St Peter's Collegiate C of E School, Wolverhampton (07B03178)

School admissions                      Maladministration causing injustice

03 December 2008

The Governors of St Peter’s Collegiate Church of England School, Wolverhampton, failed to provide accurate information on the capacity of the School to an admission appeal panel. The Ombudsman says: “The task of the appeal panel is to establish whether the School could admit more pupils and, on the face of it, it could have done.” He adds that the complainant “cannot know whether, if accurate information had been provided … his appeal may have had a more favourable outcome.” To remedy the injustice caused, the Governing Body should offer the complainant a new appeal with a fresh appeal panel and agree to abide by the outcome.

‘Mr Smith’ (not his real name for legal reasons) complained about the handling of his appeal against a refusal of a place for his son at St Peter’s Collegiate School in September 2007. The Ombudsman dealt with most aspects of the complaint in correspondence, but one point remains outstanding. Mr Smith considers the information presented to the panel by the Admission Authority (in this case, the Governing Body of the School) on the capacity of the School was flawed and, as a consequence, he did not get a fair hearing.

The net capacity of a school is a figure calculated following guidance issued by the Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF). It says that net capacity is intended to provide a single, robust and consistent method of assessing the capacity of schools. It will be used for a number of purposes. By comparison with the number on roll, it can indicate the number of places that are surplus or additional places that are needed in a school. If it is divided by the number of year groups, it can indicate the admission number that can generally be accommodated.

Mr Smith’s appeal was turned down because the Admission Authority maintained that the School was full and that prejudice would be caused if more pupils were admitted. The Governors produced a statement for consideration by the appeal panel explaining this. They said there were 1,003 pupils on the roll, whilst the net capacity of the School using the (then) Department for Education and Skills formula was 950.

The Ombudsman calculated the net capacity of the School to be 1,085, and said the Governors calculation was “simply wrong”. He also said, “I do not consider that the statement provided to the panel and the parents provided an accurate description of the capacity of the School,” and he found this to be maladministration that caused injustice to Mr Smith. The panel’s response to Mr Smith’s question about the capacity of the School does not provide a full and clear explanation of why the admission number is less than the capacity figure. It is, therefore, not clear how and why the appeal panel reached the decision that the School would be caused prejudice if further pupils were admitted. The evidence provided suggests that School would not admit more pupils because of the local education authority’s co-ordinated admission arrangements rather than the School’s capacity.

As well as recommending a new appeal is provided for Mr Smith, the Ombudsman also urged the Governors to satisfy themselves that they have complied with the relevant requirements, set out in the statutory guidance, on the setting of admissions numbers and the relationship with net capacity numbers.

Date Updated: 16/01/09