Summary: There was no fault in how an independent appeal panel considered and refused a school admissions appeal. We have therefore completed our investigation.

The complaint

1. I will refer to the complainant as Mr Y.
2. Mr Y complains an independent appeal panel did not uphold his appeal against a decision not to admit his son, F, to the school. He says this means he will now have an impractical journey to the school where he was allocated a place.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. If we are satisfied with an organisation’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 reviewed the appeal documentation, including Mr Y’s submissions to the independent appeal panel (IAP) and its consideration.
6. I also shared a draft copy of this decision with each party for their comments.

Back to top

What I found

School admission appeals – decision-making

7. When making the decision, panels must follow a two-stage decision making process. At stage one, the panel examines the decision to refuse admission. The panel must consider whether:
• the admissions arrangements complied with the requirements set out in the School Admissions Code;
• the admission arrangements were applied correctly; and
• the admission of additional children would prejudice the provision of efficient education or the efficient use of resources.
8. If a panel decides that admitting further children would prejudice the provision of efficient education or the efficient use of resources, they move to the second stage: balancing the arguments. The panel must balance the prejudice to the school against each appellant’s case for their child to be admitted.
9. In multiple appeals, the panel must not compare the individual cases when deciding whether an appellant’s case outweighs the prejudice to the school. However, where the panel finds there are more cases which outweigh prejudice than the school can admit, it must then compare the cases and uphold those with the strongest case for admission. Where a certain number of children could be admitted without causing prejudice, the panel must uphold the appeals of at least that number of children.
10. The appeal panel must write to the appellant with its decision and the reasons for it. The decision letter must be easy to understand and must contain a summary of relevant factors raised by parties and considered by the panel. It must also provide clear reasons for the panel’s decision.

Admission to grammar school

11. Children who wish to be considered for entrance to grammar school sit the ‘Kent Test’. Children receive three standardised scores – one for English, one for maths and one for reasoning, and a total score. For admission to grammar school in 2022, children needed a total score of 332 or more, with a score of 109 or more in each of the three tests. Approximately 20% of children are identified as suitable for grammar school through the test.
12. A further 5% of children are identified as suitable for grammar school through the Head Teacher Assessment Panel. The panel considers children who did not achieve the required score in the Kent Test but whose primary school believes they are of grammar school ability. Information provided by the Council suggests there may be a range of reasons for unrepresentative scores in the test, including extended personal illness, social or emotional problems affecting learning in the past year and having English as an additional language. A child’s school can ask for the child to be assessed by the panel and must provide evidence to support their case, including history of scores from standardised tests and relevant schoolwork.
13. The school in this case is a grammar school and admits children who reach the required scores in the Kent Test. The School Admission Appeals Code says panels may be asked to consider an appeal where the appellant believes the child did not perform at their best on the day of the test. In those cases, the panel must only uphold the appeal if:
• there is evidence to show the child is of the required academic standard. This may be in the form of school reports of test results or a supporting letter from their current school; and
• the appellant’s arguments outweigh the admission authority’s case that admitting further children would cause prejudice.

F’s application and appeal

14. F applied to enter Year 7 at the school in the 2022/23 academic year. He sat the Kent Test and achieved a combined score of 358.
15. Although this was above the minimum score required for a grammar school placement in the county, it was two points short of the score required for a guaranteed place at Maidstone Grammar School. He was therefore not offered a place at the school, but was instead offered a place at a different grammar school.
16. Mr Y appealed against the school’s decision. He said the other grammar school was much further away from home, and that F’s journey there would take more than an hour each way on two different buses. He also said no-one from F’s primary school would be attending the other school, while several of his peers would be at Maidstone Grammar School. Mr Y also commented that he believed F’s test score was affected by the COVID-19 pandemic and the impact of school closures.
17. The IAP considered F’s appeal but did not uphold it. In its decision letter to Mr Y, it explained it had accepted the school’s case it could not accept more than 11 additional pupils without causing prejudice, and that it had decided other appellants had stronger cases than F.

Back to top

Analysis

18. The Ombudsman’s role is to review the way authorities – in this case, the IAP acting on behalf of the school – have made their decisions. We might criticise an authority if, for example, it has not followed an appropriate procedure, not taken account of relevant information, or failed to properly explain a decision it has made. We call this ‘administrative fault’.
19. However, we do not provide a right of appeal against authorities’ decisions, make decisions on their behalf, or seek to replace their judgement with our own. If we do not find fault in the way the authority has made its decision, we cannot criticise the outcome, no matter how strongly someone might feel it is wrong. We do not uphold complaints simply because someone disagrees with an authority’s decision.
20. Mr Y’s complaint is based on the fact the IAP did not uphold his appeal, but there is nothing here to suggest this was because of any administrative fault. Rather, having considered his grounds of appeal, the IAP was not satisfied F’s case was strong enough to make an exception and uphold it. This was a decision the IAP was entitled to make and I have no reason to question or criticise it. It is not for me to consider or make own decision about the merits of Mr Y’s appeal.

Back to top

Final decision

21. I have completed my investigation with a finding of no fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman