Summary: Ms M complains following her unsuccessful appeal for a place for her son, B, at Central Foundation Boys’ School. There was no fault in the appeal which calls the decision into question.

The complaint

1. Ms M complains following her unsuccessful appeal for a place for her son, B, at Central Foundation Boys’ School. Ms M complains the Chair of the appeal panel was abrupt, and one of the panel members sat on her previous appeal. Ms M does not consider the Panel gave sufficient weight to medical evidence she presented.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. The Ombudsman cannot question a school admission appeal panel’s decision simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider if there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3))
3. We check the Independent Appeal Panel followed the Code of Practice issued by the Department for Education and the hearing was fair.  We do this by examining the notes taken by the Clerk during the hearing.  We do not have the power to overturn the Panel’s decision, and we cannot give a child a place at the school. If we find fault, which calls the panel’s decision into question, we may ask for a new appeal hearing.
4. If we are satisfied with a panel’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I have considered:
• Ms M’s comments;
• all the information presented to the Appeal Panel, the notes taken by the Clerk during the appeal, and the Panel’s decision letter following the appeal; and
• the School Admissions Appeals Code 2012.
6. I invited Ms M and the Council to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

7. Central Foundation Boys’ School is a Voluntary Aided School. The Governors are the Admission Authority and are responsible for admissions and appeals.
8. Ms M applied for a place for her son. Her application and subsequent appeal were unsuccessful. The Governors offered Ms M a second appeal to present additional evidence. Ms M’s second appeal was also unsuccessful. Ms M then complained to the Ombudsman.
9. The Ombudsman checks the appeal was carried out properly. We do not decide whether Mrs M’s son should be given a place at the school.
10. The School Admission Appeals Code 2012 issued by the Department for Education sets out the process the Independent Appeal Panel must follow when considering an appeal.
11. The Panel must first consider whether the School has correctly applied the admission criteria to the application. Ms M’s application was unsuccessful because there were more applications than places at the school and all the places were filled by children who had more priority according to the school’s oversubscription criteria.
12. All boys applying for a place at the school sit a banding test. Students are placed in four ability bands. The school allocates 25% of the available places to each ability band to ensure a balanced, mixed ability intake. If there are more boys in a band than places available, priority is given to boys living closest to the school.
13. B did well in the test and was in the top ability band. There were more boys than places available, and all the places were allocated to boys living closer to the school. The Panel was satisfied that the admission criteria were correctly applied.
14. The Panel must then consider whether the school can accept any more pupils without disadvantaging those already given places. This is known as the case for prejudice. Both the Panel and the parents had an opportunity to question the school’s case. The school explained the organisation of classes and the implications of additional pupils for subjects such as technology. Ms M queried whether this would prevent the admission of a single extra pupil. The school also explained there is considerable building work taking place which limits the space available.
15. The Panel accepted that the school was full and could not take extra pupils. The decision that the school is full is a decision that the Panel is entitled to take, and there are no grounds for the Ombudsman to question it.
16. The Panel must then consider Ms M’s case for her son to be admitted to the school even though the school is full. This is known as the balancing stage where the prejudice to Ms M’s son if he is not given a place is balanced against the prejudice to the school if he is. The Clerk’s notes and the decision letter clearly record the written case Ms M submitted before the appeal and her discussions with the Panel at the hearing.
17. I can see that Ms M presented evidence that B had suffered anxiety at primary school and had chosen Central Foundation Boys’ School because he felt confident about the school. I have not reported all the evidence Ms M presented to protect her anonymity, but I am satisfied the Panel was aware of the reasons Ms M wanted B to attend the school. Ms M also said that if he had done less well in the banding test, B would have been admitted to the school.
18. The Panel considered Ms M’s arguments but decided that the prejudice to her son did not outweigh the prejudice to the school. This is a decision that the Panel is entitled to take and there are no grounds for the Ombudsman to question it.

Other matters

19. Ms M complains the Chair of the appeal panel was abrupt. I can see from the minutes there was an occasion when the Chair intervened in a discussion about the organisation of classes at the school. The Chair made it clear the Panel understood the issues and moved the discussion on. I cannot comment on the manner in which the Chair did this as I was not there, but I do not consider there was fault in the Chair’s intervention.
20. Ms M also complains one panel member sat on both her appeals. The School Admission Appeals Code says a second appeal panel must be made up of different members from the first. The minutes say one panel member assigned to Ms M’s second appeal was unable to attend, and the only panel member available at short notice also sat on the first appeal. While it was fault for one panel member to sit on both appeals, I cannot say that it caused Ms M an injustice. There were two new panel members at the second appeal, and there is no evidence the fault of the third member sitting on both appeals caused any injustice.
21. Ms M complains the Panel did not give sufficient weight to the medical evidence she presented. The question of how much weight to give to evidence is entirely a matter for the Panel, not the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman has no powers to question the merits of the Panel’s decision.

Back to top

Final decision

22. I have ended my investigation. I find the Panel considered all relevant information before coming to a decision. Any fault in the appeal has not caused Ms M an injustice. There are no grounds for the Ombudsman to question the Panel’s decision.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman