Sarah Teather, Minister of State for Children and Families, live webchat TODAY, Monday 16th July, 10.30am to 11.30am

[FrancesMumsnet]

We're pleased to announce that Sarah Teather, Minister of State for Children and Families, will be joining us for a live webchat on Monday 16 July at 10.30 am. When elected to Parliament, Sarah was the youngest MP in Britain. She has previously served as Liberal Democrat spokesperson for Community and Local Government, Education, and Housing.

As part of the biggest reforms to SEN provision in 30 years, the government has recently announced the Children and Families bill. Sarah is specifically keen to get Mumsnetter's views on the proposed changes to SEN and statements. Further information about the changes are available here:www.education.gov.uk/schools/pupilsupport/sen/b0075291/green-paper/progress.

Ms Teather also has responsibility for policy areas like childcare and early education, and the Children and Families bill will also deal with care proceedings in family courts, children's welfare in cases of relationship breakdown, and fostering and adoption arrangements.

Do please join us on Monday; if you can't make it on the day, please post up your questions in advance here.

I love the way Lib Dems are shoved in the firing line to field off the uproar to the more right wing agenda. I don?t envy your position, Sarah Teather.

It has been quoted on a couple of other MN threads (by CouthyMow, I think) that in the Universal Credit Policy Briefing Notes there is a passage which states "Due to a reduction in their income after the changeover to Universal Credit, some families will become collateral damage?.

What exactly do you understand to be meant by collateral damage? It conjures up awful images of culling the poor and disadvantaged in the name of greater good.

Does it mean deaths are anticipated as a direct result of welfare reforms? Or just homelessness and starvation?

How will collateral damage be measured, managed and compensated?

There are a mass of Very Important Questions on here already relating to SEN and statements; however in terms of changes to family courts:

OFSTED has identified that many delays to adoptions are due to repeat or late assessments of parents and other family members during proceedings, the length of which often had a ?measurable and adverse? impact on timely adoptions (one assumes equally traumatic for children returning to their birth parents from foster care after such delays).

? Where LA?s are known to have been underperforming and are up against further cuts, together with shockwaves from Family Court Judges speaking out and evidence based research about the inconsistencies of expert witnesses in the current system; how can you be sure at this stage that speeding up the adoption timescales in the early part of 2013 is the right thing?
? What hope and assurances are you able to give children and families have who are not happy with the way their case is being/has been handled in the processes leading to a placement order in terms of truly independent support and scrutiny?
? And lastly, what recompense is there for children who have suffered under a poorly performing LA and been removed unnecessarily from a loving birth family?

If you are not able to answer these questions during this session, please could you indicate when or how answers might be forthcoming? Is it possible to arrange a separate session to cover questions regarding changes to the family courts?

Thank you for time.

OK, first 5 questions off the top of my head...

The Green Paper contained an impressive number of good intentions, but left the tricky job of working out how to implement them to the pathfinders. Indications are that the pathfinders are initially overwhelmed by the size of this task, and are picking the low-lying fruit, by starting with the easy issues or by adapting existing processes (and so enshrining some of the existing practices which the Green Paper was designed to change). I can only go by what little I have read so far, so would be grateful if the Minister could clarify:

1. how are you ensuring that Health is participating in the pathfinder programme? My impression is that they aren't engaged anywhere near as much as Education or Social Care, and it seems to be impacting outcome already. Many of my questions are around the Health part of the new system. The hardest logistical challenge of the EHCP is going to be getting the combined assessment process to be shorter than the current educational statementing process, and Health (who can't reliably get an urgent letter out in less than 6 months, because Admin staff are not "frontline" and so always the first to be cut) will be the bottleneck. If it takes them months to send a routine letter asking for an urgent(!) blood test, it will take years to extract letters from a raft of experts legally committing their departments to budget spending until the child in question is 25. You can't find a way to fix this without Health's active involvement in the pathfinder trials and until this is fixed you can't frame legislation.

