Herschel Grammar School (08 004 707)

School admissions                      Maladministration causing injustice

02 December 2008

Herschel Grammar School gave priority to some pupils for whom the School was their first preference, and failed to offer a place to a pupil who had a higher 11+ score than them. The Ombudsman pointed out that the relevant Admissions Code said that the admission authorities for maintained schools must not give priority to children according to the order of other schools named as preferences by their parents, including “first preference first” arrangements, yet the complainant’s application was not passed to Herschel Grammar (his second preference). The Ombudsman recommended that the Governing Body of the School should offer the boy a place at the School and pay his father £200 for the time and trouble he took in pursuing his complaint.

A small group of Grammar Schools in Slough operate a Consortium for the purpose of testing applicants for 11+ entrance. Both Herschel and Langley Grammar Schools from the Consortium were oversubscribed by families who put them as their first preference on their Common Application Form. The schools’ admissions procedures said that if a candidate has passed the test, but their highest preference was oversubscribed, their application would be sent to the next preference Grammar School in the Consortium. The schools’ admissions policies do not say anything about giving priority to applicants who make it their first choice.

Offers for each school were made to applicants at a different score in the tests organised by the Consortium. The pass mark was 111 and places at Langley Grammar School were offered initially at 120 marks and Herschel at 117 marks. The initial offers were made by the Local Education Authority on 3 March 2008, based on information sent to it by the schools. After then each school made offers from its own waiting list. As some families rejected the offer made to them, the schools then offered places to those applicants with lower scores, until all the places had been offered and accepted by September 2008. Langley eventually offered at a score 115 and Herschel at 111; but their waiting lists only included cases where the family put that school as their first preference.

Mr S applied for a place at two of the schools in the Consortium and his son, R, passed the 11+ test with a score of 114. He put Langley Grammar School as his first preference from the schools in Slough, but was not offered a place there as R’s score was too low. He was put on its waiting list, but never offered a place. Mr S put Herschel Grammar School as his next highest preference and, while his son did not reach the initial offer score of 117, he did exceed the offer level of 111 at which the School made offers by the summer of 2008. So children with a score of less than R were made offers on the basis that they put that Grammar School as their highest preference. R was not on its waiting list.

Mr S lost his appeal against the refusal of a place at Herschel in April 2008, on the grounds that his application had been treated as a “second choice” case and that the School had followed the correct admissions procedure. Mr S complains that the schools did not pass his application on to his next highest preference school, as their policy and procedure led him to believe they would. He expected that his son would be offered a place at Herschel Grammar School from its waiting list, ahead of children who scored less than him.

The Ombudsman found maladministration by the Governing Body of Herschel Grammar School that caused injustice to the complainant. He said, “I find Herschel Grammar School is in effect operating a first preference first policy, which is not in accordance with the Admissions Code.” Nor did the School follow its published admission policy and procedure, which made no mention of first preference and said that forms would be sent to the next preference grammar school in the Consortium. While the Ombudsman recognised that the Consortium’s aim was to benefit children and their families and prevent the need for children to take separate tests for different schools, he said it was in fact “denying them a fair chance of a place in a school which they are potentially eligible for.”

Remedy

In accordance with the Ombudsman's recommendations, the School:

• offered the boy a place at the School;
• paid his father £200 for his time and trouble in pursuing his complaint;
• contacted another family similarly affected and offered them a place;
• ensured that the Clerks and members of future Appeal Panels were thoroughly trained in the provisions of the Admission Appeals Code; and
• ensured that any flaws in the arrangements for 2009/10 were addressed urgently.

LGO satisfied with School's response: 30 June 2009

Date Updated: 11/12/09