management of a National School

(represented by Liam Riordan, Mason Hayes and Curran Solicitors)

File reference: ES/2012/0129

Date of issue: 18th July 2016

Keywords: Equal Status Acts, Disability, Assistance dog, failure to provide reasonable accommodation, Cerebral palsy

Dispute

1.1 The case concerns a complaint by a mother on behalf of her son against the Board of Management of a National School regarding the alleged refusal to allow her son to bring his guidance dog to school. The claim is that he was discriminated on the ground of disability by failure to provide reasonable accommodation as defined in Section 4 of the Equal Status Acts 2000 to 2015 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Acts’]. The complainant has specifically requested that the decision is not anonymised. However, it is the practice on the Equality Tribunal (now the Workplace Relations Commission) not to name minors when publishing a decision on our website.

1.2 The complaint was referred under the Acts to the Director of the Equality Tribunal on 21st September 2012. On 18th February 2015, in accordance with his powers under the Acts, the case was delegated to me, Orlaith Mannion, an Equality Officer, for investigation, hearing and decision and for the exercise of other relevant functions of the Director under the Acts. On this date, my investigation commenced. Submissions were received from both parties and a hearing was held on 22nd July 2015 as required by Section 79(1) of the Acts. Significant amounts of correspondence continued after the hearing.

1.3 This decision is issued by me following the establishment of the Workplace Relations Commission on 1st October 2015, as an Adjudication Officer who was an Equality Officer prior to 1st October 2015, in accordance with section 84(3) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015.

Summary of the complainant’s case

2.1 The complainant submits that this case arises as a result of the refusal of the Board of Management of a National School to permit a pupil’s assistance dog accompany him to school even though his medical advisers specifically required that his assistance dog accompany him at all material times for his health, safety and welfare. The pupil has cerebral palsy. This means his mobility is significantly impaired and his balance is very poor. In November 2011 (after being moved up the waiting list due to his deteriorating condition) the pupil obtained a stability dog - Aidan - from Irish Dogs for the Disabled. The pupil was aged 12 and in Sixth Class at this time. Prior to Aidan’s arrival, the pupil’s mobility had deteriorated due to a growth spurt. As evidence, the complainant submitted a report from the Central Remedial Clinic which said the pupil’s gait had deteriorated since his check-up two years previously. As a result he was falling regularly. It was likely that he would have to wear splints. His mother presented video evidence at the hearing (the respondent did not object to the showing of same) to show that his mobility had significantly improved since the arrival of Aidan. She submits that because of the school’s refusal to allow a stability dog into the school, He was unable to finish his last year in primary school in the National School.

2.2 In September 2004 he started Junior Infants in the National School. He had a full-time Special Needs Assistant (SNA) for all of his time there. He was happy in the school. In 2011 in a report by Ms A, Senior Psychologist HSE she reported that ‘the school’s main concern was the increase in [name]'s falls’. His mother submits that she and his father felt reassured that his teachers had also noticed deterioration in his balance. Prior to the arrival of the stability dog to the family, his parents had three meetings with the School Principal - Mr B - about the dog accompanying him to school. His mother said that his teachers (class teacher and resource teachers) were very supportive of the imminent arrival of the assistance dog at the school.

2.3 On 14th November 2011 his mother met with his class teacher. The teacher gave her extra homework for him as he was going to be missing for the rest of the week due to his training with Aidan. Both the teacher and the school Principal wished him well. This training is quite onerous – Irish Dogs for the Disabled emphasise that it is a privilege to have access to a guidance dog and stresses the responsibilities that it entails. If the assistance dog is not treated properly e.g. allowed to become overweight, the charity will take the dog back. Following the successful completion of training, he was allowed to bring Aidan home. The family were delighted as there is usually a five year waiting list for a stability dog from Irish Dogs for the Disabled.

2.4 On 22nd November 2011, his parents attended a meeting with his classroom teacher and his resource teacher. All agreed for the need for him to develop his independence in preparation for his transition to secondary school. She states it was agreed at this meeting that the assistance dog would accompany him as far as his classroom door and meet him at the classroom door after school. The other children would be instructed not to pet or feed Aidan as he is a working dog. His mother submits that she made it clear at the meeting that she and his father hoped that the guidance dog would accompany him throughout the school day (i.e. in the classroom as well) when the children returned to school after Easter.

2.5 The complainant submits that it was by agreement with the school, that Aidan accompanied him to and from the classroom from 23rd November 2011 until 22nd December 2011 without incident. She gave evidence that she thought the other children might behave inappropriately e.g. give Aidan sweets etc. but they were exemplary.

2.6 However, in the last week of November the school Principal approached his mother. She submits that he told her that he was not happy with the idea of the dog coming into the classroom. Mr B said to her that they would have to formally write to the Board of Management for permission to do so. She maintains that he went on to say other parents are likely to object. The following day his father phoned the Principal to ask him to put the obligation to apply to the Board of Management for permission in writing.

2.7 On the last day of term, 22nd December 2011 (although the letter is dated 19th December) the pupil’s parents received the following letter:

Dear Mr and Mrs [name]

I refer to your recent verbal request to have an assistance dog allowed to accompany [name] in the classroom from March 2012. The matter was raised at a meeting of the Board of Management on 15th December 2011. In order that the request can be fully considered the Board decided the following:

(1) That a written application setting out the reasons for the request be submitted for the consideration of the Board.

(2) Pending the Board giving consideration to the matter, that you be requested to cease the current practice of bringing the dog onto the school premises

In the interest of facilitating consideration of all matters relevant to the request, your cooperation with the above would be very much appreciated.

I remain

Yours sincerely

Mr B

Principal/Secretary BOM (my emphasis)

2.7 His mother submits that both she and her husband were shocked and upset by this letter especially when there had been no problems with Aidan accompanying him to the classroom door. The timing of receiving it just before Christmas did not help. On 5th January 2012 she telephoned Mr B to request an emergency Board of Management meeting to address the issue. She submits that he said he would discuss it with Mr C (Chairman of the Board of Management). In fairness to the Principal, he telephoned the pupil’s mother back within an hour. She submits that Mr B said that as far as the Board of Management was concerned there was no health and safety issue for him in the school as he had a full-time SNA there. His mother submits that she explained that it is not the role of an SNA to prevent falls. The Principal denied her request for an EGM of the Board of Management and reiterated that the stability dog was not welcome on the school premises until further notice. His mother said that she would not be sending him to school until the matter was resolved.

