Mainstream vs resource base (ARP)

The government has suggested adding more resource bases/additionally resourced provisions (ARPs) to mainstream schools, but what does that for parents? In particular, what does it mean for parents who want their child to be in the mainstream classroom?

The recent case of  AA v London Borough of Hounslow (SEN): [2025] UKUT 226 (AAC) is an Upper Tribunal case about this situation. The parent had requested a mainstream school (School O), but the LA had instead named School S, which had an autism ARP. At the hearing, the Tribunal sided with the LA on the grounds that School O was not suitable for the child. The parent appealed to the Upper Tribunal. 

The law 

When parents express a preference for a school, this school must be named unless one of the exceptions in s39 of the Children and families Act 2014 (“CAFA” )applies (the school is unsuitable for the child’s age, aptitude or SEN, it is incompatible with the efficient education of others or it is incompatible with the efficient use of resources). 

However, where a parent wants a mainstream school, they have the benefit of s33 of CAFA as well. S33 states that where the parent’s preference school is not named (or no preference is expressed), the LA must name a mainstream school unless this is incompatible with the parent’s wishes or the efficient education of others (and there are no reasonable steps that could be taken to remove the incompatibility). Crucially, the LA cannot refuse to name mainstream because it is “unsuitable” or because of the cost of making the school suitable.

The parent therefore argued that the Tribunal was wrong to refuse to name School O on the grounds that it was unsuitable because it should have applied the test in s33. 

The Upper Tribunal

The Upper Tribunal upheld the original Tribunal’s decision. It held that the “right to mainstream” under s33 did not apply until after the parent’s preference school had been rejected, and so the Tribunal could apply the normal s39 criteria and refuse to name School O on the grounds it was unsuitable.

Once the parent’s school had been rejected, s33 came into play. However, this only required the LA to name a mainstream school, not the particular mainstream school the parents wanted. It also held that the “right to mainstream” was not a right to a mainstream experience, and that naming a mainstream school with an ARP fulfilled the section 33 duty.

The case also confirms that an ARP in a mainstream school is not a separate institution so cannot be named in Section I. The Judge did comment that where the base is run separately to the school, it might be considered to be a separate institution. However, this will not apply to the vast majority of ARPs.

What does this mean for parents?

Unfortunately, it means a parent has very little right to keep their child in the mainstream classroom rather than an ARP. 

Where parents want their child to be in an ARP, this can be done by drafting provision in Section F that can only be done in the ARP. Parents could try to do this in reverse and put provision into Section F that is incompatible with an ARP.  For example, a requirement to be educated with a typically developing peer group, or a requirement for an adapted curriculum delivered within the mainstream classroom. The problem is that whilst it is quite easy to draft provision that can only be done in the ARP, it’s much harder to draft provision that cannot be done in the ARP, especially if the child is joining the mainstream class for some of the time. 

Parents could also try to rely on s35 of CAFA, which requires mainstream schools to ensure that children with SEN engage in the activities of the school together with children who do not have SEN. However, this duty only applies as far as is “reasonably  practical” and only if compatible with the child receiving the special educational provision they require, the efficient education of others and the efficient use of resources.

Lastly, parents could try to use disability discrimination, but they would need to establish “unfavourable treatment”. This is likely to be difficult unless the parent can point to something specific their child is being denied (for example, if a child has fewer options for GCSE subjects because they are in the ARP).

This is an area that’s likely to be an increasing problem as more ARPs are established, so it will be interesting to see if the Government addresses this as part of the long-awaited SEN reforms.