Does an academy have to take child if parents name it?

[StarlightMcKingsThree]

If they have a statement?

It's a new academy following LA admissions. I used to know all this but probably never studied the academy-specific stuff because used to think 'why would anyone sane do that?'

I know the 'efficient education of others' and 'reasonable public expenditure' arguments but are there any others that an academy can have such as legal discrimination or anything else?

I think for admissions and SEN's they have to follow the same Law as maintained schools.

Although my experience from my eldest ds's (nt) spent at an academy, there were a law unto themselves when it came to any kind of complaint.

I was under the impression that they don't have to, but don't quote me on it.

Agree with claw though, they are a law unto themselves, my eldest started at one and they were awful. He went to a different school after a few months.

My sons go to an academy school and locally, they have to take a child with a statement if the child's needs can be met. No idea if that's the same nationally.

Found this;

www.education.gov.uk/schools/leadership/typesofschools/academies/open/b00219097/academyfactsheets/academysenfactsheet

Which says they do have to take a child if named in a statement.

I would be very wary though.

Can local authorities name a new academy in a child’s statement of SEN?

A: Yes. Local authorities must consult an academy and give consideration to any objections raised by the academy about the placement, but if the local authority remains of the view that the academy is an appropriate placement it can name it in the child’s statement. If the academy believes the local authority has failed, or acted unreasonably, in the performance of their statutory duties it can appeal to the Secretary of State in the same way as a maintained school can.

In determining whether to name a school in a child’s statement a local authority must establish that the academy can make the special educational provision necessary to meet the child’s SEN, and the provisions of section 9 of the Education Act 1996. This requires that they must have regard to parent’s wishes, so far as that is compatible with the efficient instruction and training of the child and the avoidance of unreasonable public expenditure.

Thanks Claw. Thanks all.

ness, do you mind if I PM you?

From the Schools Admissions Code 2012:

"4. Academies, by which we mean Academy Schools3, (including those that are Free Schools), University Technical Colleges and Studio Schools, are state-funded, non fee-paying independent schools set up under a Funding Agreement between the Secretary of State and the proprietor of an Academy (most commonly, and hereafter, referred to as an Academy Trust). Academies are required by their funding agreements to comply with the Code and the law relating to admissions, though the Secretary of State has the power to vary this requirement where there is demonstrable need." pg. 3.

"1.6 Oversubscription criteria - The admission authority for the school must set out in their arrangements the criteria against which places will be allocated at the school when there are more applications than places and the order in which the criteria will be applied. All children whose statement of special educational needs (SEN) names the school must be admitted." pg. 8.

There is absolutely no wriggle room.

The only way they can get around it is to arrange education in such a way that they can't meet need, but it would take some doing.

They one I am thinking of can't meet a need for suspended OT equipment I don't think, but they could a)apply for funding for some, b)adapt already existing equipment with help of an OT or c)arrange for OT off-site

and d)Employ an OT with the specific remit of denying the child has any OT needs.

Thanks all.

Or D) The OT could provide other therapy that doesn't require suspended OT equipment.

star - that's was the position I was in last year. an academy said no as couldn't meet his needs - it was a special asd school as well which I had wanted. the LA then named a mainstream school with a unit who had none of the above - LA argued at tribunal they would buy it in whilst I argued for independent asd school which has in house OT and the equipment - tribunal ruled in my favour.

interesting my local academy which has a unit has now published a glossy leaflet clearly stating that their school is not right for children with an ASD dx or BESD so they wouldn't accept them - quite where the asd kids go as no special schools in county is another argument. the academy had 12 children with statement start year 7 2 years ago - last year they had 2

at the beginning of my tribunal hearing the panel made it clear they would if I had wanted it named the special academy even though the school had said no as they had the power to do that - however as clearly they couldn't meet his needs I said no and continued the hearing arguing over mainstream v independent

Thanks. I'm just exploring likely outcomes of the panel meeting this week. It's hard this time because I don't know what is best. But at the same time I have a bit more trust in those charged with the decision.

I'm not a fool though. I have no illusions about the system. It's just that so far things have been a whole lot more 'sensible' even if no agreement has been reached about something. And whether pretend or real, there is an impression of politeness.

DS started new school which changed to an academy a month later (was not aware that was happening and they did not mention it when we looked round, wasnot included in any school materials/welcome pack ets).
This school is named in his statement.

Although the staff are very keen to support DS, it is possible that the change in managemernt arrangement is putting pressure on them to do things differently.

School have until month end for school to significantly reintegrate DS back into day to day lessons before an early annual review (got statement in Oct 13) .
LA pushing to integrate immediately (which is likely to fail), School not wanting to make DS life (and theirs) a mysery and are following Autism outreach advice opting for a phased introduction...but will be seen by the LA to have failed if they have not got him back in the classroom effectivley by month end.

Not sure if that has anything to do with being an academy, or just unable to meet needs of child and demands of LA withthe hours provided at present.

Even if they did try to wriggle away, insisting there's no way they could provide the likes of a swing for therapy, as lougle suggested, they could still provide a gymball, gym mats, trampette, therabands, access to theraputty, etc, even if space and funds are limited.

I named an academy even though LA had recommended a place in a local ASD unit (to the extent they had pencilled it into part 4 on my behalf ). I checked their admissions policy and, as Claw says, it stated in there that they followed the same admissions code as maintained schools.

However, I felt I had to write an 'essay' justifying why the academy would meet DS's needs and the ASD unit wouldn't.

Well our situation is that a local academy school will definitely say they can't meet ds' needs.

IMO, they can (at least to the negative value the word 'adequate' is now taken to mean), but only if they change their attitudes, which they won't, so they can't.

Unless they surprise everyone and say they can, which they might (but probably won't). If they do, that will be - er, interesting and I'll go along with it with careful monitoring.

In the meantime, should the LA try and push a school that can't meet ds' needs adequately for both resource and attitude reasons, I may be able to evoke the right of a MS education, which will mean this academy school.

So, I both want ds to go there, and er, I don't.

Just a suggestion but it may be interesting and/or worth getting sight of the funding agreement between the school and the Secretary of State. I have found this invaluable when considering an academy for my own child, and in supporting another parent in relation to the same academy.......neither of us sent our child there! This would have been the LA choice but the agreement gave us the grounds not to. A simple request to the school should suffice in gaining access.

In my authority no senior schools are not academy's so there is no choice in relation to maintained senior schools other than academies.

Star, moosemama's DS had the local academy refuse to be named on his statement. They made out that they couldn't meet his needs, which if true, basically meant no state school could.

Evoking the right of a MS education was basically what it came down to for me. School was supportive of DS going there until the LA wrote them a letter detailing how 'complex' his needs were and tried to scare them out of offering him a place (LA wanted him in unit because place had already been funded). Head teacher then (behind my back) wrote to the LA saying they weren't sure anymore that they could meet all his needs. However, I still felt it was the best place for him socially, so named it anyway and the school have been supportive since.

Yes we have been subjected to the game of ping pong between the LA and school. EQA claim 2 about to be submitted and much of the game playing is only evident because of access to information requests.

we moved our ds (asd) out of an academy- they said they could meet his needs, then they couldn't...etc etc even though he had made progress they couldnt refute.

The reality is that the LA put pressure on them to make the reasonable adjustments and they said yes to their face and then did nothing of the sort. They psychologically pushed us out even though ds was happy there, and baby sat him with hardly any real trying to help him learn time.