[senco-forum] Special school placement

When the child is due to transfer to its next phase, the LA must amend Part 4 of the statement to specify the type and name of school it is due to transfer to in September. For primary to middle/ secondary phase this amendment must be made by Feb. 15th -- but this does not apply for infant to junior. However it is expected that this amendment is made in a timely manner that would allow parents appeal rights to be exercised in good time so that no delay causes the child to not be in an agreed placement in September.

There is case law that has determined, that under the Section of the Act whereby parents can request a change of school between phases (the Section that only allows a Part 4 amendement) then the type of school cannot be changed. This is because the Needs in Part 2 and Provision in Part 3 determine the type of placement -- and without the ability of those responsible to alter Parts 2 and 3 (in accordance with changed or redetermined needs) then it is not possible to change the type of school. 

But in the case of change of phase transfer, the amendment to the statement is subject to the more usually triggered Section of the Act, that causes all of the statement to be subject to amendment and appeal. I know this because Birmingham tried to refuse parents the right to request amendments to Parts 2 and 3 at phase transfer, maintaining that the restrictiion to a Part 4 amendment only Section of the Act applied. I made a 497 Complaint to the Secretary of State who found against Birmingham. Details can be found on IPSEAs Website news archives. So it is in no doubt that Parts 2 and 3 of the statement can be amended when the LA amend Part 4 to name the next phase school. In this case parents can request changes to Parts 2/3 and 4 -- including changing the description of type of school. So parents legally prefered chioce of school can include a maintained special school, even though the child is currently placed in mainstream. And this preference for a change of type of school (from maintained mainstream to maintained special school) does not depend upon the LA agreeing to this as would be the case if the more restreictive part of the Act applied (which it does not).

The LA officer is plainly very wrong in pretending to the parents that, so long as the LA have agreed type of placement, that the LA can then determine the actual school the child attends -- overriding unrestrictively parental preference. The officer must know this basic and very important parental right -- to name the actual school of preference not just the type. An officer seeking to mislead on the matter of parental rights of preference (if s/he has) should be sacked immediately in my view -- or sent on thorough retraining (preferably a training course run by IPSEA) and severely disciplined.

Schedule 27 of The Education Act 1996 sets out LA duties regarding parental choice when statements are  first issued or amended. Para 3 (3) states that the LA must specify the name of the school preferred by the parent unless: (a) the school is unsuitable to the child's age, ability or aptitude or to his special educational needs, or (b) the attendance at the school would be incompatible with the efficient education for the children with whom he would be educated or the efficient use of resources.

>From what you say none of the above conditions apply, so the LA must name the parents preferred choice of school. The reason invoked by the LA officer does not apply, as only those conditions stated above allows the LA to refuse parental preference. If the LA do invoke one of the above three reasons for refusal, it is for the LA to prove the case not the parents .Parents can appeal to the SENDIST if refused school of preference -- and 90% of appeals on placement are successful. It is likely that, if the parent lodges an appeal, that the LA will concede before Hearing. Advise that parent rings the IPSEA help line -- details on the IPSEA website -- just google IPSEA.  Brendan King

-----Original Message-----
From: tjr29 at hotmail.com
To: senco-forum at lists.becta.org.uk
Sent: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 2.54PM
Subject: [senco-forum] Special school placement

Help please! I am an infant school Senco. We have a child with complex needs who is due to transfer to KS2 in September. Our local junior school would be highly inappropriate for him. 

After careful discussion at his annual review in May 2006, his parents agreed to consider an MLD school. I took them to visit 2 such schools, equi-distant from home - they disliked one, and loved the second. They named the second on their parental response form for transition. 
The LEA have decided that he cannot have a place at their preferred school, but could go to the one they dislike. They are pretty angry. 

An LEA official have told the parents that there is no point going to a tribunal, as the LEA has offered them a MLD place -"it does not count that their preference is the other school. They've been offered an MLD place to meet his needs." 

Another piece of advice they received - from Parent Partnership - was that if we held an immediate 'annual' review, they could request their preferred school be named on the Statement, and then the LEA would have to comply. 

I have spoken to an independent SEN support group, who advised that the LEA official is wrong - parents CAN specify the name of a Special School. Also that an amended Statement can not change from mainstream to special without LEA agreement. 

Tomorrow I am taking the parents - with the child this time - to visit the school they dislike, hoping they may change their minds! I have previously sent children to both schools, and I have heard great things from them, but obviously parents want to feel it is right for their child. 

Please can anyone advise me on what rights the parents have? What can I do next to help them? 

Tara 

_________________________________________________________________ 
Get Hotmail, News, Sport and Entertainment from MSN on your mobile. http://www.msn.txt4content.com/ 