2.8 His parents responded in writing to the school’s letter the following day. In the letter, they said that ‘One preventable fall is a fall too many’. They reiterated that Aidan was a working dog who wears the appropriate harness and that children with stability dogs are accessing schools throughout the country without problems. The school term resumed on 9th January and his parents kept him at home.

2.9 The school responded as follows:

12th January 2012

Dear Mr and Mrs [name]

I wish to acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 6th January 2012 and received on 9th January 2012.

[Name] has been a valued pupil of the school for the past seven and a half years and will continue to be a valued pupil while he attends this school. During [name]’s time in [name] NS, every reasonable accommodation has been made by the Board of Management, Principal and staff.

Any decision you wish to make in relation to [name]’s attendance at school while your recent request is under consideration is a matter for yourselves. The support currently available to [name] in the school is no different from last term and included fulltime SNA support. In this regard I would be obliged if you would clarify your intentions in relation to [name]’s attendance at school while your request is under consideration.

If it is your intention that [name] should not attend school at this time, I wish to advise that his absence will be notified to the NEWB in accordance with the Education Welfare Act. I also wish to advise you that it will be necessary to seek advice from the NCSE and the Dept. of Education and Skills in relation to the continuance of the employment of a fulltime SNA provide to support [name]if the SNA is being utilised for the benefit of [name] at this time.

I confirm that the BOM is giving your letter immediate and careful consideration together with all other matters relevant to such a request. In this regard, the Board is currently researching the matter and as soon as the Board has collated the information required to make an informed decision on this matter a meeting will be held.

I remain

Yours sincerely

Mr B

__________

School Principal and Secretary of the Board of Management (my emphasis)

The complainant points out that no deadline is given in this letter for when a decision is to be reached. She submits that the tone of the letter implies that they are irresponsible parents for keeping [name] out of school even though she maintains that they were ambushed with the sudden refusal to allow his stability dog to accompany him as far as his classroom. She submits that she and her husband were frustrated and annoyed with the approach that the school had taken. She submits that it was clear from the above letter that the school were going to drag out the application process.

2.10 A week later, the pupil’s parents received an other letter:

19th January 2012

Re. Assistance Dog.

Dear Mr & Mrs [name],

I refer to your of 6th January 2012 regarding the above.

At a meeting of the Board of Management (BOM) held on 18th January 2012 to discuss this matter the BOM decided to adopt the approach outlined recently by a spokesperson for the Department of Education and Skills was quoted in the media as saying it was “matter for the Board of Management of each school to develop a policy on whether guide dogs or assistance dogs were allowed in the school, taking account of the needs s of all the children in the school”

The BOM is fully committed to developing the policy at the earliest possible date taking account of the needs of all children in the school. This will involve consultation with whole school community to include staff and parents. The Department of Education and Skills, NCSE and the Schools Inspectorate will also be given an opportunity to contribute. The school’s insurers will also be consulted. Subject to the outcome of the consultation process, the BOM may then need to take into consideration medical evidence of need and will also give consideration to minimum hygiene standards, certification of training health certificate and facilities needed.

The BOM is aware of the role assistance dogs play in supporting children with disabilities. The school currently provides for a number of children with disability. In September of this year, the school’s capacity to accommodate children with a disability will further increase. In this regard, given the potential for a number in the future, the development of a clear policy on this matter is of paramount importance and a priority for the BOM.

The BOM looks forward to the co-operation of all concerned in bringing this matter to a conclusion as soon as possible. In the meantime and without any prejudice to the outcome of a policy on this matter, dogs are not allowed on school property without adult supervision and are not allowed in the classroom. In practice, this will mean that an assistance dog may accompany a pupil as far as the classroom door provided that the pupil is also accompanied by a parent and that appropriate insurance has been put in place by the dog’s owners. Where an SNA is provided, the SNA will be available on the school premises. The BOM is satisfied that the dedicated SNA resources provided for children with disabilities in the school is adequate to meet their needs in the classroom and on school grounds where required.

I trust the above adequately clarifies the position of the BOM on this matter at this time. However, if you require any further clarification. Please contact me and if necessary I will arrange a meeting with the Chairperson of the BOM.

Yours sincerely

Mr B

Principal/Secretary Board of Management

2.11 On the same day a statement was published on the school’s website reflecting a lot of what is in the letter. It also stated ‘the BOM recently received a request to allow an assistance dog accompany a child in the classroom. Regrettably this request while under consideration by the BOM, got much adverse medical coverage’. His mother does not deny that she contacted a few media outlets regarding what happened her son as she thought it would speed up the Board of Management’s consideration of the issue. She submits that the school relented slightly on their outright ban (the initial letter stated that the assistance dog was not allowed on the school premises at all) presumably following legal advice. Part of the reason for getting Aidan to accompany him to school was to increase their son’s independence before starting secondary school. Obviously neither parent would be shadowing him in post-primary school.

2.12 On 26th January 2012, the school circulated a survey to all parents and staff regarding the use of assistance dogs in their school. Neither the family nor Irish Dogs for the Disabled were consulted with regards to the survey. The complainant submits that it had a very negative bias:

Section A – use of assistance dog on school ground Section B Use of Assistance Dogs in classroom

Any other Comments

2.13 In February 2012, his parents submit reports from their son’s treating physiotherapist as well as his Consultant Paediatrician in the Central Remedial Clinic to the Board of Management. Both reports state that he has been aided greatly by his stability dog. The reports say that he would benefit from being able to have his dog accompany him as much as possible to facilitate his mobility and minimise the risk of falls. Mr B replied on 24th February to say that ‘these reports will be held on file pending the completion of a policy on the use of assistance dogs in the school’.

2.14 He went on to say that the completion date of the policy depends on the cooperation of other parties in providing necessary information and that it was unlikely that this policy would be completed in that school term. On 10th February Irish Dogs for the Disabled (who own Aidan) submitted the certificate of insurance (which had a liability cover of €6.5 million) to Mr C. In the accompanying email, the CEO (Ms D) suggests that the two insurance companies discuss the issue. This offer was never taken up. A trail of emails between the CEO and Mr C was submitted as evidence. From the emails it is clear that Ms D was becoming increasingly frustrated with the school’s attitude. In an email dated 23rd February 2012 she said ‘We feel that you are only looking for a reason to refuse access. The charity currently has a number of assistance dogs attending schools without any difficulties from any other school/university board’.

2.14 His parents submitted a letter from Professor S, Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon in the Central Remedial Clinic to the school:

24th February 2012

This is to certify that this boy suffers from a mixed type of dilegia which makes it difficult for him to walk. He has poor balance and low tone. He has shown a remarkable improvement with his mobility in relation to the above factors since the introduction of his disability dog. His gait has improved very significantly. Therefore it is advisable that the dog should be with him at all times including school.

Professor S

Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon (my emphasis)

2.15 On 15th March 2012 his parents wrote to the school emphasising the urgency of the situation and their intention to pursue a case under the Equal Status Acts unless it is resolved. Mr B responded on 22nd March to say that a policy had been drafted but they were seeking advice on it. His mother submits that the school were deliberately dragging their heels in relation to the formulation of this policy so that he would not be able to complete his primary school education there. Indeed that turned out to be the case. His parents home-schooled him from 22nd December 2011 until 22nd June 2012 (last day of the school year). At the hearing, his mother gave direct evidence that his best friend (even the school’s Individual Education Plan acknowledged how important this friend was to him) gave him a copy of a yearbook that Sixth Class had made as a memento of their time in the National School. The yearbook made him cry as there were many stories that included him. However, his picture was not included even though he had spent seven and a half years there. He felt that he had missed out on completing his primary education there. A psychologist’s report (submitted as evidence) corroborates that he became ‘visibly tearful and distressed around this experience [circumstances of why he left primary school]’. At the same time, he realises himself that he was falling more before he got Aidan.

2.16 Since September 2012 he has attended (mainstream) secondary school with Aidan accompanying him everywhere e.g. in the classroom, on the sportsfield etc. In stark contrast to the attitude from the respondent, the Principal of his secondary school (on his own initiative) visited a school where a student has an assistance dog accompanying him there. His mother gave evidence that the Principal was excited by what he saw – that it made this student’s life so much easier without disrupting other students. The complainant’s mother points out that there have been no issues whatsoever with Aidan accompanying him in secondary school – from students, parents, staff or management. His mother maintains that he is so much more independent now –he can go to the shops without an adult, is a member of a youth club and splints are no longer deemed necessary for him. In his 2015 review Professor S said ‘he has shown a remarkable improvement with his mobility since the introduction of his disability dog 3 years ago. His gait has improved significantly and his dog has been a total success story with regard to his independence and his mobility’. His mother stated in direct evidence that ‘Not allowing Aidan to accompany him is like not allowing somebody to access a building with a zimmerframe in case somebody tripped over it. Aidan is his walking frame’.

2.17 Ms D, the CEO of Irish Dogs for the Disabled also gave evidence on behalf of the complainant. She said dogs trained and owned by them operate in prisons, hospitals (including Accident and Emergency units) and schools without any need for extensive consultation processes. She explained that Irish Dogs for the Disabled train assistance dogs for physically disabled children and adults to enable them to live life with greater independence. Their dogs are highly trained to negotiate obstacles like kerbs and to assist the person to walk by giving them balance and stability. The dogs are specially bred not to be aggressive which requires the highest standards of animal husbandry. 85% of their dogs are given to children with Cerebral Palsy as they are the people with whom Irish Dogs for Disabled have noticed their dogs give the greatest improvements to their quality of life. Ms D said the primary aim of their stability dogs was keeping children walking as they grow. Growing means their centre of gravity changes, which without the dog could leave them wheelchair-bound, as it is difficult to adapt to the growth. She points out that the Food Safety Authority of Ireland direct establishments serving food to allow entry of assistance dogs as well as guide dogs (for the blind). Dogs belonging to Irish Dogs for the Disabled wear a special harness and are accredited by Assistance Dogs International – an organisation with very strict criteria. Ms D submits that the first training schools for guide dogs for the blind were set up after World War I. Assistance dogs for mobility impairment are a newer phenomenon but she submits they have been in use for about 40 years. It costs Irish Dogs for the Disabled €15,000 to train a dog but would cost much more except for the charity have only three full-time members of staff and they rely on 300 experienced and dedicated volunteers. There has never been a claim off their insurance policy as their dogs are so well-bred and trained.

Legal Arguments

2.18 The National School is an educational establishment within the meaning of Section 7 of the Acts. Section 7 (2) of the Acts states:

(2) An educational establishment shall not discriminate in relation

to—

(a) the admission or the terms or conditions of admission of a

person as a student to the establishment,

(b) the access of a student to any course, facility or benefit provided

by the establishment,

(c) any other term or condition of participation in the establishment

by a student, or

(d) the expulsion of a student from the establishment or any

other sanction against the student.

The complainant submits that he was unable to complete his primary school education at the National School as he was prevented from bringing his assistance dog initially onto the school premises at all and then into the classroom. It is submitted that it was a defacto expulsion.

2.19 It is also submitted that Section 4 states that discrimination occurs when a refusal or by a provider of a service (which includes educational establishments) to do all that is reasonable to accommodate the needs of a person with a disability by providing special treatment or facilities if without such special treatment or facilities it would be impossible or unduly difficult for the person to avail himself of the service unless the cost to service provider is more than nominal. It is submitted that it would be cost-neutral for the school to allow his stability dog to accompany him into the classroom.

2.20 Roche v Alabaster Associates Ltd t/a Madigan’s, O’Connell Street is cited as relevant caselaw[1]. In that case, a guide dog was refused access to a bar. The doorman offered to allow the visually-impaired owner into the bar and he would mind the guide dog on the street! The reason given for not allowing the guide dog was that food was being served. It transpired that the carvery had finished at 15:00 that day and it was now 21:00. Only pre-packed sandwiches were being served at that time. The Food Hygiene regulations that the respondent attempted to rely on dated from 1950 and had since been amended to specifically allow guidedogs into restaurants and bars. The Equality Officer found that primary legislation like the Equal Status Acts superseded circulars. She found the complainant had been discriminated against on the ground of disability.

Summary of the respondent’s case

3.1 The respondent submits that the National School welcomes and provides for children of all abilities. The school comprises of seven mainstream classes and an Autistic Spectrum Disorder Unit. The respondent maintains that this clearly demonstrates the school’s commitment to provide for children with disabilities.

3.2 At the time of the complainant receiving an assistance dog the school was aware of two children in the autism unit having assistance dogs and another child in the process of making an application for a an assistance dog. That is why, the school submits, that the development of a policy on the matter was of paramount importance. The school also had to be mindful of the dangers of setting a precedent.

3.3 The Board of Management states its primary duty of care is to its students and staff. The needs of all members of the school community must be taken into consideration when decisions are being made. Dogs potentially pose a threat to members of the school community. Some staff and children may have a fear of dogs, staff and/or children may have allergies triggered by dogs. The Board of Management must therefore ensure the safety and confidence of all children and staff on the school premises.

3.4 The respondent submits that nobody in the school noticed an increase in the number of falls by him prior to his acquisition of a stability dog. They acknowledge that they were happy at the prospect of him getting an assistance dog for life outside school but state at no time did they agree that the dog could come into the school. No staff member would have the authority to do without the approval of the Board of Management.

3.5 At the meeting on 22nd November 2011 (See Paragraph 2.4) the respondent submits it was the understanding of the teachers that his stability dog would accompany him to the school door (not the classroom door).His class teacher asked about how other children should handle the dog and his mother replied ‘don’t touch and don’t feed’. The respondent submits that the prospect of the assistance dog accompanying him to school full-time was not mentioned. The respondent submits that the class teacher was surprised the following day when the dog accompanied him as far as the classroom door. The respondent submits that this was a unilateral decision by the complainant’s parents.

3.6 In late November the respondent agrees that his mother did say to the Principal that she and her husband envisaged that the dog would accompany him in the school on a full-time basis from March 2012.

3.7 On 5th January 2012 the pupil’s father telephoned the Principal’s home demanding an EGM of the Board of Management. On 9th January the Principal was contacted by the Irish Independent requesting a response. The dispute has been the subject of much media coverage including TV3, Northern Sound, The Daily Mail, The Meath Chronicle, the Irish Independent and The Irish Times. The respondent submits that the headlines were sensational and resulted in adverse publicity for the school.

3.8 In the letter from his parents to the school on 15th March 2012, they say ‘the SNA is not permitted to break any of [name]’s falls’. The respondent submits that this statement is in stark contrast to a submission by his parents in February 2010 to retain his SNA where they state ‘[SNA’s] support while [name]’s falls insures (sic) that [name]’s falls are controlled and his mobility problems don’t affect his independence or his opportunity to integrate’. The respondent also submits a note from his mother from October 2010 granting consent for to participate in any sports in school including football leagues. The respondent submits that his needs were adequately met by having an SNA in the school.

3.9 The respondent submits that other parents expressed concern regarding the assistance dog. They deny that the survey had a negative bias. On numerous occasions (from 19th January) the Board of Management offered to meet his parents. The respondent acknowledges that Irish Dogs for the Disabled gave a name and contact details of a Principal of a Secondary School. However, they wanted to talk to a Principal of a Primary School so they saw no point in talking to him.

3.10 The school acknowledges that there was delay in issuing their policy on assistance dogs. Parents were delayed in coming back with responses to the questionnaire and Irish Dogs for the Disabled did not provide an insurance indemnity for the School. Mr C freely admits that it was he who suggested the indemnity for the school to their insurer. However, he pointed out that the onus is on the insured to point out potential risks. The draft policy was approved by the Board of Management on 21st March 2012, it was sent to the school’s insurers and the Department of Education and Skills for comments on 23rd March. It was revised on 19th April based on feedback from that Department. The revised draft was approved by the Board of Management on 2nd May and it was referred for legal advice on 3rd May 2012. It was published on their website in May 2012 and continues to be there (See Appendix of this decision for the policy). The respondent submits other schools have requested their policy and the school have given it. The respondent submits that he would have been welcome to attend with his assistance dog if all the conditions of the policy had been met.

Legal arguments

3.11 The respondent relies on Section 4(4) of the Acts:

(4) Where a person has a disability that, in the circumstances, could cause harm to the person or to others, treating the person differently to the extent reasonably necessary to prevent such harm does not constitute discrimination.

The respondent also draws attention to Section 2 of the Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs Act 2004:

2.—A child with special educational needs shall be educated in an inclusive environment with children who do not have such needs unless the nature or degree of those needs of the child is such that to do so would be inconsistent with—

(a) the best interests of the child as determined in accordance with any assessment carried out under this Act, or

(b) the effective provision of education for children with whom the child is to be educated.

Section 7(4)(b) of the Acts states that:

(b) to the extent that compliance with any of its provisions in relation to a student with a disability would, by virtue of the disability, make impossible, or have a seriously detrimental effect on, the provision by an educational establishment of its services to other students.

It also maintains that Article 42 of Bunreacht na hÉireann affords all children the entitlement of an education. The respondent argues that this means that no one pupil can interfere with the constitutional rights of other children to learn in an atmosphere that is conducive to learning.

Conclusions of the Equality Officer

4.1 Section 38(A) of the Equal Status Acts sets out the burden of proof which applies in a claim of discrimination. It requires the complainant to establish, in the first instance, facts upon which s(he) can rely in asserting that prohibited conduct has occurred in relation to him/her. In deciding on this complaint, therefore, I must first consider whether the existence of a prima facie case has been established by the complainant. It is only where such a prima facie case has been established that the onus shifts to the respondent to rebut the inference of discrimination raised. In making my decision in this case, I have taken cognisance of all the oral and written submissions made by the parties.

Dispute of facts

4.2 In this case where there is significant conflict of evidence, I must make a few findings of fact before turning to the legal arguments. Regarding whether his teachers had noticed him falling more often (Paragraphs 2.2 and 3.4) the documentary evidence corroborates the complainant’s position. A psychologist’s report in 2011 stated that the school had noticed an increase in his falls. The respondent’s argument that this report was done for a different primary school is not credible as he was home-schooled for the Spring and Summer terms of the last year of his primary education.

4.3 Regarding the respondent’s contention that it was ambushed by his parents regarding the assistance dog accompanying him to the classroom door, I find this hard to believe (Paragraphs 2.3 to 2.5 and 3.5). Surely a teacher and/or Principal would clarify matters immediately if that was the case. Instead the issue was not formally raised for a whole month. It is common case that Aidan accompanied him to the classroom door until the end of the first term without incident. It was not in the pupil’s interest for his parents to fail to inform the school of his progress with an assistance dog. It must be remembered that his parents did not request that Aidan accompany him full-time until everybody got used to the new regimen. They wanted it to be a gradual process. The only witness for the school was Mr C [Chairman of the Board of Management]. Neither Mr B [Principal – he had retired by the time of the hearing] nor any of his teachers attended to give direct evidence.

