DD has a proposed statement

[pannetone]

The proposed statement was waiting when we arrived back from holiday. It says the LA are consulting with 2 independent special schools - one we want (School A) and one we don't (School B). Both schools say they can meet needs. We think there is not a suitable peer group at School B (academic levels, no girls in primary section of school - DD y5). Presumably we need to 'prove' School B is not suitable otherwise the LA will opt for it as it is local, and possibly slightly cheaper. (Would the LA really get a special rate for placing a fair few children there each year??) The LA are already saying that they know School A is our 'parental preference' but I am worried this is because they will then expect us to meet transport costs - and it is 50 miles for 2 round trips a day.

Hopefully the other major point in favour of School A is that DD has done about 10 'trial' sessions there. She had to do sessions before the school would offer her a place and as she was managing about 2 hours a day in class there, having not been in her mainstream school class since Jan, we kept sending her. (In some strange 'fudge' mainstream school marked her as being educated 'off-site'.)

DD is adamant she does not want to consider School B because otherwise she would have done all the effort of the trial sessions at School A for nothing. I am going to see School B next week, with the view of collecting evidence as to its unsuitability...

DS was refused a place at the ss we wanted on the basis that there was no appropriate peer group (no other boys in the year) so if they can use it as a sufficient reason to say no, then I don't see why you can't use it to say no too.

No peer group is a completely valid reason to refuse a school place.

And yes LA's do get a special rate if they have a lot of kids at an indie ss. DS's place got reduced from 50k to 41k per year because of this.
My solicitor advised me that if the cost difference between the LA choice and my choice is less than 10k then tribunal may still choose the parents choice. However if it's more than 10k tribunal is more likely to pick the LA choice due to unreasonal public expenditure (or whatever it's called).

It may be difficult to argue on academic levels of the peer group because schools are expected to differentiate the curriculum for each child. However if the peers are a lot further behind then it's easier to argue. My LA tried to put DS in a class where the kids were still on P-levels and he is working at levels 2 and 3. It was quite easy to persuade the LA that it wasn't a good idea because DS would have got frustrated, his behaviour would have worsened and the placement would have broken down.

I looked around 7 schools while the LA was playing games during my appeal. They had me looking at schools over 90 minutes away, were consulting with schools for children with physical disabilities in order to delay things (DS has ASD and no physical disabilities!), schools for SLD and MLD (DS has neither). I have used and seen every excuse for refusing places but no peer group usually worked quite well and it was usually the first thing my solicitor asked after i visited a school.

Thanks all. From what you've said eatyourveg and fairgame hopefully the lack of appropriate peer group will be a good argument to say School B is not suitable. Not only are there no girls in the primary section of the school but actually there are only 10 pupils in it - so a very small peer group anyway and although DD needs a smaller setting than her current mainsream 10 pupils ( 2 mixed age junior classes think) seems too small.

Would the fact that the school has a particular focus on supporting pupils with specific learning difficulties help my case, when DD doesn't have any? ( she is complex in other ways!) Or is that only relevant if it means that most of the pupils are working at levels significantly below DD as you say fairgame?

To get transport to School A for DD do I have to prove that School B is not suitable, rather than it is 'just' that I prefer School A?

Ideally you want only your choice named as suitable
If they name both LA may try and get you to pay transport costs on parental pref but see this Dudley case about the process LA should go through here
Its not been tested yet as far as I know but perhaps in the new era of personal budgets etc if the above strategies don't work you can offer to pay the difference in transport costs rather than cop for the lot, or offer to drive yourself but get mileage allowance.
You need to find out whether the LA is transporting any other children to these schools and could share taxi etc
I'd also check any quotes the LA gives if it tries to make your choice seem more expensive. Check any info out with the schools too. They will know if any children come in a taxi from your area / if space in taxi.

Would the fact that the school has a particular focus on supporting pupils with specific learning difficulties help my case, when DD doesn't have any? ( she is complex in other ways!) Or is that only relevant if it means that most of the pupils are working at levels significantly below DD as you say fairgame?

You could argue that the school is inappropriate as DD doesn't have the LD's that it caters for, however they might argue back about the school being able to differentiate the curriculum.
If there is a significant difference in DD and the peers levels then you need to think about how DD will interact with these children. If DD tries to speak to them and play with them, are they able to communicate and interact with her at her level? If the kids are presenting as younger than her developmentally, then she may get frustrated and upset that they are 'babyish'.
DS freaked out when he was sent for an assessment with a peer group that had MLD and were mainly non-verbal. They all had ASD like him but were more severe. DS felt that he wasn't like these children and that they were 'freaks' (his words not mine). My DM pointed out that if he was placed with these children then what are we telling him? Are we suggesting to him that he like them when he considers them so different? What effect would that have on his self esteem?
How would the peer group in the LA's choice affect DD's self esteem? Would she be upset about being the only girl? Would the boys play with her? Would she want to play with them? I know it sounds daft but this is the age where they start the boys are yucky/girls are yucky thing!

I have just re-read your OP and noticed that your preference is 50 miles away. How long does the journey take? SENDIST don't like primary age kids travelling for more than 45-60 minutes so the LA may argue on travelling time if it's more than this. If that happens then you will have to prove absolutely that their choice is not suitable.

Thanks Agnes and fairgame - your posts are helping me work out why DD needs School A.

Sorry the bit about 50 miles for 2 round trips a day was misleading _ I meant I'd be doing a total of 50 miles driving a day - school A is about 12 miles away. School B is about 3 miles away.

My main concern about the peer group is how lively the boys' behaviour is at School B. DD is very small for her age, physically timid and generally anxious. The interaction point is a good one - DD has selective mutism as well as HFA - and it is important that there is an 'appealing' peer group to encourage her to interact. She isn't a 'girly girl' and is used to boys having 3 older brothers, but in reality although while in MS school she sometimes mentioned a couple of the boys, she didn't make friends with any or was able to talk to any of them. And I'm not sure how good the boys would be (understandably) at including a timid, mostly silent, girl.

As far as transport goes I know a couple of children locally who have transport to School B, but our preference School A doesn't currently have any children from our LA funded to go there. (School A is outside the LA, School B is inside but I am presuming this doesn't make much odds because both are independent.)

Worth a check if there are other schools nearby that your LA may transport children to though. DD shares a taxi with several other children but only 3 in her taxi attend her school, the others go to two other sites nearby. This would then bring their costs down further. One of those children joined the taxi after DD and is very local to us and the other is closer to school and picked up near the end of the run. LA told us prior to tribunal that no option on taxi share though from this area.... Clearly they were trying to make their costs look higher for the tribunal!