Summary: Ms B complains about the conduct of a school admission appeals panel. The Ombudsman finds there was fault in the record keeping at the hearing which calls into question its decision-making. The Council agreed to the Ombudsman’s recommendation for a fresh appeal with a different panel and clerk, but Ms B rejected this offer as her child is now settled in their new school. The Council agreed to remind appeal panel clerks of the importance of keeping a full and accurate record of the points made at the hearing and full reasons for the panel’s decision, and of the requirement for the retention of such records.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Ms B, complains that a school admissions appeal panel was disinterested in her case and did not consider the matter properly.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether an independent school admissions appeal panel’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider if there was fault in the way the decision was reached. If we find fault, which calls into question the panel’s decision, we may ask for a new appeal hearing. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. If we are satisfied with a council’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

4. I considered all the information provided by Ms B about her complaint. I took account of information provided by the Council to the Ombudsman about this school admission appeal.
5. I also took account of relevant statutory guidance in the School Admission Appeal Code. I have considered the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies.
6. I provided Ms B and the Council with a draft copy of this decision and took account of all comments received in response.

Back to top

What I found

Background

7. Ms B made an on-time application to the Council for a reception class place for her son C. She named four preferred school, with School X as her first preference. She noted that her son was attending the nursery at that school, he was comfortable there and wished to continue there with his peers.

The Council offers an alternative school place

8. The Council wrote offering C a place at another school, which was not one of Ms B’s stated preferences. The letter said that the application had not been ranked highly enough for an offer at any of the preferred schools, and the school offered was the nearest one to the family’s home address which had spaces. It advised Ms B of the right of appeal.

Ms B appeals for a place at School X

9. Ms B submitted an appeal for a place at her first preference school, School X. In her appeal submission she set out that X had been attending the nursery at the school and had settled in very well with his teachers and fellow students. She said the teachers there had enabled him to interact and learn with reception students, which had helped with his learning and confidence. She said teachers had noticed a slight issue with his concentration and had taken time in understanding how to help him focus on certain tasks. Ms B had noted her son’s speech and ability to make clear sentences had improved dramatically, and she did not want to upset this by moving him. Ms B went on to say that as she and her husband work full time they had built up a relationship with a child minder who lives very close to the school, who would be able to collect X and look after him after school. Ms B also said the family was looking to move nearer the school by the end of the year.
10. The Council, as the admissions authority for School X, submitted its case which it summarised as “…schools for which appeals are being heard are full, that no errors have been made in the administration of the admissions process in the handling of the appellants’ applications; and the decisions made by the LA in refusing places to the appellants are reasonable in the circumstances of the cases. Your child has not been allocated a place at the preferred school because the school was filled with children who had a higher priority under the admission/oversubscription criteria for that school than your child. To admit more children than the published admission number would be in breach of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (section1) which limits infant class size to 30 children per teacher. The LA is claiming class size prejudice under the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 in all reception/infant class size appeals”.
11. In addition to the Council’s case, the governing body of the school provided the more detailed information which in summary set out its view that to admit pupils over PAN would negatively impact the pupil/teacher ratio, reducing the amount of time and attention teachers are able to give to individual children; require additional resources, not currently budgeted for; and put additional pressure on playground space and cause further overcrowding in the classrooms and the hall as well as negatively impacting the space needed for children who have mobility issues.
12. The appeal panel hearing took place in July.

The appeal process

13. Independent school admission appeals panels must follow the law when considering an appeal. The law says the size of an infant class must not be more than 30 pupils per teacher. There are only limited circumstances in which more than 30 children can be admitted. There are special rules governing appeals for Reception and Years 1 and 2. Appeals under these rules are known as “infant class size appeals”. The rules say the panel must consider whether:

• admitting another child would breach the class size limit;
• the admission arrangements comply with the law;
• the admission arrangements were properly applied to the case; and
• the decision to refuse a place was one which a reasonable authority would have made in the circumstances.

14. What is ‘unreasonable’ is a high test. The panel needs to be sure that to refuse a place was “perverse” or “outrageous”. For that reason, panels rarely find an admission authority’s decision to be unreasonable.

The admissions criteria

15. The admissions arrangements for School X give priority to applicants in the following order: children in care; children with medical or social needs; children with siblings in the school; children of staff in the school; and distance (with closest being given greatest priority).
16. Admissions information on the Council’s website says if a child attends nursery attached to a school this does not give them any priority for a place in reception at that school.
17. School X has a PAN of 30 and there were 196 applications for a reception class place. Thirty children were admitted: five under the sibling criterion and 25 under the last criterion, on distance. The last child admitted under this criterion lived 0.413 miles from the school.

The evidence in this case

18. In addition to the written submissions from the Council, the governing body and Ms B, the evidence of what happened at the appeal hearing provided to the Ombudsman consists solely of a ‘Decision sheet’.
19. The decision sheet noted the statistical information set out at paragraph 17 above and noted that C lives 2.311 miles from the school.
20. The decision sheet also listed Ms B’s grounds for appeal as she had set them out in her written submission.
21. This decision sheet states that the panel agreed:

• that admission of an additional child would breach the infant class size limit;
• that the admission arrangements were compliant with the School Admissions Code and School Standards Framework, and had been correctly and impartially applied; and
• that the decision to refuse a place was one a reasonable admission authority would have made in the circumstances of the case.

22. Following the appeal hearing the clerk to the appeal panel wrote to tell Ms B her appeal had been unsuccessful. It set out the limited grounds on which infant class size appeals can be upheld and said that the panel fully appreciated her reasons for wanting her son to attend School X but having reviewed the decision made by the admissions authority, the panel did not consider that any of the limited grounds were met in this case.

Analysis

23. It is Ms B’s contention that the panel which dealt with her appeal displayed a careless and unprofessional attitude, and ‘just wanted to get things done’. She says the panel did not ask detailed questions, did not allow her husband to say all he wanted to say and made no comments in response to his points.
24. The statutory guidance in the School Admission Appeal Code sets out that the clerk to the panel must keep an accurate record of proceedings. The clerk must ensure an accurate record is taken of the points raised at the hearing, including the proceedings, attendance, voting and reasons for decisions. These notes and records of proceedings must be kept securely by the admission authority for a minimum of two years.
25. The Council has said that the clerk’s notes in this case are included in the decision sheet and there are no separate clerk’s notes. However, the decision sheet does not give any narrative, nor show comprehensively who was present, nor evidence what points were made by those present and how they were considered. While the clerk’s notes do not need to be a verbatim record of everything discussed, they should show the key points and allow a third party to understand how the panel reached its decision. That is not the case here. This is fault, and it means that Ms B is left with uncertainty about whether her reasons for wanting her child to attend School X were properly considered and understood.

Agreed action

26. To remedy the injustice identified above, I recommended that within four weeks of the date of the final decision on this complaint the Council offer Ms B a fresh appeal hearing with a different panel and a different clerk. The Council agreed to this recommendation, but Ms B has decided that as her son is now settled in his new school she does not wish to pursue a fresh appeal.
27. I also recommended that within 12 weeks of the date of the final decision on this complaint the Council reminds clerks of the importance of keeping a full and accurate record of the points made at the hearing and full reasons for the panel’s decision, and of the requirement for the retention of such records. The Council has agreed to do this.

Back to top

Final decision

28. I have completed my investigation on the basis set out above.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman