Kingsbury High School, Brent (05A11622)

School admissions                     Maladministration causing injustice

28 September 2006

‘Mr Egeh’ (not his name for legal reasons) complained that the Appeal Panel established by the Governors of Kingsbury High School wrongly refused his appeal against the decision to refuse the admission of four of his children to the school.

The investigation showed that, before Mr Egeh’s appeal hearing in September 2005, the Appeal Panel and its Clerk met the Headteacher and the School’s Admissions Officer for a general discussion, in breach of the guidance given in the Code of Practice on Appeals.

This meeting was the only or main forum for a discussion of issues relating to the question of whether further admissions to the school would cause prejudice to the provision of efficient education and the efficient use of resources. But appellants were not present at that discussion.

The investigation showed that there was insufficient information presented at the appeal hearing itself to enable the Appeal Panel properly to explore and consider the ‘prejudice’ issues. In particular, the school had already exceeded its published admission limit in three of the four year groups affecting Mr Egeh’s children, but the Appeal Panel did not question the school’s representative about the reasons why Mr Egeh’s children could not also be accommodated in the school.

The investigation highlighted the importance of ensuring that the Clerk to the Appeal Panel receives proper training and information.

The Ombudsman found maladministration causing injustice. He could not conclude with certainty that the Appeal Panel’s decision in the case of Mr Egeh’s children would have been different but for the administrative failings. Three of the four children were offered places at the school during the course of the investigation.

The Ombudsman recommended that the Governing Body should take steps to ensure that no pre-appeal meetings with the Appeal Panel are held in future, and that the Panel is provided with sufficient and relevant evidence to enable it to reach sound decisions. The Ombudsman suggested that a more detailed explanation of ‘prejudice’ issues would help the Appeal Panel to carry out its task.

Date Published: 15/01/09