Good Law Project?

[DrudgeJedd]

The GLP are involving themselves in legal case where a 13 yo trans child has been refused a place at a school because they are trans. twitter.com/GoodLawProject/status/1446453657227104273?t=kZOpOY23DeK3P_AxgT5nFw&s=19 I clicked through to read more as this seems like such an obvious case of transphobic discrimination I was surprised it had got to the stage of legal action.
This passage jumped out, I'm now thinking that the 'vulnerable child' mentioned here is probably a sibling of the trans child.
I'm extremely skeptical of Maugham because of the way he conducts himself on Twitter and think he's seen 'trans child' and jumped into the middle of a very fraught family situation and may cause more problems for both children involved. Obviously if it's the straightforward discrimination he claims it is then the school should definitely be held to account. Also the governor's comments mentioned are just silly, no-one is giving 13 year olds surgery.
Something about this is not passing the sniff test though...

Given what the report says (only living relative is frail grandfather, child was apparently moved to protect grandfather from COVID risk) is quite likely that the child in question is traumatised. I can well believe the school just don’t want to deal with the challenge, wouldn’t be the first time a school come up with a weaselly excuse for a child with SEN or other needs. If what the governor said is reported accurately, they need to be fired.

Unfortunately I can’t believe a word that Jolyon Maugham says so no idea whether this is true, accurate etc.

None of this makes sense.

LAC are priority aren't they?

So does the school just not have any spaces ?

Is it the child they are refusing or demands/threats they are just unable to accommodate and so are unwilling to take the chance of legal ramifications?

Is it a single sex school so the child's admission is just not appropriate?

There are no details here at all.

Bet it's a boys school Elliot wants...

LAC are priority aren't they?

I could be wrong, but I don't know if an informal arrangement eg staying with a family friend would confer a LAC status.

Yes it all sounds peculiar, since it's so obvious on the surface: very likely some key facts not available to the public.

I wonder whether the school are aware of the known impact of the presence of the child who wants a place on the child already in their care, and they are acting to protect them.

I definitely think there are key facts missing from the GLP narrative. And do you know what, good. We have no right to know any details about this situation. These vulnerable children deserve privacy and protection, not adults using them for Twitter clout & to drum up support & funds for their pet projects.
Oh any the foster carer straight in there with the trans suicide narrative needs looking at too.

So many good posts clarifying some of the possible complexities about all this.
Funny how the fox killer demonstrates an embarrassing lack of knowledge about child welfare, safeguarding, child development, schools and education every time he pronounces on twitter. Almost as if he speaks without thinking.....

@ItsAllGoingToBeFine

LAC are priority aren't they?

I could be wrong, but I don't know if an informal arrangement eg staying with a family friend would confer a LAC status.

Could do. Normal.process would be that the child would be in the care of the LA and have a SW who would find a family member or friend and put in place a Special Guardianship Order (is that still the term?) They can be quite flexible. LAs will often want to pass as much responsibility to the SG as possible but they can be liable for costs etc. The child would be a Formerly LAC which confers the same legal status for admissions as LAC.

I suppose it is possible that an LA have left 'Gemma' high and dry with absolutely no support. But it seems unlikely they wouldn't even support a school admission - especially since this change seems recent. And if she is unable to support this child to the extent that she can't navigate the admissions process she should be getting much much more support with such a vulnerable child, which almost certainly won't be forthcoming from a group with their own narrow agenda.

'Alexa, what are some synonyms for 'support'?'

We don’t have enough info to be discussing this case. Everything we know is from the GLP, and I wouldn’t trust anything they say. The child might not have a place for a reason they haven’t chosen to share with us, but they want to blame it on ‘transphobia’ anyway because that’s what they do.
Beware what they say, they speak weasel words.

Very true alias
At least this thread may to useful to any mugs MNers still funding JMs hobbyhorses & ego

The child might not have a place for a reason they haven’t chosen to share with us, but they want to blame it on ‘transphobia’ anyway because that’s what they do

We see and hear all the time don't we, of schools that become over ambitious with the number of children with AN they take on because of the extra funding they come with, but who inevitablly fail because they can't cope with them all, akd the reality is that really really funding they come with isn't realky enough to provide the support they actually need , that the school thought they could do without.

Surely it's better even if its inconvenient or even difficult, that a school is honest that they cannot accommodate the child.

What specifically is it about this school that renders it the only suitable school and that the only alternative is a three hour round trip. There must be umpteen schools within a 90 minute ( that's deemed the acceptable standard for secondary aged school to travel isn't it, in the event of over subscriptions locally ?)

There's no other school at all that this kid can attend?

