Apologies for complexity and length
Hearing has been adjourned for a couple of months. I have not named an alternative school. I have until the end of the month to name.
Parental preference m/s was not named in the final statement. The LA told us that it wasn't going to be and told us that they were going to name catchment. We were due to move and DS2 attended neither school at that time. Both parental preference and catchment were sent the draft and both were up to their PAN for that year and argued that DS2's presence was incompatible with the efficient education of other children.
Parental preference argued a high number of SEN in that year and identified at least 8 other children (in a class of 28) (i.e. DS with VI, LAC, 3 x ASD, 4 x dyslexia and AS). Ofsted/DfE data shows that there are 6 DC supported at statement or SA+ level across the whole school - 6.3%. There are at least 2 adults in the classroom throughout the day (DC with statement has own LSA).
Catchment also argued a high number of SEN in that year and identified 15 other children in a class of 28 with literacy/numeracy IEPs plus DC with various types of challenging behaviour. Ofsted/DfE data shows that there are 9 DC at statement or SA+ level throughout the school - 5.4%. There are only two adults in the classroom during the morning. In the afternoon the CT is alone.
Data Protection copies of emails shows that the head of parental preference had phoned the LA and was 'adamant that he wouldn't have him'. This seems to have influenced the LA selection. There is no record of assessing whether or not the LA or school of parental preference was able to take reasonable measures to counter alleged incompatibility. The HT's assessment of the number of DC with greater than average need is not based on presence on the SEN register at statement or SA+ level but is not challenged.
There are several internal emails that indicate that the LA want to name catchment, simply because it is catchment, but need to get further advice about what to write in the letter.
There is then a copy of a letter sent to catchment saying that the LA don't accept the grounds of incompatibility and are legally obliged to name the school of parental choice and so 'respectfully requested' that he be admitted. This school was not parental preference!! An admissions application exists for parental preference but not for catchment because we were forced to accept the actions of the LA pending tribunal to appeal placement.
DS2 started the school in September and they have been dismissive and hostile. From September - June they argued to the LA (via secret email) that needs were exaggerated or invented, support was a hinderance and detrimental and so, as it was not needed, it was not possible for them to actually deliver the support in the statement. Despite the LA attending all meetings since March, this position was officially held until the LA EP produced a report for tribunal hearing that agreed with parental views and disagreed with teacher's claims.
DS2 has an offer of a place at indi ss but, at this stage (year 5) I am not convinced that m/s with support can't work and don't want to feel that DS2 is being pushed out of the m/s when it is not in his best interests.
I don't necessarily want DS2 to stay in such a hostile environment just because it is catchment and he is there already. I fear that any improvements to part 3 following tribunal would be worthless and the whole thing would have been a monumental waste of time and money. So, it seems that we face a hostile environment that is not willing to meet need (and is in any case clueless) or a hostile environment with a very good record of meeting need, greater resource, experience and understanding.
So I thought go back to the original school named as preference. But the head won't even let parents visit, the LA agree that we should be allowed but say they can't direct him to allow us to visit and that the school is under no obligation to allow potential parents to visit.
How do I deal with this (assuming I don't just go away). Do I file a request to tribunal asking them to rule that parents are allowed to visit the school? Or do I just name the school in part 4 and explain that the head has refused to allow us to visit?
Can I just say that I am aware of the insanity of asking about naming a school in part 4 that does not want DS2. His existing school don't want him either and were still trying to prevent him starting on 4 September after we had done all the preparation
Please or to access all these features
Please
or
to access all these features
Here are some suggested organisations that offer expert advice on special needs.
SN children
Appealing Part 4
11 replies
KOKOagainandagain · 01/10/2015 11:34
OP posts:
Please create an account
To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.