Emmaus C of E & RC Primary School, Liverpool (19 006 190)

Category : Education > School admissions

Decision : Not upheld

Decision date : 11 Dec 2019

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: Mr and Mrs B complain about the school’s admission policy and the way an appeal panel considered their appeal for a place for their son at the school. There is no fault by the school.

The complaint

  1. The complainants, whom I shall refer to as Mr and Mrs B, complained about the school’s admission policy and the way the appeal panel considered their appeal for a place at the school. Mr and Mrs B complained:
    • the school’s admission policy is not fair;
    • the school failed to use a fairer method of selection by using distance to the school instead of random allocation;
    • the school’s admissions policy contains mixed messages as it uses both distance and random allocation;
    • the school prioritised baptised Church of England children over baptised Catholic children to balance the religions when the admission policy does not allow for that;
    • the appeal panel failed to consider the school has an extra classroom which it could again have used as a classroom which would have allowed the school to admit more children; and
    • an independent person did not supervise the random allocation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. The Ombudsman’s role is to ensure 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.
  2. If we are satisfied with an appeal 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

  1. As part of the investigation, I have:
    • considered the complaint and Mr and Mrs B's comments;
    • considered 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
    • considered the School Admissions Appeals Code 2012;
    • considered Mr and Mrs B’s comments on my draft decision; and
    • gave the school an opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

Legal and administrative background

  1. The school admissions code (the code) says admission authorities that decide to use random allocation when schools are oversubscribed must set out clearly how this will operate, ensuring that arrangements are transparent, and that looked after children and previously looked after children are prioritised.
  2. The code goes on to say the random allocation process must be supervised by someone independent of the school, and a fresh round of random allocation must be used each time a child is offered a place from a waiting list.
  3. The school admission policy says if there are more applicants than places in criteria 2-9, which sets out the oversubscription criteria, the tiebreak will be via a random allocation process. The random allocation process is supervised by a person not otherwise involved in the admissions process. The process is open to scrutiny by a suitably qualified external consultant appointed by the school governing body.
  4. The school admission policy says the school will allocate equal numbers (30) to each denomination. This means the random allocation process is done separately for both the Catholic and Church of England applicants. However, if there are less than 30 applicants from one denomination the remainder is allocated to the other denomination.
  5. The school admission policy says it will keep a waiting list for children who have not received a place. The waiting list is ranked according to the admission criteria. The policy says if there are more applicants than places in criteria 2-9 the tiebreak is by random allocation, supervised as set out in paragraph 7.

Analysis

  1. Emmaus C of E and RC Primary School is a Voluntary Aided School. The Governors are the Admission Authority and are responsible for organising the independent appeal.
  2. Mr and Mrs B applied for a place for their son in Reception. Their application and later appeal were unsuccessful. Mr and Mrs B complain about the school’s admission policy and their appeal.
  3. Mr and Mrs B say the school’s admission policy is not fair. Mr and Mrs B say the admission policy uses random selection to allocate places when the school is oversubscribed. Mr and Mrs B say distance to the school is fairer. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to comment on whether the school runs a suitable admission policy. That is a role for the school adjudicator. The school adjudicator has already considered the admission arrangements for the school. The school adjudicator considers the admission policy, including using a random allocation process, meets the requirements of the school admissions code. I therefore cannot criticise the school for using random allocation, rather than distance, for allocating places when the school is oversubscribed.
  4. Mr and Mrs B say the school admission policy contains mixed messages as it uses both distance and random allocation for deciding which children to admit. However, the school’s admission policy does not include distance as part of its criteria at any point. So, I am satisfied the policy does not contain mixed messages. As I said in the previous paragraph, the school’s adjudicator has already decided the school’s use of random allocation meets the requirements of the school admissions code.
  5. Mr and Mrs B say when allocating places the school prioritised baptised Church of England children over baptised Catholic children to balance the religions. Mr and Mrs B say the school’s admission policy does not allow that. However, as I refer to in paragraph 8, the school’s admission policy says it will allocate equal numbers to each denomination. This will inevitably mean if there are more applicants from one religion than the other those applicants will receive less priority because of the need to balance the religions at the school. As the school’s admission policy allows that I have no grounds to criticise it.
  6. I turn now to the appeal. 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. This says when infant class size prejudice rules apply, the appeal panel can only legally uphold an appeal if:
      1. The child would have been offered a place if the admissions arrangements had been implemented properly;
      2. The child would have been offered a place were it not for some flaw in the admission arrangements; and/or
      3. The decision to refuse a place was one which no reasonable authority would have made.

The threshold for appeals made under c. above is extremely high. The Panel cannot legally uphold appeals which do not fall into the categories above, no matter how persuasive the appeal otherwise is.

  1. The panel must therefore first consider whether the school has correctly applied the admission criteria to the application. The school received more applications than places available. Mr and Mrs B did not receive an offer of a place as all places were allocated to children with more priority. Mr and Mrs B’s application was in category 3. That is ‘baptised Church of England and Catholic children living on the Croxteth Park Estate at the time of admission.’ The panel decided the school had correctly applied the admission criteria and no child missed out on a place due to incorrect application of the admissions criteria.
  2. The panel must then consider whether Mr and Mrs B’s need for a place outweighs the problems an extra child would cause to the school.
  3. No more than 30 children can be taught by a single teacher in an infant class (Reception and Years 1 and 2). If this is not possible without reorganisation or employing extra staff, and this would harm the education of other pupils, “infant class size prejudice” rules apply to the appeal.
  4. The Panel considered whether the infant class size prejudice rules applied to Mr and Mrs B’s appeal. There were two classes of thirty children admitted to Reception at the school. The Head explained in his submission to the panel the school does not have money to fund an extra teacher. The panel decided, therefore, infant class size prejudice rules applied to Mr and Mrs B’s appeal. This is a decision the Panel can take and there are no grounds for the Ombudsman to question it.
  5. Mr and Mrs B say the appeal panel failed to consider using a room which the school uses for after-school activities as an extra classroom which would have allowed the school to admit more children. Mr and Mrs B say the school previously used that room as a classroom and could do so again. I am satisfied the appeal panel considered that point as the notes from the first part of the appeal hearing refer to it. The school explained why the portacabin was not suitable as a classroom, said it used it for other activities and that it did not have the money to employ an extra teacher. Panel accepted the school could not accept any more children without taking mitigating measures which it did not have the money for. I recognise Mr and Mrs B will be disappointed with that decision. However, it is not the Ombudsman’s role to comment on the merits of a decision that has been reached without fault. I have found no evidence of fault here.
  6. For the reasons I have given I am satisfied the appeal panel properly considered points a and b, referred to in paragraph 15. Panel then went on to consider point c. The clerk’s notes record Mr and Mrs B’s discussions with the panel at the hearing. I can see from the clerk’s notes Mr and Mrs B appealed on the following grounds:
    • difficulties completing school runs during the day with children at different schools which cannot work unless the family move again or Mrs B stops work;
    • Mrs B wife works at school;
    • lack of family support;
    • possibility Mr B will have to work out of the city;
    • possibility Mr B will have to ask his son to not go to university to help with travel for the younger children;
    • there are only five houses closer to the school as they live close to the entrance;
    • current allocated school is two bus rides away;
    • their son’s grandfather had passed away and before his illness their son had spent a lot of time with him and he therefore had a strong bond;
    • Mrs B wife provided care to a family member.
  7. The panel decided none of these reasons satisfied it the admission authority’s decision was so unreasonable it could be described as perverse. As I am satisfied panel made that decision after considering Mr and Mrs B’s arguments in support of their appeal I could not say it failed to reach its decision properly. So, I have no grounds to criticise it.
  8. Mr and Mrs B raised a concern about how the school carried out the random allocation. The school used an external trainer as the supervising person. The requirements for supervision of the random allocation process are set out in paragraphs 5-9. The evidence I have seen satisfies me panel considered the way the school had carried out the random allocation process and raised no concerns. I am also satisfied using a trainer from an external organisation satisfied the test of an independent person to oversee the random allocation as that person is not an employee of the school. I therefore do not criticise the appeal panel for deciding the random allocation was carried out properly.
  9. As I understand it though, the school admitted another child when somebody allocated a place under criterion 3 asked to defer the place. The school says on the advice of the local authority it gave that place to the next ranked person on the waiting list rather than carrying out a further random allocation. I understand this was because the school had recently completed the ballot. On balance I do not criticise the school given it was seemingly close to the date of the ballot. In effect, that child did not receive an offer of a place for the year and therefore another place should have gone into the ballot. The school allocated it to the child next on the list, who would have gained the place had the school known of the deferral when the ballot took place. I would, however, usually expect the school to allocate any further places by random allocation when there are more children in that category on the waiting list than places available.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. I have completed my investigation and do not uphold the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings