This case study concerns a section I appeal.

The parent of M first contacted SENDIASS in the autumn term of xxx as she was anxious about her son’s move to key stage 3. He currently attended a specialist school and had a range of complex additional needs relating to his autism in particular his sensory needs could at time be quite challenging.

SENDIASS had worked previously with this parent (R) and supported her SENDIST appeal some years before to secure specialist nursery provision for her youngest son, who had profound special needs including significant mobility issues. R had a lot to cope with, having two children with profound additional needs, and unfortunately due to previous interventions from family services, (where she felt that she had not been listened to), she has trust issues with many other services and was reluctant to work with other agencies because of this. Fortunately, SENDIASS had a good relationship and she trusted SENDIASS.

R approached our service, and SENDIASS gave her guidance on the process for year 6/7 transfer and the time limits involved. She then arranged to look at several schools, which at the time was not easy as the covid restrictions meant that schools were limiting visits. R identified a school in a neighbouring authority, which she felt would be a good fit for M. SENDIASS did explain to R that as it was not a Manchester school and there was no guarantee of securing a place as that LA would prioritise pupils from within their own borough.

M has complex sensory needs and even within his specialist school, he was within a small group with a higher staff ratio. This was central to R’s belief that the local authority school (where most of his peer group would transfer) would not be suitable as they had larger class sizes.

SENDIASS advised R to visit the local Manchester school, which she did. Unfortunately, the visit did not go well and left mum feeling that she had not been listened too and she unfortunately came away with a negative impression.

Once R received the amended EHCP for M in XXX naming the Manchester school, she immediately lodged an appeal. Unfortunately, her preferred school, although it could meet need was full, with several other local pupils on their waiting list. It was at times difficult to support R as she struggled with all areas of IT and was not confident using email. This meant regular long phone conversations to explain the next step advice for the appeal paperwork.

SENDIASS continued to support mum through the process answering questions that came up and agreed because of R’s own needs to attend the tribunal in support. She had specified that she preferred an “in person hearing” as she was uncomfortable with the idea of a virtual meeting.

During this period, SENDIASS encouraged R to try and revisit the school that had been named in section I to try and address with them her concerns directly. She tried to do this but initially they were not very responsive.

The week before the hearing was scheduled to take place, R was finally invited into the named school with her son and had a positive visit. She raised her concerns about class size, access to outside space and his sensory requirements and they spent time introducing her to the group he would be part of and the resources they would use to support him.

SENDIASS were of the view that it was also critical that M also attended this visit, as R could see his confidence in these new surroundings. This completely changed R’s perception of the school and she contacted our service to request if possible if the hearing could at this late stage be cancelled.

After liaising with the tribunal service, it was agreed that the hearing would go ahead as it was less than 5 days away, but SENDIASS would attend in place of R to explain to the judge what had happened. The judge was understanding, and the appeal was withdrawn.

This case study highlights very effectively the need for schools to be available for parents and listen to their concerns. If this more personalised approach had happened initially, the appeal would not have been lodged and much time and cost could have been saved by the LA. Whilst it can of course be challenging to meet all new parents individually and group visits can be more “efficient”, this means that individual questions are often not answered, and it can lead to a negative impression of a school. 

This case also demonstrates the importance of continuing to have dialogue even after an appeal has been lodged. Whilst this can be challenging for the LA due to workload, it can save so much time as solutions can sometimes be found to avoid the need for an appeal to go ahead.

Parents such as R often have busy complicated lives and the added burden of a tribunal can be difficult to manage. If the EHCP officer managing the case had arranged a meeting with the school early, much of the concerns could have been avoided.

Listen to our SENDIASS Podcasts:

You may wish to read the following:

Fact sheet 44 - Appeals- challenging section I.

Complete our website contact form: