Does being a young carer help in a Year 7 school appeal?

[busySunflower]

Does being a young carer adds any advantage in secondry school appeal process ? for year 7 entry ?

I have little to add to prh47bridge’s posts, beyond observing that those who are most vehement in telling this or any other OP that they have no grounds for appeal generally seem not to be well-acquainted with the appeals code. Saying that an OP has “no grounds” is evidence of that; the appeals code does not prescribe grounds of appeal and parents can put forward any arguments they choose. It is for the panel to decide whether the parent’s case to admit outweighs the school’s not to admit, based on the balance of prejudice (detriment).

As prh47bridge says, there seem to be irregularities in the way the panel reached its decision, so it’s not unreasonable to ask the DfE to investigate and reach a view.

There are no young carer provision at any of them. So who can possibly judge whether the appeal school
is better when it’s nothing to do with education? What are the grounds for saying the allocated school cannot meet the needs that fall under social and medical. Caring for a sibling when parent isn’t around isn’t normally a criteria. Panels can also take advice. It’s not outsourcing. Any more than taking note of what a GP says is outsourcing. They wanted to know if criteria were met in order to reach a decision. It’s not outsourcing - it’s research. Where is if documented that the decision was not taken by the panel? That’s entirely spurious. What a parent asks for in terms of data and info is up to them. She can use public info but no one has any idea if this info was remotely relevant. Lots of appeals coming all sorts of detail and lots is not remotely relevant. As I said, Op has a place for dc and this ongoing saga is bizarre. Usually social and medical refer to the child who is the subject of the appeal, not the sibling and parental logistics.

So who can possibly judge whether the appeal school is better when it’s nothing to do with education?

That is the job of the appeal panel. It is precisely what they are there for.

Panels can also take advice. It’s not outsourcing

Appeal panels cannot take advice from anyone other than the clerk, and the clerk can only advise them on the law around admissions and the relevant codes. They must decide the case on the evidence presented. Saying that the social/medical panel decided against you so we aren't going to look at your case is outsourcing their decision and is not allowed.

Where is if documented that the decision was not taken by the panel? That’s entirely spurious

We don't have the exact wording, but OP suggests the decision letter references the decision taken by the social/medical panel. If they simply noted that the social/medical panel came to the same decision, that is fine. If they said that they weren't going to do anything because the social/medical panel decided against OP and therefore the correct process was followed, that is wrong. They should have taken an independent look at OP's case. They could legitimately decide that the social/medical panel got it wrong, or that the social/medical panel were right but they still think OP's child should be admitted. What they cannot do is say that the social/medical panel decided against you so that is the end of the matter.

She can use public info

So you haven't even digested OP's posts properly. The appeal panel refused to allow her to use information that is publicly available, arguing that it was sensitive information she should not have had.

@MeetMeOnTheCorner I'm curious about why you are so offended that the OP is pursuing the avenues available to her? The reason we have the appeal system is that things do go wrong, and people do sometimes have reasons why their child should be an exception to the rules. The reason we have a review body is that appeals panels sometimes get it wrong.

Every single parent whose child has a place at that grammar school has made a decision to take action for their child by sitting the exam and applying. The OP has taken action by appealing the decision to refuse, then comparing the process they experienced with what is written in the Code and realising that it didn't match. It's perfectly reasonable to then take it further.

@Lougle I’m not offended but as I understand it, dc has a grammar place. I just think some people want the earth for their own convenience. I’m all for getting right dc into right school but none have carer provision. So is this argument best for dc? I’d suggest not. Let dc go to the school allocated now term has started. All this seems unnecessary and somewhat unkind. Bucks will have provided transport and new dc are being settled in. Just my opinion but it’s OTT.

few things to clarify, we dont live in Bucks we couldnt move because of caring responsibilites as moving closer to Bucks does a lot of harm for this relatative who requires a continious care
we live in border to bucks he scored really very high but didnt get a grammar place because a young carer he has been allocated to a state school that school doesnt have a young carer group because they have have 1 young carer, they have a PAN of 300 and its a comprehensive state school

@theOP, I’m not in the UK and have no experience of young carers. May I ask what care your child provides for someone please.

They can't have a 'group' with one young carer, but they certainly can with two. Schools create groups like this based on need. Have a chat with them to see what they can do to help your DC.