Slough Grammar School criticised over admission appeal process

Archived press release

Date Published: 08/07/09

There were significant faults in the handling of Slough Grammar School admission appeals.

There were significant faults in the handling of Slough Grammar School admission appeals, finds Local Government Ombudsman, Tony Redmond. In his report, issued today (08 July 2009) he says “My concern is that, in spite of the large number of faults, the Governing Body does not accept any responsibility for ensuring that the appeal process is carried out in accordance with the applicable Code.

“The Governors cannot wash their hands of the appeal process: the Governing Body is the Admission Authority responsible for arranging these appeals and must comply with the law and act in accordance with the relevant Code on admission appeals.”

Following complaints to the Ombudsman from parents about the handling of their appeals against refusal of places for the children, the School agreed to hold fresh appeals. Two of the parents involved (Mr X and Mrs Y) then complained about the handling of these fresh appeals.

The Ombudsman identifies significant administrative flaws in the School’s appeal arrangements for September 2008, including:

• there was unreasonable delay in holding the fresh appeals;
• neither the Clerk nor the Chairs of the Appeal Panels appointed by the School had any training about education admission appeals before these fresh appeals were held;
• the School did not provide the names of the Panel members and the Clerk to the parents in advance of the hearing;
• the School’s case to the Appeal Panel lacked sufficient detail;
• the Admission Authority’s representative in both appeals was present in the room alone with the members of the Appeal Panel before and/or after the hearings, although she did not seek to interfere with the appeal process;
• while the Panel took account of the main relevant issues raised by both complainants, in Mr X’s case the Panel could and probably should have checked whether the results he presented were the final SATs;
• the decision letters lacked adequate detail and included an incorrect statement that their child would remain on the waiting list; and
• the School did not pass on Mr X’s post-appeal correspondence (addressed to the Clerk c/o the School) to the Clerk, nor did the School reply to it.

The Ombudsman finds maladministration by the Governing Body that caused injustice to the complainants. Both Mr X and Mrs Y had a legitimate expectation that their fresh appeals would be arranged in accordance with the relevant Code of Practice, which the Governing Body failed to ensure.

The Ombudsman recommends that the Governing Body of the School:

• apologises to the complainants and pay them compensation of £200 each for their time and trouble in pursuing their complaints;
• offers Mr X a third appeal as soon as possible, before a different panel and with a different representative from the School, to be held by mid-August 2009 at the latest; and
• considers the findings of this report and ensures that the arrangements for future appeals meet all the provisions in the applicable Admission Appeals Code and that clerks and members of future Appeal Panels are thoroughly trained in those provisions.
   

Report ref 08 013 094 & 08 014 133