'Insane' rule leaves mum with 240km school run

Ecoturin

Active member
Joined
Nov 3, 2010
Messages
128
The Senos and other bean-counting form fillers are a massive problem. They sometimes have no experience dealing with children with special needs (some are ex-admin staff), they view kids for 20 minutes, they ignore reports from professionals . . .

You really have to feel for the families of children with special needs. The DES had to be forced by the courts just to admit they had a duty to educate these children, and it has only been over the past decade that any real provision has been made. However, now many of the grants, payments and services that parents came to rely on to care and educate their children are no longer available. The criteria for these services has been "tightened". Some of these schemes had not been initially designed for children with special needs, but had been adapted so as to meet the very real needs of these children. By "tightening" the criteria, the DES can make cuts while pretending that nothing has changed.
 


jimwin

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 7, 2010
Messages
373
The Senos and other bean-counting form fillers are a massive problem. They sometimes have no experience dealing with children with special needs (some are ex-admin staff), they view kids for 20 minutes, they ignore reports from professionals . . .

You really have to feel for the families of children with special needs. The DES had to be forced by the courts just to admit they had a duty to educate these children, and it has only been over the past decade that any real provision has been made. However, now many of the grants, payments and services that parents came to rely on to care and educate their children are no longer available. The criteria for these services has been "tightened". Some of these schemes had not been initially designed for children with special needs, but had been adapted so as to meet the very real needs of these children. By "tightening" the criteria, the DES can make cuts while pretending that nothing has changed.
Can you refer to the OP please and stop making assumptions
 

Emmaroos

Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2010
Messages
20
You claim in your post that the local school (St Vincent's) has been deemed inadequate to meet the child's needs? There is no evidence in the emotive article to suggest that is the case at all. If this school has been deemed inadequate well then there is a case for the arrangement for St Anne's or a nearer school. However, this is not clear in the article.

Leaving aside the fact that we don't know if the local school was deemed inadequate, there are other considerations.

If you know anything about the transportation of children with special education needs to school. you will know that a child with such exceptional health needs would not be simply seated on a bus to travel such a long distance every day without consideration of the effects of the journey.

Does the mother not consider the effects of the travel on her child? Is it right that a child with such complex needs be put through such a journey every day?
Firstly, it's not about the closer school being declared 'inadequate'. I imagine that no state funded school would ever have the resources to provide all the therapy and specialist intensive education that children such as Aife could benefit from. In this case the further school seems to be able to meet her needs better. Not every parent who sends their child to a slightly further co-ed VEC (for example) is declaring the nearer convent 'inadequate'.
Also, as an argument this is a totally moot point as even the Department of Education agree that Aife is now in the most suitable school for her needs.

Secondly I'm guessing that I know more than you do about the transportation of children such as this, given that you have immediately jumped to the conclusion that a child with primarily cognitive disabilities is incapable of sitting on a normal bus seat. For the record, Aife is perfectly capable of sitting on a bus. You also need to remember that the closer school is still 20k away and would also involve a bus journey.
Aife's mother is not currently getting into a car twice a day to drop and collect her daughter to a school 60km away without having come to the conclusion that the cost and disruption to her own life are far outweighed by the benefits to her daughter.

I understand that when you read a story like this that there is a need to make sure you are hearing both sides of the story. However, are you even open to the possibility that in this case what the mother is asking for is both reasonable and needed, and that the only thing that is stopping her daughter from using the bus is official determination to follow the letter, rather than the spirit, of the regulations?
 

Emmaroos

Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2010
Messages
20
I've had a PM from Aife's mother to clarify a few details about the choice of school:

The criteria is the 'nearest school that is or can be resourced'.
The closer school at Lisnagry is currently not resourced to meet Aife's needs while St Annes in Roscrea is. For Aife to attend the closer school would involve a far greater cost to the taxpayer.
If Aife leaves North Tipp, she would lose the continuity she has built up with her current intervention team and would probably have to go on a waiting list for services from Limerick.

