“Where extra resources are required to enable a school to make the provision specified in statements, the LEA can provide those resources directly from central provision, devolve them to schools on an earmarked basis or delegate them.” 30. I have to say that I do not consider that there is a tension between the two paragraphs. The paragraphs are dealing with two different scenarios. Paragraph 8.2 addresses situations where there has been a finding that the special educational provision cannot reasonably be provided within the resources normally available to mainstream schools. If it can be reasonably provided within the resources normally available, then it will not be necessary to require a Statement. The resources ‘normally available’ will obviously differ from case to case and from LA to LA. It is, in my view, perfectly proper for a LA (and on appeal, a Tribunal) to take account of money and people being provided by the utilisation of devolved budgets, and in consequence to arrive at a conclusion that a Statement is not necessary. 31. Paragraph 8.5 is concerned with situations when there has been a Statement, and makes clear that a school can make provision specified in the Statement from resources provided by the LA directly from central funds, from devolved budgets, from earmarked provision or by delegated authority. Paragraph 8.5 is not relevant to the present case, because the LA decided (as did the Tribunal) that a Statement was not necessary given that the ‘provision necessary to meet A’s needs’ could be provided within the resources normally available. In other words, paragraph 8.2 was directly relevant. 32. I agree with Ms Hammett who submits that the LA (and the Tribunal on appeal) must address two questions in determining whether it is necessary under s 324 to issue a Statement. The first question is whether the special education provision identified as necessary for the child in the assessment carried out under s 323 is in fact available within the resources normally available to a mainstream school. The second question is, if so, can the school reasonably be expected to make such provision from within its resources. 33. The Tribunal refer to the position of the LA in this way (at para 7) “The LA acknowledge that A has special educational needs, but say that her needs can be met at School Action Plus. [The School] has a delegated budget which means that as a mainstream school it can provide up to 32 and a half hours of learning support per pupil per week if necessary, which is adequate to meet A’s educational provision.”
“The primary duty is on the governing body of the school: the LA’s duty is triggered only where the governing body is, in effect, no longer able to discharge its duty...Plainly some schools will have more resources than others, and will be able to provide more by way of special educational provision before it is necessary for the LA to step in than others. Similarly, some LA’s will delegate more of the Schools Budget to schools than others: such schools may be able to provide more by way of special educational provision before it is necessary for the LA to step in than those in LA areas which delegate less of their Schools Budget”
“19. It follows that, if the appellate process is to work satisfactorily, the judgment must enable the appellate court to understand why the Judge reached his decision. This does not mean that every factor which weighed with the Judge in his appraisal of the evidence has to be identified and explained. But the issues the resolution of which were vital to the Judge’s conclusion should be identified and the manner in which he resolved them explained. It is not possible to provide a template for this process. It need not involve a lengthy judgment. It does require the Judge to identify and record those matters which were critical to his decision. If the critical issue was one of fact, it may be enough to say that one witness was preferred to another because the one manifestly had a clearer recollection of the material facts or the other gave answers which demonstrated that his recollection could not be relied upon”. 43. After careful consideration of Ms Scolding’s submissions, I have concluded that a “reasons challenge” is not made out. I have asked myself the question asked by Mann J in R v Mental Health Review Tribunal ex parte Clatworthy[1985] 3 All ER 699 : “Standing back and looking at these reasons and asking, would the applicant, from those reasons, know why the case advanced in detail on his behalf had not been accepted?” 44. At para 28, the Tribunal state “…we were satisfied on the balance of evidence that Oakthorpe are aware of the issue [the emotional impact upon A] and that her mixed ability class is appropriate, containing both those on a similar level, and pupils working above and below, and can only be addressed by positive reinforcement to A.”