2. Giving families control of their combined budgets (ie Education and Health as well as Social Care) could be the most transformative part of the Green Paper: so many legal battles would be unecessary if parents could simply vote with their feet rather than be stuck with a non-performing provider, and of course it puts tremendous pressure on LAs and providers to come up with a clear Local Offer which meets the child's needs. It could also give state schools the funds to offer the sorts of combined in-house services that at present mean we lose so many pupils to the private sector. However, the path of least resistance for the pathfinder testing is to integrate the existing Direct Payments scheme for Social Care into the new assessment framework, and call it a "personal budget" without ever getting to the meat of the issue. Which pathfinders are genuinely testing giving full budget control to families, across all services? What are their findings?

2.1) Under the new National Funding Formula, precisely which parts of a child's education funding could be under parental control? As I understand it, there will be a generic SEN budget per head, and a per-pupil top-up, and presumably then any funds over and above this named in the EHCP. Presumably the point of the NFF is that this is govt funding rather than LA funding so only the DoE can tell us which parts of this the parents will have control of, and it is the department who sets the rules on usage. What restrictions will there be on how we can use it? Where a child's needs fluctuate, can funds from Health be temporarily spent on Care, for instance?

2.2) Given that some of these children have quite complex Health needs, how do you propose to determine which health costs are covered by the delegated budget and which are not? For instance, if a child has Physio in their EHCP to help them hold a pen, and then breaks their arm requiring additional physio, does it come out of the EHCP or are they allowed to access standard NHS services via their GP? Also, if a need is listed in the EHCP, is the child still eligible for NHS support once the EHCP funding has run out?

3. given that a child's Health or Care needs will often increase quite rapidly over time, the process of amending an EHCP plan must be easier and quicker than the current Statementing process (it's generally acknowledged that you really have to get a Statement right first time because it can be incredibly hard to change one afterwards: although Statements are "reviewed" annually, if this review shows up a genuine change in need parents have another almighty battle on their hands). But though the Green Paper mentions the possibility of review, in practice both it and the pathfinder reports I have seen focus pretty exclusively on initial assessment. Which pathfinders are actively trialling the amendment process? Are they trialling amendment of the whole EHCP or just focussing on one service?

4. at present, therapy which is educationally necessary is included in a child's Statement and so afforded the same legal protection as the rest of their education. A large % of tribunal cases at present are related to the educational provision of therapy, so if the EHCP is to reduce tribunal costs the pathfinders need to tackle this issue head-on. I have heard that early pathfinder feedback says EHCPs include therapy but are removing legal protection for it, even where it is educationally necessary. Is this in line with Ministerial thinking or in conflict with it? Will educationally necessary therapy have the same, or better, protection under the law you are currently drafting? Or will this protection be lost?

5. Local Authorities are regularly lose cases in Tribunal for issuing "bad" statements: ones that are vague and unquantified, and where provision in part 4 doesn't meet the need in part 2. Do you agree the new law should set similarly high standards for the EHCP, and that the Local Offer and the provision statements from providers should be held to this standard too? In other words, will your law ensure the Local Offer is clear and practical and quantified and verifiable? If Local Authorities are allowed to write their Local Offers using the same vague, legally evasive wording they attempt to use in their Statements, the aim of building trust in a more transparent system will become impossible.

I am a disabled activist and have been for more than 20 years. I am really pleased to see such a high level of knowledge and some very good and extremely pertinent questions from Mners.

I have two things that I want to raise not just with Sarah but with other Mners as rightly I think people are coming from a personal stand point or looking for feed back on situations that they have experienced. Myself I want to ask more policy and intention themed stuff.