4.4 A turning point leading to the non-resolution of this case was when his parents contacted the media about this issue (2.11 and 3.7). While I accept this was done in good faith and born out of frustration at the school’s procrastination; from a tactical point of view, it may have been premature. The respondent’s anger at the adverse publicity seeps through their subsequent actions. The Board of Management allowed the red mist to affect their judgment and lost sight that there was a 13 year old boy with special needs at the heart of this case.

4.5 Regarding the questionnaire (Paragraphs 2.11 and 3.7), I accept the complainant’s contention that it was very biased against accommodating him with his request. It is settled law that discrimination can arise through the application of different rules to comparable situations or the application of the same rule to different situations.[2] Neither the questionnaire nor the accompanying note explained the context of the being recommended to get a stability dog by health professionals. It failed to explain that Aidan was a highly trained service dog and the risks of disruptive behaviour by him were negligible. There was no box to tick if parents or staff did not have an issue with an assistance dog in the school. Apart from that, sending a questionnaire to other parents was putting the cart before the horse. When a request for reasonable accommodation is made, the starting point should be the person with a disability seeking it. Careful attention should be paid to what has been recommended by his doctors. No attempt was made by the school to contact his physiotherapist, GP or Consultant Physicians. Then, and only then, should attention be focused on whether it is reasonable to accommodate it based on the concerns for others. For example, many schools make themselves ‘egg-free zones’ if a student has a severe egg allergy and is at high risk of anaphylactic shock. Obviously this is not convenient for other students and staff but a questionnaire is not sent around. A decision is made by the Board of Management and the school community is expected to abide by it. By the same token, needles are dangerous (especially around children) but a diabetes kit containing same is kept in a school if a child has Type 1 diabetes. While I accept these may be life or death situations, the level of inconvenience for the school community is much higher in accommodating these disabilities than the presence of well-trained assistance dog. As Ms Woodfull (the complainant’s barrister) pointed out there would be uproar if a questionnaire was sent to other parents regarding accommodating a child on almost any other discriminatory ground e.g. if a child was black or a member of the Travelling Community.

4.6 I find the fact that he was not included in the yearbook (except in an incidental way) and not invited to go on the school tour to be callous by the respondent. He was seven and a half years in the school and should, at least, have been invited back on the last day.

4.7 I sympathise with Mr C. He is a volunteer and has done much of the heavy lifting for the respondent in relation to this case. Indeed most of the work he undertook would have more appropriately done by a paid member of staff. However, it must be said that much of correspondence, in particular with Irish Dogs for the Disabled, was not constructive. When Irish Dogs for the Disabled sent him the insurance certificate which covered liabilities up to €6.5 million, Mr C searched for a further obstacle. He asked a closed question to the school’s insurance company regarding whether a further indemnity should be sought by the school. He offered no context to the question – e.g. that he had a copy of the insurance certificate and that there never had been a claim off the insurance policy for Irish Dogs for the Disabled. He never passed on the CEO’s suggestion that both insurance companies should talk to each other. In response to the closed question, a junior employee for the insurer said an indemnity is advisable. He went on to use this uncontextualised answer as a reason for the delay in issuing the policy on assistance dogs in the school. He stated in direct evidence that the Board of Management had nothing to learn from the Principal of a Secondary School regarding the presence of an assistance dog in the school. Ms D explained that the secondary school shared a campus with a primary school (they were gaelscoileanna) where an assistance dog had also accompanied the relevant student. However, no contact was made by anybody connected with the pupil’s school with the Priomhoide. Frustrated with his Mr C’s obtuse questions, in an email reply to him on 1st March that the CEO of Irish Dogs for the Disabled said ‘this is like Groundhog Day’.

4.8 The school argued that an SNA was sufficient to meet the complainant’s needs and used a submission from his mother to retain the SNA a few years previously as proof that his parents agreed with them (Paragraph 3.8). This argument ignores the reality that disabilities are usually not static conditions. His mother praised the SNA and the wonderful support that she gave him. However, medical evidence was submitted to show that his condition had deteriorated prior to the arrival of the assistance dog and that it improved after he came into his life. It was arrogant of the school to ignore Professor S’s requirement that his assistance dog accompany him at all times including school. Surely he had more expertise regarding his medical prognosis than anybody on the Board of Management had. Regarding permission given to participate in school sports, his mother gave cogent evidence that she (understandably) did not want him to feel left out and it was agreed that he would be the (football) goalkeeper for a short period where the risk of falls was limited.

4.9 The whole approach by the school from the initial negative letter to the unnecessarily long consultation process to the overcomplicated five-step application for an assistance dog to accompany a student to school was far from supportive.

The Law

4.10 It is common case that Cerebral Palsy is a disability within the meaning of Section 2 of the Acts. Neither is it disputed that the National School is an educational establishment within the meanings of the Acts and that the Board of Management of it is the correct respondent. I am satisfied that the respondent breached 7(2) (a), (b) and (c) of the Acts (quoted in Paragraph 2.17) in that it restricted the admission, access and participation of the pupil for part of his final year in primary school. I do not accept the complainant’s contention that he was effectively expelled. Therefore there was no breach of Section 7(2)(d). His parents chose not to send him to school. However, I am satisfied that the restrictive terms and conditions imposed on him bringing his assistance dog to school did constrain his access to education. I find the respondent is not entitled to the defence in 7(4)(b) (quoted in Paragraph 3.11). Insufficient evidence was provided that the presence of an assistance dog would have a detrimental effect on the education of other students. Aidan accompanies him everywhere students are allowed in secondary school (except the Home Economics room) without any difficulty.

4.11 I have no jurisdiction under the Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs Act 2004 (quoted in 3.11). Neither have I jurisdiction under the Education Act 1998 butI will draw attention to attention to Section 9(m) of which states one of the functions of a school is to establish and maintain an admission policy which provides for maximum accessibility to the school. Regarding the respondent’s (unusual) argument regarding Article 42 of the Constitution, I will leave interpretation of Bunreacht na hÉireann to the judiciary.

4.12 It is worthwhile to quote all of Section 4 of the Acts:

4.—(1) For the purposes of this Act discrimination includes a refusal or failure by the provider of a service to do all that is reasonable to accommodate the needs of a person with a disability by providing special treatment or facilities, if without such special treatment or facilitiesit would be impossible or unduly difficult for the person to avail himself or herself of the service.