I also believe that the SENO in the case had never been to the closer school in and had never met Aife or even spoken to her mother before she denied the transportation.

In fairness to the SENO (who I know nothing about) her job is to implement the regulations, and she probably has a huge caseload. I think the wording of the regulations has been written to ensure that costs are minimised rather than considering what is most appropriate within budgetary constraints. In this case Aifes education would be totally disrupted based on which school is the nearest for transport and not which is the best educational placement to meet her needs.
My main criticism is directed at the appeals board who should be functioning as a safety net and considering the individual merits of the case in a sensible way. An appeals board is pretty pointless if they simply reapply the same regulations that the SENO has already applied.
 

berberie

Active member
Joined
Apr 26, 2009
Messages
162
Firstly I work on the frontline in the area of special needs and yes this does happen. There is so much frustration for parents and those who work in close proximity with children/adults with Special Needs.

Appealing a decision can be such a slow process held up by red tape!!

Yes, there are schools that cater more to each individual child's special need, particularly if that child has a combination of needs!

As for saying the mother should move and find a new job. Are you living in the real world? Or in your world are 'new jobs' just something you can pluck out of the air at present in this country. Plus the liklihood is her working hours will probably be very restricted.

Perhaps even more importantly, the mother may have family back up locally, ie her parents, siblings etc. Most people with special needs children need this as no matter how much they love their child they need other people around them who will help eleviate some of the pressure and even just for general support.

It is such a simple job for a 'jobsworth' person, ie a faceless person in an office to say 'no' without realising the problems they are actually causing.

I have to say, I know certain SN schools/residential settings where parents and school have compromised (leaving out SENO) and the parent will drive the child half way and the school provides transport from that point and obviously the same applies on the way home.
 

defacto

Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2010
Messages
10
I also have an interest and some experience in the area

I have nothing but sympathy for the parent and child and I am all to aware of the difficulties faced by parents of children with special edciation needs.

However, this story does not add up.

Firstly, St Vincent's is the local school. Nowhere in the emotive article does it say that if this school has been assessed as adequate. Is the OP assuming that St Vincent’s cannot meet the child’s needs. In the subsequent post OP suuggests that funding is an issue. However, since both schools are run by the same organisation, can't the funds simply be sqitced? Wouldn't this be a more approriate use of the media campaign rather than the campaign for a 240km 4 hour bus journey each day per journey ?

Secondly, it is reported in the article that the child has numerous health complications, including autism, a rare chromosome disorder, fluid in her spine, ADHD, limited speech and a hole in her heart. Are you seriously assuming that this child’s disabilities are a 'cognitive difficulty'?

Thirdly, you ignore the obvious physical and emotional implications of sending a child - with numerous health complications - on a daily 240km commute to and from school. Do you think that this is an acceptable journey for a sick child?

Fourthly, school transport regulations state that a child should not travel any longer than 2.5 hours to or from school. For very good reasons (this however, is omitted form the article). As there is a speed limit of 80kph for school buses. Judging for time spent getting children on/off and the stops en route, this would mean that this child would be over the maximum time allowed on the bus.

Fifthly, there is an independent school transport appeals board. It is unclear if mum went through this process

There appears more to this story that first appears. Both schools are run by the same organisations, which has a reputation for educating children with moderate, severe and profound intellectual disabilities. Unclear of independent appeals process was used.

There is no mention of the impact of 1,200km weekly journey on health and emotional well being of the child. I doubt very much if the specialists are recommending this.
For the record, I believe that every child has the right to an appropriate education. I also believe the State has an obligation to provide the necessary supports to enable this.

