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?

I'm not keen on the word choice myself in these circumstances, but the article states "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." Have to go, no choice about it. That's what I'm querying - why does he have to go in the car, if that puts his health at risk? Why can't he stay in the house with one of his parents?

Perhaps parents means one is working, one is SAH, or indeed both PT, but i one does the school run whilst the other is working then the plural "parents" would be used as it would be used as it is a task share. Hence use of "parents" but it doesn't mean are both caring for the child at once. One could be out of the house. It would be rare to use parent in the singular when you are talking about a family.

Exactly

As much as i sympathise with the predicament of these parents, I think they should be putting their time and effort to get some support to care for their disabled child, rather than trying to bend the rules to get a place for a healthy child in a nearer oversubscribed school.

I understand however that getting such support could be a very very difficult battle, though.

Panelchair, I totally respect you for the assistance you have given so many mumsnet members. You said, it isn't about being cruel or heartless. I am not suggesting that any individual person administrating school admissions was cruel or heartless, but possibly that the admissions process is. That is why I asked whether all councils would come to the same conclusion.

It seems that some schools have a category for social/medical need and some do not. I do not understand why all schools would not have such a category.

The admissions code and appeal code take a lot of effort to understand. As some people here have suggested maybe the family due to the stress they were under didn't fill forms out in the appropriate way to achieve the desired outcome. For families under serious stress there should be local advisors that can help them to fill out their forms and complete appeals. It is a cruel process if vulnerable people who do not fill out a form correctly do not get into the most appropriate school for their needs and circumstances.

The law may be very clear to those that are familiar with it, but for those that do not know about school admissions or understand the laws, you can see why they would approach an MP.

People shouldn't have to rely on Panelchair and others here on mumsnet, because believe it or not not every mum is on here.

Maybe it isn't cruel and heartless, maybe it is just a system that has no scope for compassion

pedigree problem is all your energy is drained - you don't expect a fight with schools admissions over what seems to you like a humane answer to your issues .

Problem a sibling wouldn't fit into a medical needs category as the sibling has no medical need and welsh councils many d

Any do not have a social needs category

How much further is the school she has been allocated?

Although its not ideal as has already been said we only seem to be getting one side of the story here so there could be more to it than meets the eye.

fapl - I must have misunderstood you, because I took your question "Was it ... a particularly cruel appeals panel?" to mean that you thought members of the appeal panel had been deliberately cruel or heartless.

Tiggytape has already said most of what I would have said and - as we are talking about real people here - I think it's intrusive and unkind to be speculating on what they might have done and how the appeal panel may have come to its decision. As tiggytape mentions, some (most?) LEAs do have choice advisers or parents' advocates, there is some advice on the DirectGov website (which directs people to MN) and other websites and there are several MNers who sit on appeal panels and do their best to help people navigate the system. I often suggest that MNers with admissions problems go to ACE for advice.

Any appeal panel has to make a decision which balances the interests of the child appealing for the place and the interests of the children already in the school. It has to abide by all the relevant law and codes and, if it doesn't, its decision is likely to be overturned.

I can understand why people argue that the current amount of flexibility in the system isn't enough, but until such time as the class size limit for infant classes is lifted, there will never be as much flexibility as some people are calling for. And I understand why people enlist the help of their MP and why MPs will often try to help but, again, there is nowhere in the admissions code or the appeal code where it says "none of this applies if you have a letter of support from your MP".

And, yes, where there is a medical/social need category, some LEAs define it in a way that only covers the child seeking a place in school and others have a wider definition that includes other family members.