1. Local authorities up and down the land are increasingly using private care agencies as well as third sector providers. This is mainly because it is cheaper. However one of the first things to suffer for adults with care needs is their choice of provider, and the quality of care. The choice issue is about people liking and trusting those that provide the hands on care. This relationship is fundamental, Sarah I ask you in all honesty how you would feel about 5- 6 different people coming each week to feed and dress you? The choice is also about the times that people come, the things that they do i that time slot, the work load of the person doing the care. This is all down to budgets as every action takes time, and every second is being paid for. You see where this is going? So what becomes important tis time not the level of interaction or the the disabled person. Very often I have heard people talk about feeling like pieces of meat being manhandled from bed to chair, having a sandwich thrown at them and told that someone will be in later. Care plans are routinely ignored if read at all, and staff are sometimes unable to deal with things like putting the washing machine on as they do not know the make or model and they do not have the time to study the controls. So finally my question on this part is:

The provision of care at home services is dependent on money, however as I have pointed out the money is allocated by time, how are YOU going to resource the time needed so that people can have dignity and confidence in the care the receive? How will you prevent the rush to the lowest level of care bing provided by those who bid the least for home care contracts. Do not even stat talking about Standards or commissions, the money is all down to you and it is the MONEY that allows the best practice it is the lack of money that people day in and day out at the moment.

2: Disabled activists have been calling for personal care budgets for years so yes we are pleased to see the introduction, we have also called for mainstreaming, person centred planning, and inclusion. Unfortunately when we have been successful in having these ideas taken up by local and central government we have often found our words twisted and bent so far from what we intended as to be the opposite of what we wanted. An example would be in person centred planning. This has been taken up by many agencies but instead of posing the question what does Miss Blogs want to achieve and how can it be delivered and who will do the delivering. We somehow end up talking about resources and budgets. So Miss Bloggs wants to go to college 3 days a week, but either the social budget cannot afford this mainly because the staff time would be too costly or simple things like transport, will not be funded. It is not a health issue so no money there. So you see what we are saying, again this comes back to nuts and bolts getting dressed washed etc, but then left as the Money but more importantly the planning is done to suit the Money and not the individual. One other quick example would be the way that the words of disabled people are being turned against them in terms of work. No disabled person has ever said "I would prefer not to work" Given the option we would all work, the truth is Sarah most disabled people cannot conform to a rigid time scale or a rigid set of rules, or need significant help and support. However this government like the last 3 have made it sound like a legion of disabled people are unwilling to come off benefits when in fact this government has like precious done very little to change the working culture that would do more than anything else to boost employment. So my second point is this:

Sarah you have closed the ILF fund, you are replacing DLA with pip, you are handing over some benefits at the moment managed by the dwp to local authorities but without ring fencing them, the change to HB especially the 2nd bedroom rule will mean very real hardship for disabled people who need overnight care. Given all this why on earth should disabled people have any confidence in this policy or any other policy that this government is putting forward, it would seem that your interest in disabled people extends to reducing their cost and no more.

I am still pondering my questions relating to the Health and Social Care side if this, I will be back later with those.

The first one that pops into my head is about a personal situation. If you are given a budget for Health care, would that be Nationally set, or would it take into account your disability or combination of disabilities, and would it take into account variations in local provision?

The reason I ask is because I have uncontrolled epilepsy, and ideally need to see a Neurologist every 12-26 weeks, 26 at most. However - my PCT does not have a Neuro AT ALL. In order to see a Neurologist, I have to travel 60 miles each way on public transport. Currently, as I am not working, I get my travel costs reimbursed. Would the travel costs also have to come out of the personal budget, or would that be separate to the Health needs budget, or would I get an additional amount as the service I need to use is not provided locally?

Also, if you have a child with complex health issues, SEN requiring quite a bit of support just to access the curriculum AND you have a need for additional Care to be provided, in as much as respite care, would the budget given actually cover the payments for everything? My DD currently sees a cardiac consultant, an ENT consultant, a child development paediatrician, OT, physio, Audiology Consultant, CAHMS, a Paed Neurologist (again, 120 mile round trip), and she is also due to see the geneticist again soon, she has over 3 hours a week help in school (despite NOT being able to get a statement), and it is being looked at giving me some respite care due to the difficulties faced by my family, with having a Lone Parent who is disabled looking after 4 DC, two of whom also have disabilities.