(2) A refusal or failure to provide the special treatment or facilities to which subsection (1) refers shall not be deemed reasonable unless such provision would give rise to a cost, other than a nominal cost, to the provider of the service in question.

(3) A refusal or failure to provide the special treatment or facilities to which subsection (1) refers does not constitute discrimination if, by virtue of another provision of this Act, a refusal or failure to provide the service in question to that person would not constitute discrimination.

(4) Where a person has a disability that, in the circumstances, could cause harm to the person or to others, treating the person differently to the extent reasonably necessary to prevent such harm does not constitute discrimination.

(5) This section is without prejudice to the provisions of sections 7(2)(a), 9(a) and 15(2)(g) of the Education Act, 1998, in so far as they relate to the functions of the Minister for Education and Science,

recognised schools and boards of management in regard to students with a disability.

(6) In this section—

‘‘provider of a service’’ means—

(a) the person disposing of goods in respect of which section 5(1) applies,

(b) the person responsible for providing a service in respect of which section 5(1) applies,

(c) the person disposing of any estate or interest in premises in respect of which section 6(1)(a) applies,

(d) the person responsible for the provision of accommodation or any related services or amenities in respect of which section 6(1)(c) applies,

(e) an educational establishment within the meaning of subsection (1) of section 7 in relation to any of the matters referred to in subsection (2) of that section, or

(f) a club within the meaning of section 8(1) in respect of admission to membership or a service offered to its members, as the case may be, and ‘‘service’’ shall be construed accordingly;

‘‘providing’’, in relation to the special treatment or facilities to which subsection (1) refers, includes making provision for or allowing such treatment or facilities, and cognate words shall be construed accordingly. (my emphasis).

This section requires an educational establishment to do all that is reasonable to accommodate the needs of a person with a disability. It does not say educational needs – it simply says needs. The complainant’s assistance dog is a stability and mobility aid – albeit a living, breathing one. It would be preposterous for the school not to allow a person with a disability to bring a walking frame into the classroom even if there was a slight danger that other students might trip over it. I appreciate that the request for an assistance dog to accompany a student is a rare one and the school were correct to consider its implications including whether a precedent for less well-trained dogs would be set. However every request of reasonable accommodation should be fact specific e.g. if a student in the Autism Spectrum Unit requests that an assistance dog should accompany him/her to school, that should be decided on its own merits.

4.13 I accept the respondent’s argument that it was not impossible for the pupil to access education. However, it was unduly difficult for him. Medical evidence was produced to show that his falls increased prior to the arrival of the assistance dog. In common with most 13 year olds, he had a desire for greater independence. His assistance dog played a crucial role in that. Any cost to the school would be less than nominal. Irish Dogs for the Disabled owns the dog and has an insurance policy up to a €6.5 million limit. All feeding, toilet habits etc. would not be the school’s responsibility.

4.14 I am somewhat surprised that the respondent argued the Section 4(4) defence. In fact this section could be used as a justification for allowing his assistance dog into the school. Reducing his falls would prevent potential harm to himself and others. Regarding the concerns of other parents (although I reiterate that the information regarding assistance dogs was not presented in a balanced way to them) I am satisfied that the respondent would have been entitled to avail of Section 14(b) as a defence for allowing the assistance dog into the classroom:

Nothing in this Act shall be construed as prohibiting—

...

(b) preferential treatment or the taking of positive measures which are bona fide intended to —

(i) promote equality of opportunity for persons who are, in relation to other persons, disadvantaged or who have been or are likely to be unable to avail themselves of the same opportunities as those other persons, or

(ii) cater for the special needs of persons, or category of persons, who, because of their circumstances, may require facilities, arrangements, services or assistance not required by persons who do not have those special needs.

4.15 Considering all of the above, I am satisfied that the respondent discriminated against the complainant by not making provision to allow his assistance dog to accompany him throughout the schoolday.

4.16 In considering redress, I am cognisant that a school cannot allow all dogs (be they pets or feral) into the classroom. They were correct to pose questions. However, they took an obfuscating and close-minded approach to the request. It is obvious from the evidence (from December 2011) that the respondent had a ‘Just Say No’ to allowing access to his stability dog. It bears repeating what his Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon said about his progress in 2015:

‘He has shown a remarkable improvement with his mobility since the introduction of his disability dog 3 years ago. His gait has improved significantly and his dog has been a total success story with regard to his independence and his mobility’.

Regrettably the school that he attended for seven and a half years was not part of this success story.

Decision

5.1 In accordance with Section 25(4) of these Acts, I conclude this investigation and issue the following decision:

(i) that the complainant has established a prima facie case of discrimination on the grounds of disability in terms of both Section 4 and Section 7 of the Acts and this has not been rebutted by the respondent.

5.2 The maximum I can award (as this case was lodged prior to 3rd February 2014 when the monetary limits were increased as per Courts & Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2013)is €6,348.69. In the circumstances, I award the complainant €5,500 for the discrimination on the grounds of disability.

5.3 I further order that the respondent redraft their policy regarding assistance dogs to ensure that they are in compliance with these Acts. I suggest that they engage a disability consultant in relation to this. Unless this decision is overturned on appeal, a report on progress of this policy review must be made to the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission within one year of the date of this decision. If this is not done, the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commision may (with the consent of the complainant) apply to the District Court for enforcement of this order under Section 31(1)(b) of the Acts.

_________________

Orlaith Mannion

Adjudication Officer/Equality Officer

Appendix

Policy on Assistance Dogs in School

Knocktemple National School

Virginia Co Cavan

1. Introduction
2. Policy Objective
3. Consultation
4. Permission
5. Levels of Access
6. Application & Approval Process
7. Liability
8. Conditions
9. Infection Control & Prevention Measures
10. Precautionary Measures to Minimise Risk
11. Medical Evidence of Need
12. Health Certificate
13. Review
14. Ratification
15. Implementation & Circulation
16. Conclusion

1. Introduction

Knocktemple National School welcomes and provides for children of all abilities. The current enrolment is 179. The children attending the school range in age from four to thirteen years. The school comprises of 7 mainstream classes and an Autistic Spectrum Disorder (ASD) Unit for children with Autism. The development of the ASD Unit together with a number of other infrastructural improvements over the past seven years, clearly demonstrates the schools commitment to provide for children with disabilities. The teaching and dedicated SNA staff are very experienced and have specialist skills to support children with disabilities. Specialist equipment and technology has also been provided as required.

