St John’s Catholic Comprehensive School, Gravesend (05A02672)

School admissions                     Maladministration causing injustice

02 March 2006

The Ombudsman criticised the School about the way the admissions criteria were administered. He says “The Governors’ admissions criteria appear to me to be generally clear and objective …” and commends them as an example of good practice. But he adds “It is the way that the Governors administer them that causes me concern.”

He finds fault over the way the Governors administered the criteria in the complainant’s case. During the Ombudsman’s investigation the School agreed to offer a place to the complainant’s son, and the Ombudsman has asked the School to take a number of actions to ensure that the faults he has identified do not recur.

‘Mr Bakr’ (real names not used for legal reasons) applied for a Year Six place at the school for his son ‘Umar’. Both the initial application and an appeal hearing were unsuccessful. He complained to the Ombudsman that there was fault in the way in which the Governing Body and the Appeal Panel acted.

The Ombudsman’s investigation found fault in the way the admissions criteria were administered: in particular for applicants, such as Umar, who were not Catholic and did not attend a Catholic primary school, and in the way in which distance measurements were taken into account. The appeal hearing was flawed in that the Panel did not consider properly Mr Bakr’s arguments that the distance measurements were incorrect, did not consider the Governors’ case against admission and did not record the reasons for its decisions.

The Ombudsman finds maladministration causing injustice to Mr Bakr. In order to ensure such faults do not happen again the Ombudsman has asked the Governors to:

• ensure that the published admission criteria are used when making decisions about admissions;
• no longer use the question about applying to a selective school on the supplementary application form;
• decide if they will use the Council’s distance measurements or make their own calculations: in the latter case they must use a method which is objective and robust;
• write to unsuccessful applicants to tell them which criterion proved fatal;
• use a suitably qualified person other than a member of the school or the Governors’ staff to clerk appeal panels;
• consider the appointment of fresh members of future admissions appeal panels and ensure that all members have received appropriate training from an independent source;
• ensure that the particular reason a child was not admitted is included in their written evidence to admissions appeal panels;
• ensure that the decisions of the appeal panel are properly recorded;
• give the required level of detail in appeal decision letters;
• signpost unsuccessful appellants to the Ombudsman in the appeal decision letters; and
• ensure there are arrangements in place to receive all post that may be delivered during school holidays, particularly during the Easter break.

Date Published: 20/04/09