Every parent wants the best for their child. When that child has special needs, the quality of his or her schooling is a key factor in determining how close they come to reaching their potential. More than any other group of children, they rely on our educational system to be as close as possible to a level playing field.

In recent years increasing numbers of parents have exercised their right to make placing requests for their children for schools outwith their own local authority areas. However, as we report in The Herald today, the parents of children who need extra help at school will no longer be eligible to choose a school across a council boundary from their home. This is extraordinary and unfair. It has wider implications than are first apparent because it covers not only children with complex needs and serious disabilities, such as Mark Donnelly who has cerebral palsy and is registered blind. It also includes all 25,000 Scottish pupils judged as having "additional support needs", a category that includes children who have been bullied or are struggling to come to terms with a family bereavement.

What seems particularly unjust is that there are sometimes pressing reasons why many of these children should be crossing boundaries for their schooling. It is sometimes the only option for a child targeted by bullies, for example. Because of the closure of a number of special schools as more children are educated in mainstream schools, many authorities no longer have separate schools for children with complex needs. Like Mrs Donnelly, parents believe they know what is best for their child and many are frustrated that the alternative of a special school has been removed.

Under the 2004 legislation for children needing additional support, local authorities can apply to neighbouring councils for places in special schools. But, as they would have to fund such placements, it is in their own financial interests to argue that they are able to cater for pupils' special needs in mainstream schools. There have already been disputes between host and home authorities over special needs education. Such penny-pinching is destined to get worse as local authority spending looks likely to take the brunt of cuts.

Mrs Donnelly could move back to Glasgow to enable her son to attend Ashcraig School, but why should she not have the same rights as other parents? This should include the right to appeal any decision. This appeal should be to the independent Additional Support Needs Tribunal, which at present cannot judge on cross-border applications. We can only assume that this was an oversight on the part of legislators. If it is not put right when the appeal goes to the House of Lords, then the Scottish Government, which is already committed to a review of the system, must act promptly to put things right. It may be too late for Mark Donnelly but a fair and compassionate society should be going out of its way to help children who have so much stacked against them.