However, sending a very young, sick child on an 5hour, 240km round trip every day for 5 days a week is not acceptable.
 

jimwin

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 7, 2010
Messages
373
Firstly, it's not about the closer school being declared 'inadequate'. I imagine that no state funded school would ever have the resources to provide all the therapy and specialist intensive education that children such as Aife could benefit from. In this case the further school seems to be able to meet her needs better. Not every parent who sends their child to a slightly further co-ed VEC (for example) is declaring the nearer convent 'inadequate'.
Also, as an argument this is a totally moot point as even the Department of Education agree that Aife is now in the most suitable school for her needs.

Secondly I'm guessing that I know more than you do about the transportation of children such as this, given that you have immediately jumped to the conclusion that a child with primarily cognitive disabilities is incapable of sitting on a normal bus seat. For the record, Aife is perfectly capable of sitting on a bus. You also need to remember that the closer school is still 20k away and would also involve a bus journey.
Aife's mother is not currently getting into a car twice a day to drop and collect her daughter to a school 60km away without having come to the conclusion that the cost and disruption to her own life are far outweighed by the benefits to her daughter.

I understand that when you read a story like this that there is a need to make sure you are hearing both sides of the story. However, are you even open to the possibility that in this case what the mother is asking for is both reasonable and needed, and that the only thing that is stopping her daughter from using the bus is official determination to follow the letter, rather than the spirit, of the regulations?
So the Department of Education has agreed that she's in the most appropriate school? Where was that reported? If that is the case, it would provide clear grounds for an appeal. There has been precedent in this area (see Ombudsman's website). However, should the mother be putting the child through such a daily journey? I would think it would be better to campaign for funding for the local school
 

Nemi_

Active member
Joined
Aug 20, 2010
Messages
252
So a lot of the conclusions that people have jumped to have been incorrect - at least if you take emmaroos at face value as knowing something of the case.
Well, I haven't especially been jumping at any conclusions. I've been making the consistent point that the article is inadequate. If it wasn't inadequate, we wouldn't need it supplemented by posters claiming knowledge of the details of the case.

For my part, I can't help noticing that if the bus is passing by her door, then the more distant school clearly is being deemed most suitable for some pupils from her area (as otherwise, presumably, all the pupils from that area would have to be taken there by their parents).

Do you get my point? It seems like the process does acknowledge that some pupils can best be served in Roscrea, and not Lisnagry. For whatever reason, and I don't expect we'll ever know, this case is deemed to be different.
 

Asparagus

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 7, 2010
Messages
4,823
Well, I haven't especially been jumping at any conclusions. I've been making the consistent point that the article is inadequate. If it wasn't inadequate, we wouldn't need it supplemented by posters claiming knowledge of the details of the case.

For my part, I can't help noticing that if the bus is passing by her door, then the more distant school clearly is being deemed most suitable for some pupils from her area (as otherwise, presumably, all the pupils from that area would have to be taken there by their parents).

Do you get my point? It seems like the process does acknowledge that some pupils can best be served in Roscrea, and not Lisnagry. For whatever reason, and I don't expect we'll ever know, this case is deemed to be different.
And i agree with you - i does seem that the process does acknowledge some children should go to Roscrea - but it is the role of the SENO in what should be almost (but not quite) a clinical decision making process, that gets my goat.

You see the children already on the bus might be there because of stupid reasons like previous non availability at a nearer school.

We shouldn't be treating SEN kids so shabbily - the fact that this little girl is allowed to attend Roscrea should entitle her to transport - the Department shouldn't have let her in if the nearer school could have done the job.
But they did so its obvious that they believe that she will get better care there.

What we have though is a jobsworth with a checklist denying transport for a child to a school that is
  • deemed necessary by the dept of education
  • already serviced by a bus that is not full

Further more what is the point wasting money on NEPS evaluations if someone with a checklist can overrule them?
 

