Mainboard useless so asking here.....

[StarlightMcKenzie]

If ds goes to a non-maintained school, ruled for by tribunal, without transport (we may have to concede this), is there anyway I can use the sibling/social rule to get dd into the mainstream maintained school nearest to it?

Okay, I know it isn't a straightforward question but you lot are flexible enough in your thinking to come up with some things to think about.

I think our best chance of this is to negotiate with LA without getting to tribunal where I can get this thing in writing as part of the 'deal' which legally might mean nothing but when we get to appeal stage for dd might persuade the panel etc.

I'ld say zero chance of the sibling rule apply, any argument would have to be under the social rule, I'ld say. Is the nearest ms school likely to be oversubscribed?

Yes, the 10 nearest schools will be as it is a very expensive/posh area with all schools oversubscribed and we would never be able to afford to live in ever.

Is there any chance under the social rule then? I thought that was for DV type issues.

Sibling would be knocked on the head straight away. Are there spaces available in the school that you want DD to go to? If you have no transport agreement and have to take DS by car, are there any other schools that are en route that they could argue would serve as well - particularly if they are usually undersubscribed?
I tried medical grounds with DS1 but failed, a friend did social grounds, quite weakly imo and she got a place. Maybe there's a priority list of social criteria and if you pitch it right, you might get to the top? Worth asking what social criteria are accepted by LA.

For admissions the mainboard isn't useless. Prhbridge and admissions really know their stuff :)

However, I guess there is zero chance.

I thought the social rule was to separate you from people who might kill you.

You'll have to get her into your local school, and makes friends with your neighbours so that one of them will take her to school for you......

I've found that secondary schools finish earlier than the primary schools, so I've been able to pay teenagers to pick up from school for me.

School on route (but they'll all be oversubscribed too) will be fine except that we are renting and don't know where we will be living for a bit. And I don't drive. It doesn't have to be THAT school, but the others nearby have the same problem.

Perhaps them main board bods are just all in bed on a Sunday morning then.

I would (and have, in our situation) go for the school closest to where you are living - this means that if ds has a day off school (ill, therapy appt, whatever) you can still get dd to school without a big fuss and transport coordination.

I have a 30 odd mile round trip to get dd1 to school. dd2's school is on our doorstep (ish. it's about half a mile down the road currently, will be en route when we move house). dd2 gets dropped off first, and picked up last - the school hours and clubs allow for this, thnakfully. otherwise I guess I would use a before-and-after school childminder for her.

LAs can be right **s when it comes to schools. I live in one where when they're oversubscribed - even with siblings, you can get given different schools and told that how you get them there is your concern - there's is only to offer you a place for education.
There are other social reasons than fear of attack. You might need to do research as to what they might accept.

Thanks silverfrog. Guess I just have to be more organised and decide where we are going to live then. Except for the fact that that depends on whether we win the tribunal, or can convince the school we want to take ds etc etc.

But you make good points.

Why not pm admissions?
She seems to know a lot about this sort of thing and the rules.

oh god, I sympathise, Star, I really do.

I have been living a 'where will we live and what implications are there for school runs' for more years than I care to remeber now.

we are fed up of renting (stupidly high rent where we are) and want to buy. of course, we live on the county border, and dd1 goes to school in third county. we cannot live near dd1's school (without opening statement); we cannot afford to buy where we are; we cannot buy a house we can afford near where we are becasue it is in the wrong county.

it is a nightmare, and we have to add in a commuter issues for dh etc.

the lifelong implications of disability are really shit sometimes. we will be forever bound to live where dd1's school is, which is not where we wodl choose to live, iyswim. and even then - we would live where dd1's school is quite happily, but cannot because it si in the wrong county (and ironically, with her last school, we actually own a house that was closer to the school than where we are renting, but again, the wrong side of the county line)

I would concentrate on trying to get transport included for the non-maintained school.

To win the nm school at Tribunal you'd have to prove the the LA had no suitable maintained placments available and the non-m school is the only alternative.

In that case surely transport costs are permissible?

We have children in my LA travelling 28 miles each way by taxi each day to non-maintained school, paid for by the LA.

The Statement simply cannot name a school that the parents cannot afford the cost of travel to - and as they don't means test school transport I would have thought you could make a case for it.

In FE it was different. Transport to and from the independant FE college was included in the college fees.

Am I missing something here?

it's a bargaining chip, Wet - partly to keep costs of the nm school closer to what the LA woudl expect to pay anyway. in which case, they have little argument for not naming the nm school.

we did similar - with private SN schools. the LA were prepared to pay for one. we wanted another which was substantially more expensive (eligible for transport in both cases). we waived our right to transport in order to get the school we wanted named (our school = cost of their preferred school + transport).

shit, but true (and since the LA then settled prior to tribunal, not worth gambling the whole lot and possibly losing by going to tribunal)

Wet, it depends on what argument we use to win our case and that will depend on how it goes.

If it is the only appropriate placement then we can get transport. If we win it on parental preference due to equal costs between our preference and the LAs, then the transport goes iyswim.

Ahhhh! I get it. I like your style

But to have 'suitability' hinging on who meets cost of transport seems very wrong to me.

And that is news to you?

So if the family's financial situation changes and they can no longer afford transport costs - what then?

the whole set up with statementing is very wrong, Wet, as you know form experience.

bargaining with SALT and OT, suitability of school versus costs - it is all jsut wrong.

and, as I said earlier - we now find ourselves forced to live somewhere we don't want to because of where dd1's statement was issued (no guarantee of winning the same provision again in neighbouring county, and not prepared to chance it, even if we could afford it). it woudl be far more useful to us if we could live near dd1's school (dd2 would have to move schools, but there is one there that is suitable) and it would free up lots more of my day and enable me to actually go back to work and be a 'productive' member of society etc. but can't risk it.

I suppose they go to the LA default school. I dunno. There is no way to win any of these things without substantial resources. You're just stuffed.

technically, we can apply for transport at any point.

the bargain we struck with the LA is not legally binding in any way. even our case officer told us that.

but at what (potential) cost - would they start attending annual reviews and wanting to reassess and move dd1 out of there?

we are Not Rocking The Boat. in the interest of keeping dd1 at the school she needs to be at.

over a barrel springs to mind...

Didn't appreciate there was so much bargaining with LAs going on. Mine was one that rarely responded to me let alone get to the bargaining stage.

When's the Tribunal?

And with ABA, our strongest case will be the costs argument because tribunal panels are trained by Rita Jorden the head of the ASD training course in Birmingham that has won the government contract to train LA staff in the TEACHH approach.

That doesn't mean we absolutely won't win ABA on other grounds, but it is a hard win.

The bargaining won't happen before the tribunal. It will happen AT the tribunal. LA won't talk to us before because they want to send a message to parents that they WILL be going to tribunal if anyone rocks the boat.

And the tribunal panels will find the whole shenanigans perfectly reasonable.

And, I'm not entirely sure when the tribunal will be yet as we are still friggin 'negotiating' that but it will be in a matter of weeks, not months.

You know - hearing all this one thing that we could campaign on is to make SSENs transferable without the need for reassessment.

The argument would be very attractive to central Govt on cost grounds - saves reassessment costs, cuts out red tape, ends the postcode lottery, pointless exercise as needs do not change just because you happen to have moved house.

It would be swings and roundabouts too for the LAs. Some wins - some losses.

Up for it?