to think school admissions are heartless when a child with a terminally ill sibling cannot get into their closest school

[fapl]

I saw this today:

www.cats-foundation.org/blogs/press-daybreak-july-2012/

It is sad that there seems to be no flexibility in the system to make a family's life a bit easier when there is a terminally ill child in the family

Would all councils across the country come to the same conclusion or was it a particularly cruel appeals panel?

It's very sad; surely this family could be helped out. They have so much to deal with already.

There is flexibility in the system with the appeal process. But the appeal panels have a lot of rules to abide by, and it seems that in this case for whatever reason, they decided not to allow it.

I will have to reserve judgement unless you have more details about the individual circumstances.

Our council sends out a detailed breakdown of how places at the primary schools were allocated each year, and they never mention a medical criterion at all.
The other thing, and I think it is utterly heartless, is that a terminally ill sibling won't well, be there, after a passage of time, so they don't count in terms of a whole school career iyswim. I bet that's what they thought/why they won't take the medical information into account.

But then how do some appeals go ahead (though I know or have heard it is very rare for appeals to succeed) if the class is full, how do they find that extra place. I know of one child who was successful but it was very tragic and exceptional circumstances.

Appeals are different for infant class sizes and primary schools and secondary schools. There is loads of information that can be found about appeals on the education boards.

There is a chance the appeal was lost because of the right evidence not being presented, but I think there are limits to how much weight they can give to a siblings circumstances because the appeal considers the individual child that is looking for a place. Infant class size appeals are only really won if a mistake has been made by the LA and a place should have been awarded based on the admissions criteria of the school.

So I have heard but as I said I do know of an appeal to be granted late which was purely down to personal circumstances and not LA mistakes.

With infant classes an appeal can be granted on personal circumstances if the normal infant class size in that school is below 30. The 30 class size is law, an appeal panel cannot over turn it except when the council have allocated the places incorrectly and the child in question would have got a place had they done it right.

But surely if the class is under 30 then granting an appeal would be easy. I think the class I'm talking of was full, need to hunt out an old photo and count heads. I know the family went through a lot to get the place, it wasn't easy and required social workers to plead their case.

No you're NBU, it's dreadful :(

It isn't about being cruel or heartless.

It's difficult to know what has happened here, but the statement from the LEA seems to imply that this was an infant class size case. If that is so, the appeal can be won only if the LEA made some sort of mistake or if the panel views the decision as so unreasonable that no rational LEA would have made the same decision.

We do not know whether the school/LEA has an admissions category for social/medical need and whether the family submitted evidence to support an application under that heading. If they did, then the LEA could have been held to be in error in ignoring it. If the younger sibling's health issues were only mentioned at the appeal stage, though, the LEA can't be held to have been at fault in not acting on them.

As tiggytape says, the law is very clear here and lobbying by MPs or community groups won't make any difference - the admissions code and appeal code have to be followed. I am sure the appeal panel will have felt desperately sorry for the family, but sometimes there are situations where appeal panels would like to help but simply don't have any way to do so.

If the family feel the appeal panel misdirected itself, they could refer the matter to the Local Government Ombudsman. Presumably, if there is a social/medical category for admissions, their daughter is now high on the waiting list.

I wish them well.

Whilst I understand all that, it is sad there is no flexibility in the system though.

But what I am trying to say is that there is flexibility, but there is never likely to be as much flexibility as some parents would want. The law limits infant class sizes to 30, but the appeals code gives appeal panels some defined circumstances - error or unreasonableness - where the class size limit can be exceeded. There are, though, some heart-rending cases which fall outside those circumstances.

We don't really know what went on here. I hope the family are getting some good advice on what options are open to them now.

It is very sad (I had a cousin who died of Tay Sachs). I think the LA could have handled it better, rather than making the parents go down the publicity route, but it is difficult to know what to make of it unless you know the full story.

Could the LA not organise a taxi or something for the child to go to school? If it went to appeal, I don't think the panel would necessarily have any power to overturn the decision. There are quite of lot of heart breaking cases where there is no leeway to allow the children into the school.

I agree that this very sad and dreadful for the parents, but I do believe that these parents need a qualified carer to help them, be it to babysit so they could pick up the other child, go to the supermarket or more in general have some respite.

I think this more of case of support to be provided to a family with a disabled child in a more rounded approach, rather than an issue of getting the older child into a nearer school.

We've just changed our admissions criteria for this reason, if a child had medical or social reasons why our school would be best for them they will get a place. It is second on the list of criteria after 'looked after children'.
The Governing Body thought long and hard as they were worried about a deluge of applications from articulate middle class parents using the system to get their 'child with mild eczema'in.

I would also add that when a parent goes to press, you are only getting one perspective. I sat on an appeal once (pre-class size 30 law) and we rejected an appeal for a seriously oversubscribed school. The parent went to the press and the appeal panel were rubbished. How could we be so insensitive to reject this child with a mother so severely disabled that she couldn't leave the house without a carer. She already had 1 child at the school, another at a different one and now she'd have a 3rd at a 3rd school. How was she ever going to get all her kids to school in her condition. Evil appeals panel.

What none of the stories said was that the eldest child was at secondary school and went on the bus from a stop 2 doors away. The second would start there in a few weeks too. The third would be the only one still at primary school and the allocated school was only 2 streets further than the other. Plus, it was the able bodied husband who took the primary schools child to school anyway, not the mother.

But we weren't allowed to say any of that.

There is no flexibility - I have had hell with schools admissions for very serious reasons - if it doesn't fit the policy a blanket no applies.

I had help from SNAP - involved my MP and have met with head o Education - and will be meeting with him again to help he see how changes can be made to ensure no family in our position ever has to go through this joke of a system.

I mentioned SNAP because they will help any parent in dispute with a school - I thought it was an organisation that helped children with disabilities!

I'm sure I'll be called heartless for this, but I'll pose the question anyway - In the article linked to, it says " Unfortunately they had a school appeal turned down which means that Ella has to go to a school further away. This consequently means that Luca?s health will be put at risk as he will have to go with his parents when she is dropped off and picket up at school." (my bolding)

Why do both parents need to do the school run? Why can't one do it , and the other stay with Luca?

Maybe they are sated to leave him and want to spend every minute with him?

Scared to leave him

But wouldn't that mean they, the parents, were choosing to put his health at risk when they didn't need to, Sighingagain? Surely not. Something just doesn't seem right here.

I seriously dislike the use of the word "choice" in duh a serious situation.

It's been thrown at me (by schools admin). The situation in this case (and mine) is not something you chose to be in - behaviours you would never "choose" in a million years are imposed/forced on you because of this dreadful thing that has/is happening to your family.

There is no "choice" - that went for this family when they discovered their child was terminally ill - it became replaced by circumstance.

*such a serious