Knocktemple National School is committed to putting in place appropriate supports for the education of children with special educational needs. To deliver on this commitment, the school will endeavour to respond individually to the special needs of each child, including implementing recommendations in professional reports, taking into account the resources available to the school and the needs of all other children attending the school.

The school is aware of the role assistance dogs play in supporting children with disabilities. There is much published information on the benefits of assistance dogs in supporting children with Autism. The school currently provides for 12 children with Autism and in September of this year, the school’s capacity to accommodate children with Autism will increase to 18 with the completion of the third classroom. In this regard, given the potential for a number of requests for the use of assistance dogs, the development of this policy is intended to inform parents on school policy and guide parents who wish to make an application.

Knocktemple National School’s primary duty of care is to our students and staff. The needs of all members of the school community must be taken into consideration when decisions are being made. Dogs potentially pose a threat to members of the school community. Some staff and children may have a fear of dogs, staff and / or children may have allergies triggered by dogs. The BOM must therefore ensure the safety and confidence of all children and staff on the school premises. High priority must be given to minimise the risk of harm to children and staff.

Knocktemple National School does not discriminate on the basis of disability. Persons with disabilities have the same right as the able-bodied to the use and enjoyment of our school. We strive to make reasonable accommodations for a disabled person’s use of an assistance dog on school property. We have established the following procedures, having consulted widely for evaluating whether and how a request to bring an assistance dog onto school property can be implemented under the circumstances on a case-by-case basis.

School management, staff, parents and children are entitled to raise valid concerns and questions that need to be answered in a respectful way. Assistance dog owners will be asked and expected to provide information to help the school be more secure in addressing the concerns of others.

2. Policy Objective

Knocktemple National School supports a culture where assistance dogs are allowed to be brought onto school premises. This can occur if the school’s Requirements and Guidelines outlined in this document are adhered to.

3. Consultation

In developing this policy, the BOM consulted widely throughout the school community so as to take into consideration the views of all concerned. Advice was sought from the following:

• Department of Education & Skills
• Schools Inspectorate
• Special Education Support Service (SESS)
• Catholic Primary Managers School Association (CPMSA)
• Irish Primary Principals Network (IPPN)
• National Council for Special Education (NCSE)
• School’s Insurers
• Parents
• Staff
• Providers of Assistance Dogs

The feedback received is reflected below and throughout the policy.

• The Department of Education & Skills stated, “The Department provides support in the classroom for pupils with special educational needs through the special needs assistance scheme. It is a matter for the BOM of each school to develop a policy on whether guide dogs or assistance dogs are allowed in a school, taking into consideration the needs of all of the pupils in the school”. This position is also supported by the National Council for Special Education (NCSE).

To ascertain the needs of all of the children in the school, the BOM consulted with parents and staff. Appendix 1 attached sets out the results of the consultation exercise. This can be summarised as follows:

• The results indicate a very significant level of concern in relation to Health & Safety, fear and hygiene issues if assistance dogs are allowed on school grounds. These concerns are heightened by factors of up to 20% if assistance dogs are allowed in classrooms.

• A very substantial number indicated they would make verbal and written complaints. The level of complaints increased by a factor of 20% if assistance dogs are allowed in classrooms in addition to allowing them on school grounds.

• Similar numbers indicated that they felt an assistance dog would be a “distraction” in a classroom.

• One parent indicated that they would withdraw and transfer their child(ren) to another school.

• A number of staff indicated that they would refer the matter to their representative association.

4. Permission

Any dog is personal property and cannot be brought onto school property without prior approval. If a child arrives at school with an assistance dog and prior approval has not been obtained, then the parents will be immediately notified and requested to come to the school to retrieve the assistance dog until it can be determined that the presence of the assistance dog on school property is in compliance with school policy. The assistance dog will remain with the child until the parent removes the assistance dog from the school property.

5. Levels of Access

In deciding whether an assistance dog can be on school premises depends on multiple factors and is best done on a case-by-case basis. A request to bring an assistance dog to school presents difficult questions, which must be considered in the context of the needs of all children in the school. While competing circumstances do not diminish the rights of any child, where competing interests arise the school will explore if the needs of children can be met in ways other than the use of an assistance dog. In this regard, the school will make reasonable accommodations to provide for the needs of all children. Key to such accommodations is that the following various levels of access for assistance dogs will be considered on a case-by-case basis.

Level 1            -           Access to school carpark and school field but not inside the                                   main gates of the school.

Level 2            -           Includes Level 1 and access to school playground but not inside                             school buildings.

Level 3            -           Includes Levels 1 & 2 and access inside school buildings,                                       excluding classrooms and toilets. Level 3 access will also                                                 facilitate the availability of assistance dogs at break times by                                the provision of suitable kennel facilities at an appropriate                                                 location for the convenience of the child.

Level 4            -           Full access. Full access does not allow access to a place to                                                which the child would not otherwise be allowed to access                                       without an assistance dog by merely claiming the dog is an                                                assistance dog.

The granting of access at any level is dependent on all the requirements of this policy being met.

Level 4 access will require that the owner, parent/guardian of the handler, provide at no cost to the school, a suitable breakaway area/cage that can be used to contain an assistance dog in the event of an adverse incident pending the removal of the assistance dog from the school premises. Suitable littering facilities will also have to be provided and maintained by the owner.

6. Application & Approval Process

Application by parents must be made in writing and should specify the level of access that is being requested (Appendix 2).

The application should set out the needs of the child that will be met by using an assistance dog and the expected benefit should be described.

The school authorities will engage with the parents of the child in relation to the application and may seek further information or clarification.

Step 1

When a parent is of the opinion that a child would benefit from having an assistance dog in school and the parent wishes to give effect to their opinion, an application in writing must be made to the school principal (Appendix II).

Step 2

The principal will make available to the parent, a copy of the school policy on the matter.

Step 3

When requested for educational reasons, the IEP team will consider the application in the first instance after which the IEP team will prepare a report for consideration by the BOM in making its decision on the application. When requested for non-educational reasons the matter will be determined by the BOM in the context of this policy.

The IEP will take account of all available evidence regarding the need for such assistance including assessment of needs and recommendations from external professionals. The assistance that the assistance dog is likely to provide for the child and the possibility of the availability of other supports and whether the assistance dog is necessary for the child to have equal access to the learning environment. As part of their deliberations, the IEP Team will consider the provision of SNA support, resource support and the availability of aids, appliances and technology.

Step 4

The principal will present the report of the IEP Team to the BOM.

