Islamia Primary School, Brondesbury Park (Further report 03A11014 + 2 others)

School admissions                      Further report

14 November 2005

The Ombudsman issued a second report on the investigation of three complaints about school admissions. In his first report (December 2004), the Ombudsman found maladministration causing injustice and recommended the Governors to review their admission criteria, admissions arrangements, appeals procedure and associated documentation; offer fresh appeal hearings to the complainants; and pay each complainant £100.

To date, the Governors of Islamia Primary School have not confirmed the date of any appeal for one complainant, or whether she has been sent her compensation payment. They have not confirmed the timescale for the introduction of the School’s proposed new admission criteria or provided detailed confirmation of the criteria and arrangements, and thay have not responded to the Ombudsman’s explicit concerns about delays in arranging appeals generally.

As the Ombudsman is not satisfied with the response, he has issued his second report, calling for the Governors of the School to provide him with a prompt response to the outstanding issues.

In his first report, the Ombudsman found maladministration on several points. He found that the published admission criteria lacked objectivity and transparency, did not properly explain to applicants how their applications would be assessed or what evidence they needed to supply, and did not offer equality of access to the verification process. He found that the Governors’ admission decision letter to unsuccessful applicants contained incorrect information about the appeals process, and failed to explain fully the reasons why applications had not succeeded. Flaws in the information sent to appellants by the Clerk to the Appeal Panel were so serious and fundamental that the soundness of the whole appeal process was questionable. The Ombudsman also doubted whether the Governors’ evidence to the Appeal Panel was sufficient to allow the Panel to satisfy itself that class-size prejudice had been demonstrated or that the admission arrangements had been properly implemented. The Ombudsman found unreasonable delay by the Governors in holding the appeals for admissions in September 2003. He was also concerned that, although the school had offered to hold fresh appeals for the complainants as long ago as December 2003, it had yet to make any such arrangements.

The Ombudsman concluded that the administrative failings had caused the complainants injustice in that:

• they experienced doubt, confusion and a sense of grievance;
• they were deprived of proper information about the appeals process and of a proper opportunity to prepare and present their appeal cases;
• they suffered anxiety and inconvenience; and
• they had to take time and trouble in pursuing their complaints.

To remedy the injustice, the Ombudsman recommended that the Governors should:

• review their admission criteria and admission arrangements, appeals procedure and associated documentation in the light of his findings, taking into account the relevant Code of Practice guidance and, if necessary, advice from a suitably qualified person;
• immediately offer the complainants the opportunity of a fresh appeal hearing, to be held without further delay (two of these have been held); and
• pay each complainant the sum of £100 (two complainants have been paid).
   

Date Updated: 25/03/09