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

[jinglejuicing]

Didn’t get school of choice, has two severely disabled brothers that he helps care for. Recent loses in the family. This boy needs to be in school for stability. What do the parents expect the council to do?

https://www.mylondon.news/news/west-london-news/ealing-council-school-attendance-prosecution-33941041?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwZnRzaAR7kuxleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBzcnRjBmFwcF9pZAo2NjI4NTY4Mzc5AAEe4QW9GvFO5aeg4_yefrE0HE48rr2oF-eGK0s4bbIxG8QznjniGq2GxQct5ZA_aem_rqzSN5VJLJcEEoFt3tfLgg#Echobox=1778837220

Agree its a shitty situation but this boy should not be paying the price for it by missing out on his education.

There is a flaw in the system - if you say you’re home educating then the LA no longer has any obligation to find a school place for you. There should be a way to say “I’m home educating until a place comes up at my preferred school” and then stay on that waiting list. That way they could educate at home while waiting.

Or just go to the other school whilst waiting for a place at the preferred one. Seems simpler. Understandable that the boy wants to be with his friends but thousands of kids deal with the same thing without playing the SEND card.

The level of entitlement is off the scale - you send your child to a new school and he makes new friends. The council isn't going to put him in the preferred school because it sets a prescedent that other parents may follow which is extremely detrimental to the child.

Tbh, I don’t understand why he can’t get the preferred school on appeal for the social reasons she details. Secondary schools can and do go over PAN.

not saying she should be able to blackmail her way in, but it does seem an unfortunate set of circumstances

Gosh, that sounds like they have all gone through the mill. I'm not sure I understand the logistics of him being able to access one school but not another the same distance away but I don't think they'd be making their own and his life harder for sport.

The percentage of kids who didn't get their first preference in this area seems strikingly high for this current year group, ours managed to get almost 96% into their preferred school.

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?

Its normal for Secondary school pupils yo travel alone. London has free travel for under 16s. So he can attend an alternative school, the parents just dont want him too.

I would imagine most pupils who gain and appeal place for social/ educational reasons could technically go elsewhere. But the appeal allows for the best outcome for the pupil, not the basics

I can see fault on both sides.

The council say they have been helpful but then go on to spout untruths that only serve to heighten the anxiety and stress the family are experiencing.

It was at this point that Sinead claims a council officer told her "there is no way in hell you should be home-schooling with everything you've got going on". She says he also warned her about a systemic trap.
She claims she was told if she officially registered to home school Shay, he would be removed from the system, and the council would "not go out of their way" to get him back into a physical school further down the line. This apparent advice forced the family to avoid home-schooling to preserve their hope he would get a place at William Perkin - but it means he has been out of education, and Sinead is facing possible prosecution for it.

This is simply lies, and unfortunately it's a very common tactic used by councils to coerce and intimidate parents thinking about home education into sending their children to school. I homeschooled and I had an easy time as I knew my rights, but when a relative of mine took her statemented son out of school you would be shocked by the tactics the school employed to intimidate her into putting him back in, which included feeding wrong information about her right to home education, sending an education welfare officer to her home, reporting her to social services with a load of totally made up lies about her fitness as a parent not just once, but twice who, thankfully had sense and quickly dismissed it.

I also cannot see how they were 'not a priority' to get the school near them considering their difficult circumstances.

Where I think the parents are wrong, is they should have sent him to the next school offered which ok, his friends aren't there, but unfortunately that is the way for many children and they prevented him the opportunity to make new ones by having him start at the same time everyone else did. Their logic also does not make sense. They should still be doing something educational with him at home. He is now stressed about his own future. There's clearly a lot going on with the mother who seems overly protective and under a lot of strain.

Ultimately though, yes, this child should be given the opportunity to go to school and the law should ensure this.

This is ridiculous. Get that child to school. He’s missing so much of his education, he’ll be behind at whichever school the family accepts. He’s old enough to travel on his own in London. Poor kid.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

@latetothefisting

Good point☝🏻

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Oh Steve, wrong thread love 😄