Step5

The BOM will consider the report and before making a final decision on the application may seek legal advice if considered necessary.

Communications with the person making the request may uncover alternatives. In this regard, applicants will be afforded the opportunity to meet with the principal and if necessary, a representative of the BOM to explore options.

An application to be accompanied by an assistance dog on school premises must be carefully weighted against the rights and needs of all children who are equally entitled to receive education at the school.

As applications for an assistance dog may need to be examined by the IEP team and since further information and documentation may be required and since the application requires BOM approval, applicants should be aware that it may take a number of months to process an application.

The BOM will inform the parent(s) of its decision and the rationale for same.

Where any parent is dissatisfied with the decision of the BOM, the parent may appeal the decision to the Chairperson of the BOM. All appeals must be in writing, setting out the grounds for appeal. A decision on an appeal will be notified to the parent(s) within one month of date of receipt.

7. Liability

As the school will not take responsibility for an assistance dog, the owner of an assistance dog is responsible for the assistance dog’s behaviour and shall be liable for all damage suffered by persons who may be bitten or injured and all damages to school property, regardless of the former viciousness of the assistance dog or the owner’s knowledge of such viciousness.

The owner of an assistance dog will be required to provide evidence of adequate level of insurance and appropriate indemnity. The limit of indemnity required is a minimum of €6,500,000. In addition, an indemnity to the school is required. This will require the owner of the assistance dog to extend their insurance policy to provide an indemnity to the school in the event of an accident.

The school’s normal procedures will apply for dealing with any adverse incident arising, this includes treatment, recording of incident and reporting.

8. Conditions Attached to the use of Assistance Dogs on School Property

• An assistance dog must be under the control of its handler. It must have a harness, leash or other tether unless the handler is unable because of a disability to use a harness, leash or other tether or the use of such would interfere with the assistance dog’s effective performance in which case the assistance dog must be otherwise under the handler’s control.

• The school is not responsible for the care or supervision of an assistance dog. Care and supervision of an assistance dog is solely the responsibility of the owner, parent/guardian of the handler.

• The school may request removal of an assistance dog, if an assistance dog is out of control and the assistance dog’s handler does not take effective action to control it or the assistance dog is not housetrained. Factors that may be considered under this condition are that the assistance dog:

-                  Is clean, well-groomed and does not have an offensive odour

-                  Does not urinate or defecate on school property

-                  Does not annoy any students or staff

-                  Does not vocalise unnecessarily i.e. barking, growling or whining

-                  Shows no aggression towards people or other animals

-                  Does not solicit or steal food or other items from children or staff

-                  Does not interfere with the educational progress of any child

• Assistance dogs are not to be secured to gates or barriers near the entrances and left unattended.
• Assistance dogs must remain under adult supervision at all times unless otherwise agreed with the school management.
• In accordance with access levels 1 to 3, while assistance dogs will be allowed onto school premises, they cannot be taken into classrooms or toilets.
• The relevant authority will be notified if an assistance dog is found unattended on the school premises.
• Any faeces deposited by an assistance dog on school property are to be removed from the school property by a parent/guardian of the handler of the assistance dog.
• The principal will have absolute discretion as to whether any assistance dog is to be removed from the school with immediate effect. A decision to ban an assistance dog from the school will be considered and confirmed by the BOM.

9. Infection Control & Prevention Measures

Knocktemple National School is required to protect the health and wellbeing of the school community. Some children are highly allergic to dogs. Dogs can also spread disease or behave in dangerous or unpredictable ways that can cause injury to persons with whom they come into contact. Compliance with this policy will help in maintaining a safe environment for all children and staff.

• Children and staff must wash hands after contact with an assistance dog and its environment.
• All human – dog contact, particularly for young children must be supervised.
• Assistance dogs not allowed in areas where food and drinks are consumed.
• All areas where assistance dogs are present to be cleaned and disinfected.
• All parents to be advised of the presence of assistance dogs in the school and supported to address special considerations.
• If assistance dogs urinate/defecate on school premises, ensure the area is thoroughly cleaned with disinfectant.
• Good ventilation must be provided as dogs can diminish air quality.

10. Precautionary Measures to Minimise Risk

Key to managing any risk is to have adequate control measures in place to minimise the risk where possible, the following control measures apply:

• Complete a risk assessment
• Notify parents and school staff in writing and ask for reply in writing specifically about possible allergies to dogs
• Warn staff and students of potential allergic reactions and how to detect it if someone is having such a reaction
• Request Health Certificate for assistance dog
• Monitor children for ones that are anxious about the presence of an assistance dog
• Do not let assistance dogs loose while on school property
• Monitor the contact of children who are at risk with known allergies
• Ensure good supervision at all times
• Monitor children for behaviour that could lead to an assistance dog becoming excited and lead to more unforeseen actions such as biting
• Ensure children do not touch an assistance dog

11. Medical Evidence of Need

Medical need will be considered when assessing the appropriateness of assistance dogs on school premises. In considering an application to allow an assistance dog on school premises, the school may request evidence of medical need.

12. Health Certificate

As the school is required to maintain a safe and clean environment for all children and staff, the BOM may periodically request documentation confirming that the assistance dog is currently in good health, free from parasites and has received all recommended vaccinations. This is to ensure that the assistance dog does not pose a health or safety risk to any child, member of staff or other persons.

13. Review

This policy will be reviewed by the BOM annually. If circumstances dictate that a review is required at any other time, the matter will be placed on the agenda for the next scheduled BOM meeting.

14.Ratification

This policy was ratified by the BOM of Knocktemple N.S. at its meeting on 21^st March, 2012, subject to legal advice and feedback from the Department of Education and Skills and the School’s Insurers.

15. Implementation & Circulation

The policy will be implemented from the date of final ratification. Copies of the policy will be furnished to the staff and Parents Association. It will also be available to parents on request and on the school website www.knocktemplens.ie

16. Conclusion

This policy has been developed taking into account the needs of all children in the school. Provision has been made to minimise risk and make reasonable accommodations for the known needs, concerns and views of the whole school community. The policy is not intended to give precedence to any one child over another where there are competing circumstances, but rather it is intended to inform and guide parents and school management in reaching accommodations that meet the needs of all concerned.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Footnotes

[1] Equality Tribunal Decision DEC-S2002-086

[2] CJEUCase C-279/93 Finanzamt Köln-Altstadt v Roland Schumacker [1995] Paragraph 30