He sat the 11 plus and when we fgot the results he was borderline to previous years but there was no "official" pass mark given to determine whether he was in or not. Difficult to make the call at that point as he was so close.
Does this mean that the school has no pass mark as such but allocates on score order so that the cut-off may differ from year to year?
The grammar school made contact with his current school to discuss his special needs and whilst I took that with a pinch of salt - felt reassured when we got his final amended statement.
The final amended Statement should have named the school in Part 4? The proposed amended statement must not name the school so as to leave the parent(s) to select the school they wish the LA to name. The LA then has to do a formal consultation with the school and the school would normally say at that stage whether or not they can meet the needs of the child. This should normally be done within 15 working days. If the school is in a different LA the home LA must also consult with the other LA. When did you find out that the school you wanted was not being named? The statement should have been finalised by February 15th.
The school are saying that he didn't reach the pass rate criteria.
If your child still has a Statement as opposed to an EHC Plan (as the transfer to EHC should also happen this year for him) the legal underpinnings are different for maintained schools as opposed to academies. The new CFA has brought everything together so that distinction will no longer exist. However, for a maintained school under the old system and for any school including academies (but not independent schools) under the new system, the LA must name the parents' preferred school providing it is suitable for the child's age, ability and aptitude and the special educational needs set out in part 2 of the statement; provided the child's attendance is not incompatible with the efficient education of other children in the school and the placement is an efficient use of the LA's resources. It will be important for you to ascertain exactly why the school have said no. In very general terms the failure to meet the same "pass mark" as the other children would not be enough in itself to say that the school was not suitable for the child's ability, but there may be other considerations the school have put forward. If the school is an academy under the old system the position is not quite as strong for the parent who must rely on the LA having to try to educate the child in accordance with the parent's wishes under Section 9 EA 1996.
However, it is up to your own LA to decide whether or not to name the school that you wanted. LAs can and sometimes do name schools against the wishes of the school though they would generally want to be sure of their ground before doing so.
There has now been a backwards and forwards debate between two LEAs (The grammar school is in another LEA) the current school the grammar school and ourselves - where today they have refused to meet with us.
This sounds a bit as though your home LA wants to name the school but the other LA is not happy??
Having looked at the admissions code they do not have to accept children with a statement - however there will have been correspondence from the LEA requesting confirmation if they did not want to accept our child. There was no such correspondence ever issued.
No state school can refuse to admit a child with a Statement - that was clarified a while ago now. Their only recourse, if named, when they do not wish to admit is to appeal to the Secretary of State. I think the correspondence to which you are referring may be the official consultation? You could ask your own LA to give you the exact details of when they sent the consultation documents both to the school and the other LA and when they received replies and what they said.
Your route of appeal if your LA have not named the school you want is through the SEND Tribunal. The appeal is against your own LA as it is they who make the decision whether or not to name the school. It is extremely important in this situation to look at the whole of the Statement, not just the Part 4 naming of the school. The needs identified in Part 2 and the provision detailed in Part 3 must all point to the placement Part 4 being what you want it to be (and you may also want to say that the named placement is not suitable for the needs and provision detailed).
It is not straightforward so if you can afford the legal help or qualify for Legal Aid it would help you. If not IPSEA may be able to help.
I think it may be worth asking whether, when they do the transfer to EHC Plan, this gives you another "bite of the cherry" as the transfer process is supposed to be a reassessment process not a mere transfer over of the old statement. The new system I think puts you in a rather stronger position than the old if the school you want is an academy.