And a 3 hour round trip implies 90 mins each way. If 90 mins is deemed the acceptable length if travel time fir which a LA can legally apply when allocating schools particularly in areas where there are massive over subscription problems then actually, as inconvenient as it will be ( and 90 mins each way is alot I will agree with that) then I for whatever reason the local.school can't take the child, then they aren't being subjected to anything other kids won't also be expected to do.

(I'm happy to be corrected on the travel times btw)

I feel very concerned that Foxy and co are picking up cases with very vulnerable people at the centre. It is not undue to presume that this child has been given a tough hand so far. One grandfather has died, the other has health concerns and they are now in some sort of foster care arrangement, the parent (s) may or may not be in their life for any number of reasons and have moved (again?) to a new area. They need a supportive, loving environment and a school that is best placed to meet their needs. The last thing needed is Foxy using them as his latest crusade, I may be being grossly unfair but I do not imagine that he has the welfare of this child at the forefront.

I also wonder if Gemma has imposed demands on the school it feels unable to fulfill such as nobody mentioning or questioning or in any way identifying the child's sex. I wonder if the governor's comment was also made in that context in that private schools may be smaller and more able to control their pupils or able to allocate everyone private rooms for changing without singling anyone out. Who knows. We don't have the full story, that seems clear

Yy white

If there truly is no other school within the boundaries of a 3 hour round trip to one the child is already in, and this one school is the only one with spaces, it's extremely possible ( from experience round here anyway ) that there is a reason that there are spaces at the school. A reason why parebts actively avoid it. So either this is to make a point, which is not about the child at all, or the school has problems which means a child with a hectic traumatic background will just become another dace in the crowd of a school ill equipped to deal with yet more high needs children.

Will this " win" come with funding and support and equipment to see this chikd through high school , gcses and into stable employment or will they pat themselves on the back for a job well done and move in to the next one.

The last thing needed is Foxy using them as his latest crusade, I may be being grossly unfair but I do not imagine that he has the welfare of this child at the forefront .

THIS

@Whatwouldscullydo

And a 3 hour round trip implies 90 mins each way. If 90 mins is deemed the acceptable length if travel time fir which a LA can legally apply when allocating schools particularly in areas where there are massive over subscription problems then actually, as inconvenient as it will be ( and 90 mins each way is alot I will agree with that) then I for whatever reason the local.school can't take the child, then they aren't being subjected to anything other kids won't also be expected to do.

(I'm happy to be corrected on the travel times btw)

Yes but F/LAC are priority admissions and the school would normally be expected to make a space even if there wasn't one (although you might have to argue it with them)

That is because of the awful outcomes F/LAC as a group have compared with their peers and in general (not to say that some F/LAC children don't go on to great academic success but as a group they are hugely vulnerable) so it's to level the playing field a little.

I'm aware that LAC are first but others have suggested that some kind of private arrangement might not carry the same weight.

This school also is apparently undersubscribed so there must be a reason why they won't take the child, and it's certainly bizarre that if schools have to make space fir a LAC If they transfer mid yr, that there is not a single other school that will take them. A school that has no other schools closer than an hour ajd a half away would not be undersubscribed.

Alot does not add up here

There is very clearly

Well that's where Foxy's story is weird because if the child is in 'foster care' they are most definitely a priority admission.

As PPs have said, this child has a right to privacy so there is nowhere near enough info to reach a conclusion.

The only things we can say are:

1. That this account must be disingenuous because it doesn't remotely fit with how foster care works.

1. That this child has not been denied a place simply because they are trans and, whatever the actual details, JM is using them for attention.

@DrudgeJedd

Was it only last week that Jolyon got a Twitter pasting for asking people to DM him with accusations about a journalist he didn't agree with? Now this... The way he throws his weight around is so unprofessional.

Naming the staff and by extension the school could identify the child and put them at risk.

The whole thing seems bizarre.

The child has lived with foster carers since June. Will they end up back with their grandfather at some point and meed to change school again.

Does the foster carer have a legal right to change the child's school? It would normally be the local authority which had that right.

All children deserve an education and if the child has been discriminated against it should be challenged but it is not clear what is happening here.

@ClareCAIS not if the arrangement is private. If your child is privately fostered for more than 28 days the LA have to be informed and they would do some checks, but probably only cursory/phone based if it all seems plausible.

1 question that keeps coming to my mind is could this child be being refused a place because they expect to be allowed to change in the changing facilities/use the toilet facilities of the opposite sex to which they are and the school have said no they will have to use their actual sex facilities queue typical hissy fit (transphobic etc) said child must use their gender identities facilities so school says that they can only have a place if they agree to use the correct facilities?
Or am I completely misreading this

Is it a single sex school that they have applied for? Otherwise none of this makes sense.