In fact no; this is really worrying. The proposed bill applies the same test to withdrawal from special school and children under CPP/s47 and states the LA must refuse if the LA considers it would be in the child’s best interest to attend school. That’s not the same as would be harmed if they didn’t - ThreadSky

About ThreadSky

learnwhatyoulive.bsky.social • 82 days ago

In fact no; this is really worrying. The proposed bill applies the same test to withdrawal from special school and children under CPP/s47 and states the LA must refuse if the LA considers it would be in the child’s best interest to attend school. That’s not the same as would be harmed if they didn’t

Comments

trivium21c.bsky.social•82 days ago

With all these things there is a line but it’s one that is difficult to draw when it comes in touch with real life situations

learnwhatyoulive.bsky.social•82 days ago

Absolutely, and I am in no way saying there shouldn’t be that line. In CPP the ‘no’ assumption is likely to be more correct (not always). But this is shifting the line in existing cases (special school consent to withdraw) from ‘yes if you can meet needs’ to ‘not unless you can prove school is bad’.

learnwhatyoulive.bsky.social•82 days ago

I really hope this is something I’ve got wrong, btw, like everyone else I am only just reading the full Bill text.

trivium21c.bsky.social•82 days ago

I think that things will change as it goes through parliament but, in the main, I’m for it in this context, but what the ‘it’ is is not yet clear so I retain my right to change my mind…

learnwhatyoulive.bsky.social•82 days ago

LAs are basically duty bound to think it’s in a child’s best interest to receive education by regular attendance at school. That doesn’t mean they’re right.

Posting Rules

Be respectful to others
No spam or self-promotion
Stay on topic
Follow Bluesky's terms of service

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply