Moves to give Scottish families whose children need extra help in the classroom more choice over where they go to school have been given overwhelming support.

Moves to give Scottish families whose children need extra help in the classroom more choice over where they go to school have been given overwhelming support.

Nearly 100 of the 115 responses to a Scottish Government consultation on the plan were positive, with support from community councils, schools, charities, universities, parents groups and local authorities.

However, some councils warned of serious cost implications if the government presses ahead with the change in the law.

The cost of school support can be high and it is paid for by the local authority where the child lives, not where they go to school.

If more local authorities accept children on placing requests from neighbouring councils, with no control over the process, they may have to absorb increasing costs.

Last year, The Herald revealed that thousands of Scottish families whose children need extra support have no right to choose a school in a different local authority after a landmark legal ruling.

The Court of Session in Edinburgh found there was no provision for such families to make so-called placing requests to other councils in the 2004 law on how children with additional support needs are dealt with.

That meant that, while other parents continue to enjoy the right, some 25,000 Scottish children with additional support needs - a term which covers a range of conditions such as autism, but which can also apply to pupils who are struggling because they are bullied or have been bereaved - could not.

In her response to the consultation, Kathleen Marshall, Scotland's Commissioner for Children, said: "It is essential for parents to have the opportunity of making requests, particularly if their home authority is unable to meet the needs of the particular child. This amendment will help to address this anomaly and will ensure rights of a placing request to all parents."

A submission from Strathclyde University stated: "This change is necessary to ensure parents of children with additional support needs have no fewer rights than those of children and young people without."

Jessica Burns, president of the Additional Support Needs Tribunals for Scotland, added: "It is essential children with additional support needs are not to be prejudiced by a postcode lottery." Barnardo's Scotland and the National Autistic Society agreed.

However, some local authorities expressed concern about the costs of care.

Stirling Council's submission said: "The cost differential is a real consideration particularly when the request is to a specialist provision in another authority.

"The way to ... allow freedom for parents to choose is to make specialist provision cost neutral - for the Scottish Government to pick up the costs for all specialist provision and then it not result in costs to any home or host authority."

The ruling last year at the Court of Session was made in the case of Wilma Donnelly, from West Dunbartonshire, who made a placing request on behalf of her son Mark, who has cerebral palsy and is registered blind.

After a lengthy legal battle to move Mark, then 16, from a mainstream school in West Dunbartonshire to a special school in Glasgow, the judges ruled that, although the local authority could make a placing request on her behalf, there was no provision for her to make a request under the Education (Additional Support for Learning) Act 2004.

Alex Salmond, the First Minister, gave an assurance at Holyrood that "whatever steps necessary" would be taken to ensure that families in this position would have a free choice of school.

Last night, Iain Nisbet, a solicitor from the education law unit of the Govan Law Centre, who represented Mrs Donnelly, welcomed the support for change and added: "This is what we all thought was the legal position for a number of years." He said the additional costs should "even themselves out" between local authorities.

The Scottish Government said: "The government now has a 12-week period in which to consider our response."