If the budget offered wasn't enough to cover all this, who would get to choose what was most important to spend the money on? And would I be able to, say, spend Health money on getting her additional support at school if there was no SA+ any more and she stopped getting the 3 hours a week that she currently gets?

Many of the surviving special needs schools are in appalling states of disrepair. One in my area is made up entirely of leaking 30 year old portakabins and often closes during periods of wet weather as the classrooms are soaking. The DofE just turned down their bid for a rebuild.
why is this acceptable ?

I would also like to see LA's be held accountable for time wasting through tribunal. Our 5yo DS2 has SNs and is struggling to cope in a MS setting, even though he has fulltime 1:1 support. We requested at his annual review that he be placed (as of beginning of next school year) at a local specialised school that has indicated that they are able to meet his needs. DS2's paediatrician, OT, TA, teacher, senco, headteacher, and us (parents) also feel he would do much better at the special school. The LA looked over the annual review and refused the special school. Part of their criteria was based on his educational psych report from approximately a year previous.

We then appealed and were told by the LA that they wouldn't even consider the special school until he had a more current ed psych report. So basically, they had no problem refusing the special school on the year old ed psych report (as they didn't ask for a new one at that point), but two weeks later when we appealed suddenly they need a more current report. How does that make sense?? They won't organise a new assessment from the ed psych until autumn, and tribunal isn't until December. So even though this was all requested in March, they've managed to put this whole thing off until almost Christmas, fighting to keep him in mainstream when everyone that works with him has indicated he would be better out of mainstream and in the special school. Which means DS2 struggles in mainstream for most likely another full school year. It's cruel and it's unfair to him. It wastes time he could be learning in a more appropriate setting, it makes him struggle unnecessarily for another year, creates more stress for us, and costs the LA extra money that doesn't need to be spent in tribunal. It's just more delays for no good reason....

This kind of nonsense wastes money that could be better spent on provisions and support, rather than making parents fight constantly for everything.

And part of this is also the concern about "inclusion"... there comes a point where inclusion is just a word.. they claim inclusion with DS2, however, he is constantly being taken out of the classroom and away from the other children due to his needs...and if he was unfortunate enough to go to the attached junior school, he would be separated from the other children even more (we've met with them to see how his situation would be handled).. how is that inclusion??

Charlie - I wonder if we are fairly near each other? The turning down for a rebuild (that was already agreed under previous Government) has severely hampered them in their bid to expand to offer more places for DC's with Autism...

Hi Sarah, I have 4 questions:

1. Why are there no consequences for LEAs who issue statements that are unlawful (in our case no provision specified and quantified)? Our LEA usually only back down the day before the tribunal in cases where parents appealed.

2. What kind of compensation is available for children who suffered due to provision that did not meet there needs while the tribunal case was pending (keeping in mind that it can be often 7-8 months until the tribunal meets - this is an unacceptable long time for a child to be left with totally inadequate provision).

3. How is the current system fair for parents who are not able (for whatever reason) to take on LEA?

4. Will I be able to purchase ABA provision for my severely autistic child once the personal budgets kick in?

thank you

Inclusion is a good idea in theory, and works well with some DC, but IMO, it should also be noted that some DC's have needs that are just too specific and specialised to be managed effectively in Mainstream school. In a specialised placement, they would receive an education that is tailored for their needs, and would ultimately not be struggling and falling further and further behind.

The lack of specialised placements in some areas, with special schools being shut down in the name of 'inclusion' but really for budgetary reasons, is causing many DC's to leave school illiterate and innumerate.

Special schools here have been requesting rebuild/moves and out of 3 one was granted a partial move.
All 3 are supposed to take 60ish and are roughly 25% over.
All in buildings adapted but unsuitable but not getting finding to improve( although the majority of MS ones are in a similar position but it's easier to adapt for kids without wheelchairs/sticks etc).

Not a question just comparing!

Couthy: I am not about to start disagreeing with you indeed not much to disagree with. BUT I would suggest that in order to underline special needs schools and so both raise the profile and make clear the criteria to be applied to pupils who are put forward to attend them, and the expectations of the type and quality of the education provided. A presumption should be that a place in any mainstream school of should as of right be the default setting for education authorities.

There will be a need as there always has been and always will be a need for special schools, however your very point about students leaving such places functionally illiterate is an indication that special schools have not had an identifiable set of criteria the same as mainstream.

I went to a special school in the 60's -70's most of those I left with were functionally illiterate consigned to the dole or sheltered workshops, or day centres. That choice no longer exist and in some respects thank god. But to give Children with sever LD or physical disabilities the oppertunity to have some semblance of an independent life they need education not movement and dance mixed with social skills.

Oh, no, Leith - my local SEN school offers normal GCSE's for ANY DC that would be capable of acheiving ANY grade! I suspect by your comments that this isn't necessarily true of other SEN schools. They didn't offer that option when my Ex-P attended there from 1986 until 1991, though they DID offer very good vocational training and apprenticeships even then, that gave my Ex-P the opportunity to gain NVQ lvl 2 qualifications in Catering, which he still works in now at 37.

TBH, I'm shocked that not all SEN schools offer GCSE's in traditional subjects...

I have a friend whose DD is in Y9 there, going into Y10. She has Aspergers, and is there because she cannot cope with the large class sizes in MS, amongst other things. She is sitting GCSE's like geography, History, Statistics and more.

If my DD had got a place there then she may not be struggling as much educationally.

I don't believe that MS is the right placement for my DD, neither does her MS Secondary, yet we are unable to get her a statement that will enable her to get entry.

Thanks RowanMumsnet - and thanks for getting her in the first place - it is a really valuable opportunity for us (though sadly I probably won't be joining you due to a prior commitment)

1. I have heard that personal budgets may well be notional budgets and actually parents will not get control at all. Will parents be able to insist on direct payments e.g. for speech therapy, education. There is no way I would ever purchase the provision offered to my son - speech therapists with no autism expertise and autism outreach support who saw their job as to come and collect information to help the SEN officer at Tribunal rather than design any programmes for my son. Even when we and nursery told the SEN officer for a year my son was learning nothing they continued to pour in untrained 1:1, SALT and outreach rather than consider funding something else. I would have used that money for ABA and private SALT and achieved 1000% more in terms of outcomes. Will parents be allowed to do this? To vote not to send their child to nursery or school full-time but educate partly or wholly out of school?

1. I heard you on the Select Committee and I completely agree that the vast majority of parents could spend the money better and assess the quality of provision better than LAs. There should be support for parents who can't and services need some accreditation to guard against cowboys, but I would have turned the outreach teacher away on her second visit when she decided all my severely autistic son needed to succeed in nursery was a white pop up tent. There are already many cowboys working in public services. LAs have not held their own employees to account, and while there are many excellent professionals working in SEN there are very many who work there because they can hide their poor practice and laziness behind the low expectations of the child they work with. Had I not done ABA I would now be under the impression my son had severe autism, SLD and he would probably be non verbal. Whereas now he is speaking at 3-4 keywords, still quite severely autistic but clearly extremely bright.

1. Will therapies which are educational e.g. SALT still have the same status? I have heard rumours that these will in effect be taken off what is the current Part 3 and enforceable against the LA - and be put into the health section which will not be enforceable. Will everything on the plan be enforceable against the LA?

1. Again I have heard that the 19-25 extension may not be quite what it seems, that there will be no absolute right to education until 25 but the Plan will stay in place only for those deemed to require education to 25 - those who stop full-time education will lose the Plan even if they still have health and social care needs - is this true? Will parents still be having to fight to show their child will benefit from education post 19?

1. I would absolutely support the idea of sanctions for LAs. Our LA ignored their own EP report that recommended ABA or specialist nursery at age 2.10. They ignored the health advice because 'they are not allowed to give views on education', they had no written advice supporting mainstream nursery at all, yet insisted my son was placed there. Needless to say it took until my son was 4, and two appeals (one which went to a hearing) to get the provision their own EP had recommended at 2.10 put in place. The sheer abuse of the system that went on by the LA - they put pressure on both nursery and SALT to change their evidence and got an autism teacher to lie at tribunal (and yes I have proof) - and labelled us liars, bullies and obstructive. I am a qualified Solicitor I thought I had seen every tactic, but never had I seen the sheer torrent of unpleasantness directed as us as parents for daring to ask for more than the LA wanted to pay. It pushed me and my husband to the point of breakdown. Our child was completely forgotten in the attempt to use any means to discredit us and save money. Our other children barely saw us as we were buried under paperwork for a year. Yet the LA cannot lose. They still saved themselves a year of ABA funding. No sanctions for making our lives hell. Then 3 weeks after tribunal and again 12 months later at annual review they tried to 'reassess', ignore the EP again, and take everything we won away. More legal fees, more JR threats to make them follow the law and COP. I still feel sick everyday when the post arrives, even now nearly 2 years on, my first thought is will there be something horrible from the LA in the post, will they take what my son needs away, and a sense of relief when there is no envelope from them.

I do not know how you change this culture. I cannot imagine turning up at hospital with a child with a tumour and being treated as a burden, a nuisance, as a greedy money grabbing parent, labelled difficult and obstructive for making demands on services. This is my experience of LA. How can people who have these disgusting attitudes to disabled children and their families become their 'champions'?

1. The Government did pass a law in Sept 2011 that said children out of school should get education that was 'fulltime' education where that was appropriate for the child. Unfortunately Michael Gove has just withdrawn the circular that defined full-time education (which was about 23-25 hours per week) - and said there will now be no government direction as to the number of hours per week as that will be too restrictive for free schools and academies who want to set their own curriculum. The fall out is of course that disabled children now have nothing to refer to when arguing the support should not be 5 hours, but 25.

I was really impressed with the recent announcement by Sarah Teather of a 'gold standard' scholarship scheme for SEN support staff in mainstream schools. Too often in the past the LSA job has been filled by people with literally no idea about SEN, yet the LSA can be the most crucial person in an Special Needs kid's entire educational experience. I was also pleased to see that one of the courses you are recommending for autistic kids is based on ABA (behavioural principles).

Since so often it's not so much the autism as the anti-social behaviours which will lead to exclusion for autistic boys like my own, will you look at even more training in ABA for SEN staff? It has been the making of my boy.

Sickofsocalled- I agree but I am sad how it has been limited; I had a place on a TA course but despite the best efforts of the college we could not sort funding due to my degree. As we many of us know, Carer's Allowance won't cover much! Most people I know with autistic kid would welcome people like me who have high level training in Autism working with their child, and TA hours would suit my caring role- but no, not to be.

Couthy- we have here a set up where the Bases take children who have moderate to mild SN (ours specialises in ASD) and SNUs that offer life skills based education but not GCSEs: ds1 has been fortunate to obtain one of a whole 2 places in the County at the ASD Base but the staff there told us DS3 was too severe- but he is predicted level 5 in maths, so will miss out. The LEAs suggestion was to send him into mainstream without any help at all- even though he is in a 12 person specialist Primary base after failing in mainstream primary. Cheers LEA! Er- no.

(Oh and we're devolved Wales but the school where the Base is has also had rebuild funding withdrawn, there are buckets in the classrooms to collect the water from the leaks).

Oh and also WRT to mainstream / SNU , the man from our LEA told me that he felt only children in SNU placements should get a statement and funding.

Sarah

I was going to ask you some hard questions but to be honest the wonderful MMers above have asked them all. I agree with Don'tPutBeerInHisEar that it's great how it's a Lib Dem minister who has to find a way though the policy mess promulgated by the Conservatives - good on you for caring anyway.