Emmaroos

Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2010
Messages
20
So the Department of Education has agreed that she's in the most appropriate school? Where was that reported? If that is the case, it would provide clear grounds for an appeal. There has been precedent in this area (see Ombudsman's website). However, should the mother be putting the child through such a daily journey? I would think it would be better to campaign for funding for the local school
The recommendation for St Anne's is in the IEP, produced (as I'm sure you know) by department of Education staff.
As for the appeal, Aife's mother WILL have no choice but to take legal action and demonstrate in court that Aife's basic rights are being denied if common sense can't be applied.
Finally, given the recent announcements of cutbacks in this area, are you really serious that you think she should take her child out of a school where she is making good progress, and away from the support team that currently works with her in the hopes that if she 'campaigns' then the school 20km away will suddenly be given great resources and any waiting lists in Limerick for support services will disappear?! Would you take that kind of gamble with your child's welfare?
At the moment she's campaigning for something that won't cost a penny and the Department of Education don't seem to have much interest in listening.
 

Nemi_

Active member
Joined
Aug 20, 2010
Messages
252
You see the children already on the bus might be there because of stupid reasons like previous non availability at a nearer school.
That could be the case, but, in truth, we don't know. All we know is that some people in the same area seem to get this service, which makes its denial in this case puzzling. Again, the article fails to get to grips with the topic at all.
What we have though is a jobsworth with a checklist denying transport for a child to a school that is
  • deemed necessary by the dept of education
  • already serviced by a bus that is not full
Well, in fairness, that's not what we know.

What we know is the decision is subject to appeal to an independent board, and we have a claim that such an appeal was made unsuccessfully. If you don't like the independent board's decision, you can appeal to the Ombudsman for Children. So, no, the picture of some unaccountable bureaucrat flicking a coin doesn't hold water.
 

jimwin

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 7, 2010
Messages
373
The recommendation for St Anne's is in the IEP, produced (as I'm sure you know) by department of Education staff.
As for the appeal, Aife's mother WILL have no choice but to take legal action and demonstrate in court that Aife's basic rights are being denied if common sense can't be applied.
Finally, given the recent announcements of cutbacks in this area, are you really serious that you think she should take her child out of a school where she is making good progress, and away from the support team that currently works with her in the hopes that if she 'campaigns' then the school 20km away will suddenly be given great resources and any waiting lists in Limerick for support services will disappear?! Would you take that kind of gamble with your child's welfare?
At the moment she's campaigning for something that won't cost a penny and the Department of Education don't seem to have much interest in listening.
You should know that the provisions of the EPSEN Act have not been implemented so the IEP issue doesn't arise.

You fail to answer any of my points or those of other posters.

Do you believe that the specialists are advocating that this sick child should be strapped in a school bus for 5 hours a day, 5 days a week for a total journey of over 1,200km? No professional would make such a recommendation

You say mum is campaigning for something that won't cost a penny? What about the cost to the child?

This headline should read ' Insane mum wants child to go on 1,200km school run'
 

defacto

Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2010
Messages
10
What we know is the decision is subject to appeal to an independent board, and we have a claim that such an appeal was made unsuccessfully. If you don't like the independent board's decision, you can appeal to the Ombudsman for Children. So, no, the picture of some unaccountable bureaucrat flicking a coin doesn't hold water.
Totally agree. There was a case of a child with a medical condition and profound special needs. The complaint related to the lack of provision of concessionary school transport for her to attend the family’s choice of school. The school was chosen by the parents as it was deemed at that time to be the most appropriate special educational setting to assist her development and welfare.

Case brought to Children's Ombudsman and case was won by parents. Why doesn't Mum just use this in discussions or got to Children's Ombudsman herself instead of the Irish Independent?
I agree also with the poster who says physical and emotional well being should be considered.

I am sure this is what the SENO is basing their decisions on.

I can't believe the attitude of some posters on here in respect of people trying to do their jobs
 

Emmaroos

Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2010
Messages
20
However, since both schools are run by the same organisation, can't the funds simply be sqitced?



Secondly, it is reported in the article that the child has numerous health complications, including autism, a rare chromosome disorder, fluid in her spine, ADHD, limited speech and a hole in her heart. Are you seriously assuming that this child’s disabilities are a 'cognitive difficulty'?

