This is a shit situation but AIBU that the parents need to be held accountable for their son being out of education?

But poverty and lack of aspiration isn't limited to London. If kids in rural Powys or Cornwall or the Scottish Highlands thought it was too middle class to get a bus to school, 95% of them wouldn't get an education!

Not to mention the fact that I think in this case it is highly unlikely he needs to take any transport to school and the alternative schools he's been offered aren't within walking distance.

I accept this family has had a lot of shit luck. But imho it's possible to both sympathise with them for that whilst also judging them for not doing the best for their child in the circumstances. Their son probably already has a lot of disruption and stress given his brothers' significant additional needs. The best thing for him would be to be in a structured environment with the opportunity to learn and socialise with other kids for 7 hours a day. Not sitting at home falling further behind every day because his parents are sticking to their guns about a preferred school and have (willfully or innocently) completely misinterpreted the council's advice about homeschooling.

From the article, 30% of the applicants to the preferred school instead will have to go to the other two schools he's been offered. I don't really see why his personal family circumstances place him above any of the rest of those kids.

The Northolt area is generally no better or worse than many.
If he had that degree of SEN, it would be a DLA care component and mobility claim argument, and school transport arguments in the mix, as well as the arguments back of how safe/reliable trying to make other unrelated, unsupervised, children become young carers is .

Because apart from there being no mention of them actually using the appeal process and failing in 2025: while their parenting situation with two seriously SEN kids is unfortunate, William Perkins school has very set criteria and is seriously over subscribed every year. It's well known in and even out of the area.
They have a specific criteria, expectations, and standards, equally well known.

WP is a victim of good standards, and can't now fully cover the catchment it was set up to reach, and I shouldn't think the family are in it or they'd be adding it to their list of reasons.

Every year 70 to 100 children for whom it's their nearest school and put it as first choice, can't be accommodated because there's more living closer to it or with a sibling there, or they are a LAC.
If WP went further over PAN for this lad without being ordered to, they could expect to be taken to court by all those parents who lost out.(plenty of parents with very good cases already fail)

The family's been dealt a tough hand in life, but don't appear to have done anything, just said 'give us a place there, or the kid gets no education' and we'll leave him with nothing until you do.
OR:
they only put WP down, didn't get in, didn't bother looking elsewhere, ignored two education notices and fines that are now doubled, and now they've been hit with an education order for him to attend a different specific school.
So are trying to justify themselves as to why he's had nothing for nine months and they expect Ealing LEA to now give a direction notice for WP to be placed outside the normal age range so he can catch up, under 'social grounds affected his education.'

It's the worst of most worlds if that's the game and I doubt WP would accept it.

Yes if you agree to EHE the LEA has no further obligation to find a school for you, unless your education plan fails and they have to step in..
That's because it is the decision to Electively Home Educate. Electively meaning do something by choice, voluntarily, or as an option rather than out of necessity or due to an emergency.

A parent however can do what I did originally when back footed into it, (though we are now happily EHE) which is shout loudly 'I'm Home educating, but not Electively' and take the LA to court.

But the parents don't seem to have any legal case here, just a preference for WP, a sad situation with two siblings, and a very, very, flimsy excuse for why they've continued to provide the lad with nothing, for nine months.

It’s perfectly safe. No more dangerous than any other part of a big city like London. It doesn’t specify he has SEN, believe me I am certain those parents would highlight this if so. They’re basically annoyed because he didn’t get to go to the same school as his mates. This happens across the country to lots of children and they get on with it. He’d have made new friends now if his parents weren’t such fucking idiots. Most kids don’t hang around with their primary friends throughout secondary anyway.

The article mentions that the parents think he’d be safer travelling to the school they want, as he’d be travelling with his friends who go there. I don’t know that part of London well, so not sure whether that’s because the streets are actually that dangerous or because maybe he has some degree of SEN and they don’t think he can travel alone yet.

What really bugs me is the fact that the media are giving this airtime. They are inflating the situation deliberately to get the clicks. And in the meantime this lad is missing out. They should be ashamed.

