West Sussex County Council (08 003 017)
School admissions Maladministration causing injustice
24 February 2009
A mistake in West Sussex County Council’s school admissions process had a knock-on effect that initially denied a child a primary school place. The Ombudsman pointed out the injustice that can arise in such cases, and the problems there can be in making a fair remedy.
He said: “This report shows that a mistake in the admissions process can have a long-term effect on those waiting for a school place, particularly in an infant school where class size is limited to 30. It highlights the dilemma that can be faced when infant class size prejudice rules apply. Where the admission authority has admitted a child in error and the child who should have been offered a place is then admitted as an excepted pupil, the authority can use its discretion not to admit a child from the waiting list, even when a place is not taken up, until numbers drop below 30. But this means that there is a child in the class who should not have been offered a place, while another who would otherwise have gained a place when a vacancy arose is left sitting on the waiting list.”
He added: “In a case like this one where the injustice cannot normally be remedied by the offer of a school place or a fresh appeal it is particularly important for admission authorities to ensure that rigorous checking procedures are used before offers are made, so that the possibility of errors is minimised.”
‘Mrs Goodman’ (not her real name for legal reasons) complained that her son was refused a place at his local primary school, even though he was at the top of the waiting list, because of a mistake made in admitting another child.
Her application was rejected initially because it was late and all 30 places were taken. Other than in certain exceptional circumstances, no more than 30 children can be admitted to an infant class taught by one teacher. After an unsuccessful appeal, her son was placed at the top of the waiting list. She then discovered that there had been a mistake in the admissions process that resulted in a child being wrongly offered a place. The child who should have got the place was admitted as an exception, taking the numbers up to 31. When one place was not taken up Mrs Goodman asked for her son to be admitted, but she was refused on the grounds that there were already 30 in the class. She complained that if the mistake had not been made her son would have been offered a place from the waiting list at that point.
The Ombudsman considered the legislation and statutory guidance on infant class size limits and found that the Council was entitled to refuse a place in these circumstances. This meant that Mrs Goodman suffered an injustice through the knock-on effect of the original error in the admissions process.
Remedy
Fortunately, a place became available for Mrs Goodman’s son during the course of the investigation. But the Ombudsman decided to issue this report to highlight the difficulties of finding a suitable remedy for the injustice in similar cases, and therefore the importance of ensuring that mistakes in the admission process are minimised.
The Ombudsman found maladministration causing injustice, but did not recommend any remedy, because the situation resolved itself in the course of the investigation.
LGO satisfied with Council's response: 28 July 2009
Date Updated: 11/12/09