My son won't start school if the appeal is unsuccessful. What are the chances it will work first time?

[RBBMummy]

He has multiple additional needs which means the school they've assigned is not possible. He will have the backing of the senco at his preschool and I can prove the relevant professionals have repeatedly failed him. Surely my son has the right to a proper education? What are the chances we will end up having to go down the more aggressive route?

How is the nearest Sainsburys relevant?

Yes it does work best if you, the person that knows your child best, are there leading. It's more like a job interview than a legal thing in practice. You explain your case and the panel ask questions. As long as you have facts and evidence set out clearly it isn't too awful. The scary bit is because it matters.

The panel isn't as scary as it sounds.

I don’t think you’ll win an appeal because a Sainsbury’s is closer?!?

Ok I've found out that the school is full and they selected purely on nearest kids and did not take additional needs in to consideration. So dispite it being the closest school to us and in the catchment area they didn't even look at his application.

They can only take additional needs into account if you have a statement that states that the school is the ONLY School in the area that is suitable. This needs to be signed by the appropriate medical persons.
You generally only get that is the school has something that all the others don’t eg is the ONLY school
that doesn’t have any steps or has a special unit attached that deals with a particular need eg deafness.

Does the school actually have a Medical/Social Needs criteria, and they either failed to assess him under it or looked at your information and said he doesn't qualify?

Or do they not have any such criteria?

If the former, then your appeal, as prh says, will revolve around showing that they should have assessed him/should have put his application under this criteria.

If the latter, things will be much harder unfortunately.

They won’t care about the sainsburys!! He’s not going to be popping out shopping during school hours so that has no bearing. On the same way they didn’t care that me friends mum (who would be needed to go in and change her daughters nappy several times a day) lived next door to thier preferred school.

Yes, I would assume they have allocated the place correctly. If the oversubscription criteria is distance, then the kids that have got places will all live closer than you. They are only likely to have taken his additional needs into account if he has an EHCP, which he doesn't. The system is very black and white - he either has an EHCP and therefore gets priority, or he doesn't have an EHCP and is therefore treated as no needs, same as everyone else. There is no middle ground for "some needs, but not enough for an EHCP".

Having sat on appeal panels for years, on the face of what you are saying, I would say it's probable unlikely to win, since it's an infant class appeal. The panel are likely to say "The offered school has an obligation to meet his needs. Therefore they will. End of".

I would be interested to know how the Sainsbury's bit is relevant, especially since that is something the offered school can't ever possibly provide.

I may have missed it, but does he have an EHCP and did you have supporting letters of his medical needs that you submitted with the application? If not, then they will likely have used the correct allocation process. Just because you are in catchment doesn’t guarantee a place, if there are others living nearer they get priority. As for Sainsbury’s being near, that has no bearing whatsoever on your application and it’s buzarre that you think it would.

There is no middle ground for "some needs, but not enough for an EHCP".

That's not always the case. There can be some middle ground, if the school has a medical/social needs admission category and if the parent can present evidence from health care professionals to show that the school can cater for those needs in a way that other schools cannot. As has already been said, that usually means (say) a school with a lift for a child with mobility issues or a unit for hearing-impaired children. Otherwise, LEAs tend to argue that all schools can cater for a diverse range of needs.

I’m also confused about his birthdate- how did “medical mistakes” mean he was born a month late (in September instead of August) as opposed to the other way round (ie being a month premature)??

Panel the bar for reaching that category is very high though. We had a consultant's letter and applied under the exceptional social/medical category. I have assumed that they did consider it properly but there's no way of telling as dd was rejected on the criteria she would have been in if I hadn't. Would they tell me if I asked?

Yes, the bar is set high (although in practical terms this probably differs from LEA to LEA). Parents often think that it is enough to show that the child has social/medical needs, but what the med/soc panel (in our LEA's case) will be looking for is evidence that those needs are beyond what most schools can be expected to meet and can only be met by the school in question. Your LEA should be able to tell you how your application under the med/soc criterion was considered and (probably only briefly) why they reached the decision they did.

I probably should double check before our appeal I suppose. The school she's got don't want her.

Op, why don't you answer the question: what medical negligence prevented your son from being born until a whole month past his due date?
It's hard to take you seriously when you claim this, and suggest it may also account for his additional needs.
and what is the need for a nearby Sainsbury's about?

Yes, do check, because if they failed to consider your application under the med/soc category - and, crucially, if you have strong evidence that your child has needs that your preferred school is better able to meet - you are on the way to showing that the refusal of a place was unreasonable.

Panel tiggy kindly looked at my appeal statement and I'm reasonably happy with the strength of it. I was so focused on getting that sorted, I accepted the decision because I was expecting it iyswim.

Yes, it's something you can explore at the hearing (if you want to).

Re the birth date - he could have been born 1 or 2 days late and that’s the difference between August or September. Perhaps OP was left too long overdue?

From early August to early September?

Ah sorry, didn’t see “early” August.

Given the wrong due date and then also allowed to go too far overdue?

I'm quite confused by what you have put too. (re the being born a month late due to medical mistakes and re the Sainsburys and all the alluding to people failing you etc).
There are LOADS of really supportive and helpful posters on MN, but for people to be able to help you, you need to let them know what the situation is, not all this cryptic referring to things that don't make sense from the snippets of information.

Well, quite, BackForGood. The chances of winning an appeal seem slight but, to give OP the best advice we can on how to present her case in a way that maximises her chances, it would be helpful to understand the potential arguments better, because they seem unusual: what are the child's additional needs and why can this school meet them better than others (and the alleged medical negligence might be part of that)? What is the significance of Sainsbury's, and so on?

I'm not interested in giving anyone a biology lesson or about how we could have died or how the professionals neglected there duties and could have caused his death or educating you about autism. So if you're here to derail this thread just don't