Will you accept my best wishes and good luck in your endeavours. I hope you find plenty of food for though on this MN webchat and thanks for doing it. And try to smile more on QuestionTime.

LineRunner x

Dear Sarah Tether I would like to express my concern at these reforms and would like to ask a couple of questions.

1. I have 2 children with SEN. both of them are visually impaired and one is also on the autism spectrum. Neither of my children have statements.
2. The premise of a statement is that you have to be able to demonstrate that your child is behind. I don't want my children to get behind, but we are reliant on the individual will of schools, teachers and parents to try to ensure this doesn't happen. There is no recognition with a statement that a child such as those with autism might be able to perform in a classroom but cannot manage playtimes, social situations, sharing, sensory stimulation etc.
3. The proposed reforms will not change this. I suspect the process for getting a joint assessment of need will be as difficult, if not more so than getting a statement and will even more focused on the need to prove your child is already failing.
4. For those, like my children, there is no indication of what help will be available, in fact you are proposing to do away with the distinction between school action and school action plus, so where will the requirement be for schools to provide support to our children to prevent them from 'failing'?
5. Where will the incentives be for schools to accept children like mine, who do require extra resources, but are unlikely to get a joint assessment / care plan?
6. How will you ensure that schools do not refuse to take children with SEN who will require extra resources to ensure they reach their potential?
7. If you don't have systems such as school action and school action plus how will we be able to monitor whether our children's access and support needs are being met?

I have many many more questions and concerns, but it seems to me that many of these issues have simply not been thought about and considered and I would really not wish to see these reforms rushed through without considering how these issues will be addressed.

As libraries are so important to all children, not simply for their formal education, but also their general all round education, and as libraries contribute directly to the Reading for pleasure agenda the Government says it supports, why are school libraries not statutory yet? Investing support in school libraries is laying foundations to enable children to love reading as they see it is valued by those adults who are there to help them learn.

deb has highlighted my position exactly different disabilities. Every child matters, every disabled child matters, but not mine and children in a similar position. As for libraries our local one has now started to charge HE families for use of educational resources. We are already targeted enough financially and still they add to our issues.

My grand daughter's appeal for a place at the nearest Primary School was refused, despite the fact that all other children in the road where she lives including the 2012 intake, attend.
The school offered was 3rd choice, and we have no issue with the school, but after the application date, her younger brother (now 20 months) was diagnosed with a very rare congential condition which is terminal, and for which there is no treatment other than palliative care, he is very unlikely to live beyond the age of 3.
Our appeal stated this, and the fact that as his condition is so fragile and he can change in a few minutes, my daughter will need to rely on neighbours to transport her daughter to and from school at very short notice.
The route to the offered school is along a main arterial route, which according to the local area transport review, carries some 20-30,000 vehicles per day, and due to the younger child's condition breathing in the fumes would seriously compromise his health. In addition one of the main characteristics of his condition is an extremly heightened startle response, and the traffic noise could cause seizures.
We submitted additional information to the appeal panel in advance, giving details of his condition Tay-Sachs Disease, together with photograaphs of the volume of traffic, details of the level of traffic and medical letters of support, there are currently 15 agencies involved with his care, plus the children's hospital and hospice.
Since the appeal, his condition has deteriorated, he is now fed via nasal gastric tube, which will shortly have a pump fited, together with suctioning equipment and oxygen to aid his breathing.

My daughter's MP and local Councillors are talking with the LA, we fully understand the limit on class sizes (although we know the authority have this year made mistakes where there are more than 30 in a reception class (apparently it's okay if they make the mistake), but we have been told that no Primary appeals for Birmingham were upheld, and we never had any chance of our appeal being upheld. Surely there must be exceptions to every rule, and people's circumstances change. I fear that my grand daughter will have to be kept off school, if her younger brother is too ill to take outside. Do you have any advice?