Ok, what are these LA t**ts up to now?

[appropriatelytrained]

Eventually, our idiot LA has named the school in DS's statement.

Yet, rather than just name the school, they have added:

"X Primary School is further away from the family home than other mainstream schools which could also meet DS's needs and would be compatible with the effective use of resources. The parents preferred school is named on condition that the parents meet all the transport costs"

Is a statement really the appropriate place for such posturing??

They are a funny picky lot arent they?

I guess its to stop you claiming transport help because you have made the decision to put him in a school further away against their recommendations??

A bit immature and proving a point though.....

Posturing and arse covering apparently

definately arse covering LOL

God, they are like a naughty, tantrumming child aren't they? Nothing can be simple and constructive.

I don't want their posturing over my child's statement. We've already said we're not looking to claim for transport.

The thing that annoys me most about their incompetence, their penny pinching and nastiness, is their attitude that it is somehow only they who are truly looking after my child's interests!

I am hanging by a thread waiting for the phone call. Gave them another chance to specify and quantify. They want to finalise this week. They said "we would much rather you phone and we try at all costs to avoid the necessity of a tribunal

So I told them straight pass the message on to whom is dealing with it and put the hours on the statement then if you are so concerned to avoid tribunal. If not phone me monday and I will officially put in writing that I am going to appeal. They always sound so annoyingly polite, placating, and understanding which frustrates me more as I would rather they spell it out that they are crafty and wont budge.

It is so annoying when they say "of course you know your son best but...." grrrrrr

Can you not go back to them and say could they not just name the school and have done with but perhaps put in brackets parents covering travel costs. Its a bit more civil.

I don't think it is binding.

If the LA has named the school on the statement, then they are agreeing it is the suitable school for your ds. if a school is named on a statement, and meets other transport criteria, then you are entitled to claim, if you so wish.

FWIW, we did similar - we offered to waive transport costs (which, given the school was 40 miles away out of area, and dd1 woudl have needed a private taxi as no other children went that route, were considerable) in order to sweeten the deal for the LA.

I was told (actually twice now, since dd1 moved schools over the summer) by our efficient legal advisor that it meant jackshit. and we could claim if we wanted to. the LA cannot hold you to this (and it is not what statements are about - it shoudl purely be about needs and how they will be met)

Silverfrog is right - Our LEA rejected our sweetener on the basis that they could not be held to it - we could still claim the travel costs in other words

Thanks. Yes, coff33pot, it is a bit more civil to word something less adversarially (or to nothing at all).

Silverfrog - I can totally see the validity of what you say. How can you sign away your child's possible rights to travel in a statement? That is not what a statement is for. You can enforce provision but how could enforce that?

Not that we would want to. It's only 20 mins away. I have two boys travelling that way. We are not interested in transport.

They are always so adversarial and contentious and then we look difficult if we challenge anything. Yet, it has not even been presented to me as a proposed amendment but as 'here is your' final statement.

Our advocate has said 'it's a standard clause' and IPSEA say the same. Is it just me but just because it is standard doesn't mean it is appropriate or that it should be there?

No I dont see why it should be there. The LA name the school of choice and that should really be it. I dont see why they have to put their reasons down on your sons statement. That could easily be kept with notes in the office?

you could always, if so inclined (more time and effort!) take it back out, and include an extra sheet with a signed declaration on it - but ensure that oyu cover all bases (at this point we do not intend to claim for transport but should our position change we reserve the right to claim under relevant criteria, or similar).

Interestingly, I now have a wonderful, lovely, case officer who has also told me I can claim if I want to (my LA never formally accepted our offer, probably because they know it is not enforceable) and indeed shoudl think carefully about doing so (dd1 still out of county, but a lot closer now we have moved).

In fact, I would be inclined ot complain formally about the inclusion of non-educational matters on the statement - transport is an entirely separate issue, and should be treated as such.

It is not 'a standard clause' - there is no provision for transport anywhwre within a statement, it is not part of the process in any way, and you do not need a statement to be entitled to transport.

Thanks.

I have just found this which seems to set out the legal position in a recent case.
www.education11kbw.com/?p=217

The courts are so unhelpful. I can see the purpose and the logic of what is being said in that case but it leads inevitably to situations like this where transport is not an issue but the same reasoning is being applied.

AT, I had to sign an almost identical letter when I wanted what I considered the right secondary school named on my DS2's statement last year. It's 4 miles away, DS1 goes there and it has a great SEN dept. The local school is a sink comp with good SEN for BESD but no money. LAs do have the right to object to named schools if they aren't an 'effective use of resources' so that's how they get away with it. Transport also costs them a huge proportion of their budget. It's interesting that people are saying they can't hold me to it. I did sign it as I pay for DS1's transport anyway. It came with the statement but separate to it IYSWIM. Hmmm?

That is interesting Ellen.

I think there would be an argument if I was asking for transport but as I am not, I don't see it is any different to asking for DS2 to be admitted to that school without a statement.

It is also in the statement as opposed to a side agreement and sent to be in 'final' form with no explanation for the clause. And these people wonder why parents get so annoyed with them.

As I see it, the transport issue makes no more difference to DS1's admission than it would to DS2's (no statement).

It's like saying 'if you were asking for something that you are not asking for then we would not be agreeing to allow you to go to that school as there are other closer schools which would not require us to pay for what you are not requiring us to pay for anyway'.

What a load of old codswallop. Again, SOS-SEN were slightly more proactive on this than IPSEA.

I know it is a small point, and I don't want to hold everything up, but LAs shouldn't be able to dump these things in statements without explanation.

I don't think it should be in the statement itself. As silverfrog says, it's nothing to do with educational provision, it's purely financial. I can see why they ask you to agree to it, from their point of view whichever MS school you choose is all financially equal to them, apart from any transport costs, and they don't want it coming up later to bite them in the bum. Whatever anyone says, it's always about money. If it truly doesn't matter to you, I'd say pick your battles. Knowing the crap you've had so far, I'm sure you'll be battling them again on something.

I found more law:

R (M) v Sutton Borough Council [2007] EWCA Civ 1205, [2008] ELR 123 concerned the situation where a local authority is willing to name a parent?s choice of school in Part 4 only on condition that the parent pays for transport to the school.

The difficulty with such agreements stems from the fact that, once an authority has named a particular individual school in a child?s statement as being suitable, it is precluded, when considering whether or not to provide transport under s 509, from arguing that another, nearer, school is in fact suitable for the child (R v London Borough of Havering, ex parte K [1998] ELR 402).

In R v Islington Borough Council ex parte A (A Child) [2000] EWHC 390 (Admin), however, Beatson J made a suggestion for getting around this problem. He said (para 27):
?There was in fact a way in which the authority could have sought to protect
its position. There is no reason why more than one school should not be
specified in a statement if, in the view of the education authority, more than
one school would equally answer the child's needs. This was done in Re C
[1994] ELR 272, where the second school named was the one the child's
parents preferred, which the authority agreed to include on the basis that the
parents were to be responsible for all travelling expenses and arrangements.?

In that way, Beatson J observed, the parents could appeal to the Tribunal against the naming of the authority?s preferred school in the statement and, if the Tribunal found it unsuitable, then the authority would effectively be required to pay the transport costs to the parents? preferred school (if outside the statutory walking distance or otherwise ?necessary? under s 509 EA 1996).

I would say here that:

(a) the LA has never said to me that they will only name the school on condition we pay for travel. That is a discussion we have never had, as they have never had a discussion with me

(b) This seems to suggest that a simple statement that the school can be named but only on condition we pay for transport. It doesn't need all the other crap about efficient resources etc