Thirdly, you ignore the obvious physical and emotional implications of sending a child - with numerous health complications - on a daily 240km commute to and from school. Do you think that this is an acceptable journey for a sick child?

Fourthly, school transport regulations state that a child should not travel any longer than 2.5 hours to or from school. For very good reasons (this however, is omitted form the article). As there is a speed limit of 80kph for school buses. Judging for time spent getting children on/off and the stops en route, this would mean that this child would be over the maximum time allowed on the bus.

Fifthly, there is an independent school transport appeals board. It is unclear if mum went through this process

There appears more to this story that first appears. Both schools are run by the same organisations, which has a reputation for educating children with moderate, severe and profound intellectual disabilities. Unclear of independent appeals process was used.

There is no mention of the impact of 1,200km weekly journey on health and emotional well being of the child. I doubt very much if the specialists are recommending this.
For the record, I believe that every child has the right to an appropriate education. I also believe the State has an obligation to provide the necessary supports to enable this.

However, sending a very young, sick child on an 5hour, 240km round trip every day for 5 days a week is not acceptable.
I should make it clear that I have no direct knowledge of either school, but I have met Aife

I'm not sure exactly how you propose that funds should be transferred between two schools. Say for instance an Autistic child is entitled to a specified number of specialist teacher hours, a school with enough children will be able to employ a specialist teacher full time who can group the children and teaching hours as appropriate. If another has only 1 Autistic child who would qualify for x teacher hours then firstly there is the problem of finding a properly qualified teacher to employ for those hours, and secondly there is no flexibility so instead of maybe being taught in a group of 3 students for three times as long they literally only get x hours. The same sort of considerations apply to language development or physical education needs. Some children may need lots of one type of intervention and none of another type. It isn't as simple as schools being adequate or not adequate, some are simply a better fit, perhaps purely by chance because of the personnel (staff or students) there at a given time.

The journey of 240km is the round trip of Aife's mother daily, dropping and collecting her daughter. Aife's daily journey is half that, 60km to school in the morning and 60km in the afternoon. Even a school bus can manage that in under 2 and a half hours.

As for Aife being 'very sick', please stop making assumptions. Yes, Aife has complex needs. A child with Down's Syndrome (for example) has a chromosome disorder and may have similar heart problems, but would be perfectly able to sit on a bus. Aife's autism, ADHD and difficulty with speech and language are serious and she needs specialist teaching to help her to overcome them and progress, but none of these are difficulties which stop her being able to travel on a bus. She is a happy little girl as you can see from the photo in the article and on her facebook page (Give School Transport to Aife | Facebook)

The psychologists and various therapists who work with Aife are perfectly all satisfied with her placement at this school, and I don't understand why you are so keen to suggest otherwise...unless you are the Minister for Education posting incognito!!
Seriously, I'm doing my best to answer any questions you have as honestly as I can, but there's not much point if you aren't at least open to the possibility that staying in St Anne's is the best available option for Aife at this time, and that letting her on the bus won't cost anyone a penny and will lift a huge burden of time and expense off the mothers shoulders.
 

Emmaroos

Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2010
Messages
20
Totally agree. There was a case of a child with a medical condition and profound special needs. The complaint related to the lack of provision of concessionary school transport for her to attend the family’s choice of school. The school was chosen by the parents as it was deemed at that time to be the most appropriate special educational setting to assist her development and welfare.

Case brought to Children's Ombudsman and case was won by parents. Why doesn't Mum just use this in discussions or got to Children's Ombudsman herself instead of the Irish Independent?
I agree also with the poster who says physical and emotional well being should be considered.

I am sure this is what the SENO is basing their decisions on.

