Herschel Grammar School failed to follow statutory admissions code

Archived press release

Date Published: 10/12/08

Herschel Grammar School gave priority to pupils for whom the School was their first preference, and failed to offer a place to a pupil who had a higher 11+ score, contrary to the Admissions Code.

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, finds Local Government Ombudsman, Tony Redmond. In his report issued today (10 December 2008) he points out that the relevant Admissions Code says that the admission authorities for all 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 recommends 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 are made to applicants at a different score in the tests organised by the Consortium. The pass mark is 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 reject the offer made to them, the schools then offer a place to those applicants with lower scores, until all the places have been offered and accepted by September 2008. Langley eventually offered at a score 115 and Herschel at 111; but their waiting lists only include 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 finds maladministration by the Governing Body of Herschel Grammar School, which 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 makes no mention of first preference and says that forms will be sent to the next preference grammar school in the Consortium. While the Ombudsman recognises that the Consortium’s aim is 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.”

In addition to offering R a place at the school and paying Mr S £200, the Ombudsman recommends that the Governing Body of the School also contact another family similarly affected and offer them a place if they are still interested in taking one up; and ensures that the Clerks and members of future Appeal Panels are thoroughly trained in the provisions of the Admission Appeals Code 2008. Finally, the Ombudsman also looks to the Governors of the School, and the Consortium, to ensure that any flaws in the arrangements for 2009/10 are addressed urgently.

Report ref 08 004 707