The Judd School, Tonbridge (06A02033 + one other) and The Skinners’ School, Royal Tunbridge Wells (06A04366 + one other)

School admissions                      Maladministration causing injustice

31 October 2007

Parents’ appeals against the refusal of places for their sons at two Grammar schools were not considered in a fair and impartial manner. The Ombudsman says that most of the main faults were common to all four complaints (the Schools shared a clerking service). He says he “.. cannot be satisfied that the appeals were properly and independently serviced, or that conflicts of interest were properly resolved.”

The Ombudsman finds these main faults:

• there were inappropriate links between those involved in the consideration of the appeals and those involved in the Schools and their governance, casting serious doubt on the independence of some members of the Panels;
• the Governors made insufficient effort to secure the services of consistent Panels to hear all or most of the appeals for admission to the Schools; and
• the Governors’ arrangements for administering appeals were inconsistent and insufficiently independent of the management of the Governing Bodies - the Ombudsman finds that there is too great a conflict of interest for a person to act both as the Clerk to the Governors and as the Clerk to an Appeal Panel.

There were other faults in the presentation of the Governors’ cases to the Panels, and in the way in which the Panels considered the appeals and reached their decisions on them.

The Ombudsman concludes that the maladministration identified caused the complainants avoidable uncertainty and anxiety, as they were deprived, at first, of their entitlement to have their appeals considered in a fair and impartial manner.

The Ombudsman recognises that, when members and Clerks of Appeal Panels act properly, their service represents a valuable contribution to the community, and that admissions authorities may encounter difficulty in obtaining suitable people to serve as panellists.
After some time, the Governors agreed to accept the Ombudsman’s suggestion that they should offer fresh appeals by a different Panel with a different Clerk. Of the four cases, one reheard appeal was upheld, two were not, and in the fourth case the complainant did not take up the offer of a new appeal.

The Governors of both Schools have now agreed to separate, from 2008 onwards, the functions of the Clerk to the Appeal Panel from those of the Clerk to the Governors. The Ombudsman welcomes this. He also recommends the Governors to:

• continue to review, in consultation with the local education authority, their arrangements for the hearing, consideration and clerking of admissions appeals;
• ensure that all members and Clerks of Appeal Panels are properly trained, and independent of the Schools and of any other schools or bodies connected with them; and
• pay £350 to each complainant.

The Ombudsman stresses that there is no question of any fault by Kent County Council, and none was alleged.

The Worshipful Company of Skinners, which is the body that provides the Clerk for both Governing Bodies, is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Date Updated: 02/12/08