I can't believe the attitude of some posters on here in respect of people trying to do their jobs
I can find out definitively, but given that she has spent a huge amount of time following the correct channels for appealing I imagine that either she didn't realise that there was a precedent (it's unlikely that the SENO tells you that you can do that) or else that there would be expense putting together the appeal to the Ombudsman because you would want to get a clear case drawn up of how Aife's legal and constitutional rights are being denied.
I think she was hoping that if people only knew about the crazy situation where a bus goes past her door, to a school that everyone involved is happy with, but her daughter isn't allowed to use it, that common sense would prevail.
As for how the SENO's do their jobs, often their hands are tied because they have to work within the regulations. I had very high regard for the SENO I worked with, but the regulations often stopped her from being able to make common sense decisions, sometimes (as I said in a previous post) resulting in more costly resources being awarded when something cheaper but not on the list would have been more appropriate which is exactly what is happening in this case.
 

defacto

Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2010
Messages
10
That could be the case, but, in truth, we don't know. All we know is that some people in the same area seem to get this service, which makes its denial in this case puzzling. Again, the article fails to get to grips with the topic at all.Well, in fairness, that's not what we know.

What we know is the decision is subject to appeal to an independent board, and we have a claim that such an appeal was made unsuccessfully. If you don't like the independent board's decision, you can appeal to the Ombudsman for Children. So, no, the picture of some unaccountable bureaucrat flicking a coin doesn't hold water.
I should make it clear that I have no direct knowledge of either school, but I have met Aife

I'm not sure exactly how you propose that funds should be transferred between two schools. Say for instance an Autistic child is entitled to a specified number of specialist teacher hours, a school with enough children will be able to employ a specialist teacher full time who can group the children and teaching hours as appropriate. If another has only 1 Autistic child who would qualify for x teacher hours then firstly there is the problem of finding a properly qualified teacher to employ for those hours, and secondly there is no flexibility so instead of maybe being taught in a group of 3 students for three times as long they literally only get x hours. The same sort of considerations apply to language development or physical education needs. Some children may need lots of one type of intervention and none of another type. It isn't as simple as schools being adequate or not adequate, some are simply a better fit, perhaps purely by chance because of the personnel (staff or students) there at a given time.

The journey of 240km is the round trip of Aife's mother daily, dropping and collecting her daughter. Aife's daily journey is half that, 60km to school in the morning and 60km in the afternoon. Even a school bus can manage that in under 2 and a half hours.

As for Aife being 'very sick', please stop making assumptions. Yes, Aife has complex needs. A child with Down's Syndrome (for example) has a chromosome disorder and may have similar heart problems, but would be perfectly able to sit on a bus. Aife's autism, ADHD and difficulty with speech and language are serious and she needs specialist teaching to help her to overcome them and progress, but none of these are difficulties which stop her being able to travel on a bus. She is a happy little girl as you can see from the photo in the article and on her facebook page (Give School Transport to Aife | Facebook)

The psychologists and various therapists who work with Aife are perfectly all satisfied with her placement at this school, and I don't understand why you are so keen to suggest otherwise...unless you are the Minister for Education posting incognito!!
Seriously, I'm doing my best to answer any questions you have as honestly as I can, but there's not much point if you aren't at least open to the possibility that staying in St Anne's is the best available option for Aife at this time, and that letting her on the bus won't cost anyone a penny and will lift a huge burden of time and expense off the mothers shoulders.

I will tell you what I dislike most about this story. The use of a sick child to promote a particular position. I have no doubt that the school in question has adequate services. It may even as you claim, been recommended as the best school. Does this mean the child travelling such a long journey every day? Would you put your child through that?

In terms of distance, it is either a 240km school run - as the headline suggests - or it isn't. The article claims the child to have numerous health complications, including autism, a rare chromosome disorder, fluid in her spine, ADHD, limited speech and a hole in her heart. And you say I make an assumption she is not very sick?

As for funding, the HSE funds both schools as does the Dept of Ed. A case could be made to both agencies to provide supports at a local school rather than putting children through such a long, difficult journey. A campaign I would be happy to support.

