We just got a preliminary decision from SEND tribunal, they had to adjourn until end of Dec for Part 4 because there was no written evidence on the suitability of the school. But they wrote that they preferred the proposal put forward by us, the parents, and the reasons might be helpful for anyone arguing a similar case. Bear in mind DS is 9 years old, we took him out of school in January and started ABA at home, he has been home schooled since then. Local Authority was proposing a unit and gradual integration, first 2 days per week, and support from 'Communication and Interaction Team' which as we all know in reality is bugger all, lots of 'advising', 'liaising' and 'supporting'. We wanted part time inclusion in mainstream and part time at home, ABA full time. So a very unusual and complex case and we weren't confident of our chances.
The reasons were that local authority proposed initial integration into a school but had no provision for the time DS was at home (except 'advice'). So even though they planned for full time inclusion in school, the fact was that they were initially offering only part time education during the transition period, and no continuity between home and school provision.
Also, the local authority was offering TEACCH in their unit which is attached to a mainstream school. It was agreed that TEACCH was inappropriate in a mainstream setting, and our ABA consultant and our Ed Psych gave some kick ass arguments for this. So, because we used our right to mainstream education (section 316), TEACCH was inappropriate, and ABA was the preferred provision. Hope this helps! Can't recommend our legal team highly enough! believe!!