School appeal advice stage 1

[user1488391504]

Hi I require some advice what are chances of winning stage 1 appeal when one of the reasons, 'said' school stated they can not admit a child is they don't have an ehc plan and can not cater for their needs? (The needs mentioned were assumed by the school never mentioned by professionals) the assumed needs do not relate to wheelchair access or auxiliary aids not sure if that makes a difference. Thanks for any advice.

What grounds are you using for appeal? You haven't made this clear.

Is that school named specifically by a medical professional as being the best school for your child? What did you use as your supporting evidence when you applied for that school?

We applied under exceptional social reasons. We had letters stating the school. They did not mfntion provision as the reason though more that it was the best fit.

we were not sure if this statement breached disability rules under Sen code of practice. If it does do an appeal panel rule at stage 1 or is it much more complicated. (Probably is but I thought I would throw it out there)

Is there an admission category for 'exceptional social or medical circumstances'? There doesn't have to be. If there is and you applied under that what do you think the school has that they think they don't? Normally a separate panel meet prior to decision day to discuss whether individual applications under this category should be successful. Was your application considered in this way?

Yes the criteria was there on first application. They did discuss apparently and one reason they refused was they could not cater for a need (involving basic assistance) the need was not mentioned by anyone at all on initial application and is not a need we recognise (an assumption has been made about a spld) they also said there is no ehc plan.
It's very weird and doesn't sound quite right.
We felt as did the letters that the pastoral support, academic support etc would mean the school was the only option when compared to other schools.

Sorry the other reason was that other schools could meet the need in their view.

The first thing to say is that if your child had an EHC plan then you could name the school and they more or less have to accept and give you a place. So the idea of needing an EHC plan to meet their "exceptional needs criteria" is not a sensible reason to reject.
They need to spell out in much greater detail what they believe the need is and why they cannot cater for it in the school.
An appeal panel would not normally consider anything under a disability breach that would be by tribunal, so the key is to make the school explain their reasoning, so that you can refute their misunderstandings, which could then mean the panel could be minded to admit.

When you say tribunal do you mean a ehc tribunal?

Thank you for all your comments. I find it a little weird (the response from the school) but I hope to get clarity from the appeal.

So what you're saying is that you had evidence to support you that you met the exceptional medical and social category criteria due to "x, and y", and applied on those grounds, but were refused on the grounds that:

a) you didn't have an EHCP

And

b) they couldn't meet need "z", which your child neither has, nor does any of your supporting evidence mention.

Is that right?

So if an appeal panel was convinced that there was no need to have an EHCP to meet the social and medical need criteria (which is the whole point of having one, because an EHCP skips all criteria and goes to the top of the queue), and your child doesn't have need "z", which erases the school's problem with meeting need, then they should, in fact, be able to take the child, which would just leave the issue of whether the evidence you have is of sufficient weight to argue that only that school can take your child.

Do the letters say that in the writer's opinion this was only school that would meet the need of your child, or do they say that 'user1488391504 believes this school is best for her child' or some such phrasing?

Yes that's correct. Yes the letter states the school and mentions the gps reasoning (not the parents). It's not a very in depth letter but it has reasons on there.

I really was not sure if the schools response breached legal rules for a stage 1. (Schools can not refuse entry under not having an ehc plan or that they can not cater for a need) But someone mentioned the panel don't normally consider a disability breech. I'm very very nervous about the appeal and want to be strong enough to demand my rights but I don't want to annoy the school or pannel. I suppose I just point it out and let them do their job in deciding what it all means.

I wouldn't start quoting disability discrimination at them. In fact schools DO have the right to refuse the admission of a child if they cannot cater for their needs, regardless of whether they have an EHC or not.

I know admission authorities can refuse but the guidance sais they 'must not', I understand there are exceptions to this rule but nothing that relates to us. We talking of a need that is mainstream even if my child did have that need which bizarrely they don't. I get what your saying re quoting discrimination but its the one and only chance and I dont want it looked over either.

I think I've established in my head it's probably a matter for the pannel and clerk. Im trying to double quess what can not be and looking for advice on a single point when there are a myriad of points to our case which is why panels were set up in the first place. Thanks all for you responses.