As campaign to send a child with numerous health complications on a 240km - or even a 120km - bus journey every day I do not support . Not a chance I would put any of my children through this

I hate to see children used in such a way. Shame
 

Asparagus

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 7, 2010
Messages
4,823
I should make it clear that I have no direct knowledge of either school, but I have met Aife

I'm not sure exactly how you propose that funds should be transferred between two schools. Say for instance an Autistic child is entitled to a specified number of specialist teacher hours, a school with enough children will be able to employ a specialist teacher full time who can group the children and teaching hours as appropriate. If another has only 1 Autistic child who would qualify for x teacher hours then firstly there is the problem of finding a properly qualified teacher to employ for those hours, and secondly there is no flexibility so instead of maybe being taught in a group of 3 students for three times as long they literally only get x hours. The same sort of considerations apply to language development or physical education needs. Some children may need lots of one type of intervention and none of another type. It isn't as simple as schools being adequate or not adequate, some are simply a better fit, perhaps purely by chance because of the personnel (staff or students) there at a given time.

The journey of 240km is the round trip of Aife's mother daily, dropping and collecting her daughter. Aife's daily journey is half that, 60km to school in the morning and 60km in the afternoon. Even a school bus can manage that in under 2 and a half hours.

As for Aife being 'very sick', please stop making assumptions. Yes, Aife has complex needs. A child with Down's Syndrome (for example) has a chromosome disorder and may have similar heart problems, but would be perfectly able to sit on a bus. Aife's autism, ADHD and difficulty with speech and language are serious and she needs specialist teaching to help her to overcome them and progress, but none of these are difficulties which stop her being able to travel on a bus. She is a happy little girl as you can see from the photo in the article and on her facebook page (Give School Transport to Aife | Facebook)

The psychologists and various therapists who work with Aife are perfectly all satisfied with her placement at this school, and I don't understand why you are so keen to suggest otherwise...unless you are the Minister for Education posting incognito!!

Seriously, I'm doing my best to answer any questions you have as honestly as I can, but there's not much point if you aren't at least open to the possibility that staying in St Anne's is the best available option for Aife at this time, and that letting her on the bus won't cost anyone a penny and will lift a huge burden of time and expense off the mothers shoulders.
Given defacto has just joined the site and has only 3 posts all of which are questioning a little girl with SENs the right to transport, then you may be on to something...
 

defacto

Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2010
Messages
10
I can find out definitively, but given that she has spent a huge amount of time following the correct channels for appealing I imagine that either she didn't realise that there was a precedent (it's unlikely that the SENO tells you that you can do that) or else that there would be expense putting together the appeal to the Ombudsman because you would want to get a clear case drawn up of how Aife's legal and constitutional rights are being denied.
I think she was hoping that if people only knew about the crazy situation where a bus goes past her door, to a school that everyone involved is happy with, but her daughter isn't allowed to use it, that common sense would prevail.
As for how the SENO's do their jobs, often their hands are tied because they have to work within the regulations. I had very high regard for the SENO I worked with, but the regulations often stopped her from being able to make common sense decisions, sometimes (as I said in a previous post) resulting in more costly resources being awarded when something cheaper but not on the list would have been more appropriate which is exactly what is happening in this case.
The offices of the Children's Ombudsman are free and confidential. Parents are informed of this during the appeals process with the dept of education.

This is is not about common sense. Common sense is the metaphysics of savages

There are probably good reasons not to put the child on the bus -such a emotional and physical well being' - sounds like the SENO is doing the right thing in this case
 

defacto

Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2010
Messages
10
Given defacto has just joined the site and has only 3 posts all of which are questioning a little girl with SENs the right to transport, then you may be on to something...
I joined because I was horrified with the misinformation provided in the OP and the article. It';s not about a little girl and her bus. Don't be such an idiot. It is about whether a child with numerous health difficulties should be used in this way. Disgusting
That's the problem with people on this site.They just respond to tabloid headlines
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top Bottom