The media interest just adds fuel to a non-fire and encourages the parents to continue their unfounded protest ... and feeds their desire for the limelight with no thought to the boy's best interests.

On the subject of his journey to school perhaps he also has some less severe needs which his parents didn’t want to share with a news outlet.

That was my instinct. It certainly wouldn't be unlikely given the prevalence of autism within siblings sets.

Sorry wrong thread

Tbh though with 2 asd siblings he probably has a very high chance of also having asd. Which could be mild but still impact ability to make new friends. Also possibly showing in mum or both parents re the rigid behaviour of choosing no school vs a leas ideal one. And taking literally re home schooling ao not doing any work with him.

also shes pretty illogical re the siblings as pp says most kids dont have an older one etc.

I dont think it would take 2 parents to get 2 kids (1 older than 12) and a 10yo on sen transport. Im sure 1 parent could drive him.

But my mildly asd kid took a year to be able to walk 1 short road alone to school bus (age 11 to 12) and wouldnt be able to get a public bus…

A lot of asd people can get stuck on the this isnt the right school and would prefer to wait for one.

But i also think there is becoming a very demand nature from kids with sen. (Im thinking re the fast passes for theme parks..)

Probably because we are always having to sort things for the kids. My kid having asd and adhd made no difference on appeal.
And not getting the school at that point has had a detrimental lasting impact (dc has been suicidal for over a year now)

Anyway the biggest issue—-
why are some schools so much more crap that you feel the need to choose. AND why are so many kid finding it hard now to make new friends at schools.?

Oh Steve, wrong thread love 😄

Yes just seen. I only last looked a year ago because my work were building a new place and it was different. (I wasn’t responsible for it just curious hence just a quick google)! As some people at work were objecting about the toilet provision being only unisex. This is what we have in this building now (and only these):

• Unisex/Gender-Neutral Options: Unisex toilets are permitted, but only if they are fully enclosed, self-contained rooms lockable from the inside with their own washbasin.

I clicked on the link expecting to have a different reaction but, while I don’t agree that he should be out of school, I think they do have a couple of reasonable points.

Having a disabled sibling is a known disadvantage factor and perhaps having a sibling attending a special school should be treated the same as having a sibling at the school for admissions purposes? It would affect a tiny number of children but make a big difference to those individual families.

On the subject of his journey to school perhaps he also has some less severe needs which his parents didn’t want to share with a news outlet.

The need to wait in for morning and afternoon transport is a huge tie for parents of disabled children, who are statistically less likely to be in work due to all the associated commitments.

I hope a place comes up for him.

I do agree with your post, the only thing I’d say is re this:

“I thought it was very normal for kids in london to have to travel to school because of the sheer variety of schools - so many go to a particular faith/private/grammar etc rather than the comp on their doorstep.”

yes, it is normal, but that doesn’t extend to all types of families. There are many families in London who experience a far smaller world than you’d expect in the uk and this is often linked to poverty and parents education/ background. An extreme example is the many kids who have never been off their large estate.

jumping on tubes and buses to the grammar or catholic/ Jewish school or the favoured academy or comp is quite upwardly mobile, and not normal in all families, tending to be the preserve of aspirational parents who value education and opportunity.

personally, I don’t like to see this opportunity restricted to those children, I think it’s ideal to encourage all pupils to take it.

But the pupils with parents who can’t support it- and I think caring for 2 disabled siblings qualifies as a family who may struggle to manage it all- should get the opportunities where they can. And in my view the appeals process for this school can support that.

Can they not say they are home schooling but still go on waiting lists of schools they want?

Idiot parents. If he would have gone to one of the other schools offered, he’d be settled in now and the other schools would be a distant memory.

My kids didn’t stay friends with the vast majority of kids they were at primary school with. It’s very common for children to make a whole new set of friends.

I bet these parents are very difficult people in general. Everyone has their own shit going on. They’re fucking up this poor boys life.

@latetothefisting

Good point☝🏻

None of her arguments work, logically. It's hard to sympathise.

The mum is quoted as saying
"Shay is uniquely disadvantaged by no fault of his own, because his siblings need to attend specialist schools. This means that he will always be unable to tick the sibling box on his application to boost his chances of getting into a school."
Which is complete bullshit, it just makes him the same as any other child who is either the eldest sibling or who has no siblings - which together make up more than 50% of kids!

I note the article also referred to the advice about homeschooling making him illegible for other schools as advice the council "apparently" gave - i.e. code for the council absolutely did not say that, the parents have (deliberately or by accident) misinterpreted it.

Basically he's in exactly the same position as thousands of other kids - didn't get into his school of choice, needs to suck it up and go to a different one. It's London ffs, the next few nearest schools are hardly miles away to the extent he needs mum and dads help getting there - in the countryside and smaller towns kids his age have to be several miles away from their closest school before they even get school transport!

I thought it was very normal for kids in london to have to travel to school because of the sheer variety of schools - so many go to a particular faith/private/grammar etc rather than the comp on their doorstep.

She's brandishing as many sympathy cards as she can think of. The bereavements, the "loss" of her support network etc. none of which are relevant to the education of her son.

I doubt the support group would have a problem if her son was sat in the corner reading some work books instead of spooning around at home or whatever he gets up to during the couple of hours his mother is engaged with the coffee morning.

It all seems unnecessarily bureaucratic. They cannot homeschool their son because, if they do, then they lose out on getting him into the school that can work. Who made up that rule?

My experience is that this is untrue. When I home educated, the council were bending over backwards to accommodate me sending my son back into school and I was then offered some of the very over subscribed ones. It was actually a common joke among home educating parents that if you want your first choice school, say you're home educating!

That said it was not as a popular a choice as now and perhaps it has changed but I remain very skeptical.

Edit to say: I had no intention of sending my son to school, we were happy home educating. But I did find it bemusing that more choices suddenly became available when I didn't even want them.

I lost sympathy with the reason for not going to a second school.

I live rurally and appealed a school place. Although the school offered and the one we wanted were a similar distance from us, the transport links are wildly different. I expected them to say we can't physically get to the second, the timings don't work with the special transport or something, not simply that he wants to go to a school with all his friends

I suspect there's more to this story!

I think there's wrong on both sides here. I do think the local authority should have allowed a successful appeal given his circumstances - he's a young carer and there are significant social reasons. I've seen much less convincing cases win including lots on here - "my child wants to study French and the worse school doesn't offer it"-type reasons. Saying that, I'm not clear whether they formally appealed, the article doesn't say.

However it's also wrong of the parents to halt his education in protest. He's already facing many barriers in life through no fault of his own, it's awful they're choosing to put another one in his path.

Agreed. It’s London, I’m certain the alternative school won’t have been too far away and pretty easy to get to on the tube or bus. His siblings have complex needs but he doesn’t so at 12 he’s able to get to himself to school without mum holding his hand.

Also she could say she wasn’t homeschooling officially but actually do it privately so the poor kid doesn’t fall behind.

Yet another parent drawing on her unfortunate circumstances to try and get what she wants.
The kid is more than old enough to get himself to school and he would make friends in time.
She is failing him.

He has been offered another school within the same distance but do not want to take it because his friends are going to the other school. This is unfortunate but it is no different to the situation of many children and they simply make new friends. And often a second choice school proves to be a good choice. No-one knows what a school is really like until the child is actually there.

It is sad that the family have been through so much and have children with disabilities, but blackmail is not the way forward as the system would be reduced to chaos if this was seen as an option.

I am assuming that they have had an appeal turned down.

I have serious concerns about our school system and admire those who home educate and look at alternatives, but it is disturbing to see this family using their child as a political pawn - if they really feel that they cannot send him to the allocated school then they should take steps in the direction of home education. It does not feel as though they are pursuing his best interests, but are trying to make a point, sad though their circumstances clearly are.

I too would be fed up in their situation, but would not want my child to miss out. And, without wanting to sound hard-hearted, the deaths in their family are very sad but not really relevant to school choice and it feel like a means of currying sympathy.