Local Government Ombudsman

> | Accessiblity Options | Text Only | Text Size: A+ A- Reset | Links | Site Map

You are here: Home : : Complaint outcomes : : Education : : Education archive 2008-09 : : King David Primary School, Liverpool (07C03519 FR)

Quality and efficiency

Browser support

Browse aloud

Click here for speech assisted browser support

Downloads

Site tools

Files with this symbol pdf icon are in .pdf format. To view these files you will need the Adobe Acrobat Reader software. It can be downloaded below free of charge. Click To Download

adobe acrobat reader

King David Primary School, Liverpool (07C03519 FR)

School admissions                      Further report

09 March 2009

King David Primary School, Liverpool, has failed to respond adequately to a critical report on a school admission appeal complaint. The Ombudsman says “I am not satisfied with the action that the Governing Body has taken” because it:

  • failed to publicise her first report;
  • gave a response to the Ombudsman’s recommendation about the information to be provided to applicants for school places that was too brief to be meaningful and that did not meet the requirement of the 1974 Local Government Act to notify the Ombudsman of the action it has taken or proposes to take;
  • failed to inform the Ombudsman of the action it has taken or proposes to take to ensure that the School provides sufficient information to enable an appeal panel to undertake its duties properly; and
  • refused to offer the complainant’s daughter a place or pay him £250.

In her original (January 2008) report, the Ombudsman found that one of the School’s admission criteria was not “objective, clear and fair”, and did not reflect accurately how the decisions were made in practice. The School could not describe fully how it selected the 21 successful children out of the 54 who applied under the same category as the complainant. He was not given reasons why his daughter was refused a place, so he was unable to prepare for his appeal properly.

The Appeal Panel failed to consider properly the two issues it should have considered: whether the admissions criteria had been applied correctly and whether the governors’ decision not to admit the complainant’s daughter on the grounds of class size prejudice was a decision a reasonable authority would make in the circumstances.

In her first report, the Ombudsman acknowledged that the Schools Adjudicator had required changes to the admissions criteria, but she also set out action she required the School to take to remedy the maladministration, including to offer a place to the complainant’s daughter.

Instead of offering his daughter a place at the school, the Governing Body has offered the complainant a second appeal. The Ombudsman says “This suggests to me that it did not properly comprehend the nature of the maladministration for which it was responsible.”

The Ombudsman now recommends that the Governing Body should remedy the injustice caused to the complainant by demonstrating to him and to the Ombudsman:

either

  • that it could not admit the complainant’s daughter without employing an additional teacher;

or

  • by offering his daughter a place at the School;

or

  • if he now chooses not to accept a place, to pay him £250 in recognition of his time and trouble in pursuing his complaint.
     

Date Published: 17/03/09