Summary: The Ombudsman finds no fault by the admissions authority regarding its handling of a school place waiting list.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mrs A, complains the admissions authority (Cardinal Wiseman RC School) failed to properly administer the waiting list for the school according to its own oversubscription criteria. She says this has disadvantaged her son.
2. Mrs A also complained that the school failed to consider whether the Fair Access Protocol should apply to her son. I have discontinued our investigation regarding this complaint because I do not consider there is evidence of apparent fault here.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended).
4. If we are satisfied with an admissions authority’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 discussed the complaint with the complainant and considered the complaint and the copy correspondence provided by the complainant. I have made enquiries of the admissions authority and considered the comments and documents it provided. I have also considered the complainant’s comments on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mrs A applied for a school place for her son, B, at Cardinal Wiseman Roman Catholic School, “the school”, for September 2018. The school is its own admissions authority. The school did not offer B a place because it said it was oversubscribed and all the places had been allocated in accordance with its oversubscription criteria. While B was a pupil at a “feeder” school, not all the applicants who met that oversubscription criterion could be admitted and so were allocated on the basis of distance. B lived further away from the school than the last child admitted.
7. Mrs A appealed to an independent appeal panel regarding the school’s decision. She said that the school was B’s choice and she believed he would flourish. He had a had a disability, but the journey to school was one he could manage, and it would encourage independence. The panel considered Mrs A’s appeal but it did not uphold it. It considered the admission arrangements complied with the mandatory school admissions code and the statutory framework. It decided the school as the admissions authority had correctly and impartially applied the admissions arrangements. The panel considered Mrs A’s grounds for appeal but did not agree that these outweighed the prejudice that would be caused to the school if B was admitted.
8. Mrs A asked the school to put B on its waiting list. He was number 20 on the list. However, after the start of the new school year his place on the list was over 40. Mrs A asked the school why and it explained that the waiting list criteria was based on distance from the school as the children were not in feeder schools.
9. Mrs A wrote to the school and asked it to consider using its discretion to admit her son. She also said that her son should not be further down the waiting list. She felt the school should not merge the waiting list for unsuccessful year 7 applicants with in year applicants. She said the lists should be maintained in accordance with the published oversubscription criteria. This would mean that the criteria regarding feeder schools would apply and would be above practising Catholics with a Certificate of Catholic Practice (CCP) and a Baptismal Certificate.
10. The school replied that as Mrs A had appealed to the independent appeal panel and it had dismissed her appeal, the school could not overturn that decision. It also explained that the waiting list could not give priority to applicants who applied earlier and that it considered applicants with a CCP first and then considered distance. This meant that an applicant’s position could go up and down, as people moved in and out of the area, but it was the only fair way to operate the list.
11. Mrs A complained that the school was wrong to remove the criteria for pupils from feeder schools and place B in a lower ranked category. She said it had failed to follow its own oversubscription criteria. The school replied that it considered it had administered its list in accordance with its admissions criteria. It said that the waiting list from 1 September 2018 included in year applicants as well as unsuccessful applicants from the normal admissions round for year 7.

Analysis

12. The School Admissions Code 2014 states at paragraph 2.14 that:

Each admission authority must maintain a clear, fair and objective waiting list until at least 31 December of each school year of admission, stating in their arrangements that each added child will require the list to be ranked again in line with the published oversubscription criteria. Priority must not be given to children based on the date their application was received or their name was added to the list.

13. In its response to my enquiries the school confirmed that from 1 September 2018 all applicants on its waiting list were considered according to whether they had a CCP and then based on distance. Applicants who did not have a CCP or baptismal certificate were in the category below those with a CCP.
14. The school’s in year oversubscription criteria shows Catholic looked after children first, then Catholic children with a sibling at the school, then Catholic children with a CCP, then children without a CCP. It does not show children from a feeder school in the criteria.
15. However, the year 7 oversubscription criteria in the normal round of admissions states under criteria 4 “Catholic children with a CCP attending the following primary schools at the time of application.” It then gives a list of the primary schools. I do not consider that the school is at fault in disapplying this criteria from 1 September 2018 as the applicants from feeder schools are no longer attending those schools. I do not consider it is fault for the school to consider that change in circumstances. I do not consider it is fault for the school to combine the waiting lists for in year applicants with the list of unsuccessful applicants from the normal round of admissions, because if it did not do so this could give priority to the applicants who had applied first. As the School Admissions Code does not permit admission authorities giving priority to children based on when their application was received, I do not see there is fault here.
16. Even if I were to find that there was fault by the school regarding the feeder school criteria it does not appear that this cased injustice to Ms A because it is unlikely that B would have reached the top of the waiting list and received an offer of a place.
17. The school also advised that it could provide information regarding the waiting list as an attachment. I have not found that this is fault, but I consider clearer information regarding this would be helpful to applicants.

Final decision

18. I have not found evidence of fault by the school. I have completed my investigation and closed the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman