Summary: Miss Z complained the Independent Admissions Appeals Panel failed to properly consider her appeal for a place at the School for her child, Y. There was no fault in the way the Panel considered Miss Z’s appeal and reached its decision.

The complaint

1. Miss Z complained:
1. the Independent Admissions Appeal Panel failed to properly consider her appeal for a place for her child, Y, at St James High School.
2. the School failed to properly maintain its waiting list.

Miss Z says this has affected Y’s well being and caused her and Y distress.

Back to top

What I have investigated

2. I have investigated part a) of Miss Z’s complaint. I have explained at the end of this statement why I have not investigated part b).

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 cannot question whether an independent school admissions appeals 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)
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 have considered the information provided by Miss Z and the appeal information provided by the School including the notes of the hearing and the relevant law and guidance.
6. I gave Miss Z and the School the opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision. I considered any comments I received before reaching a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The relevant law and guidance

7. Statutory guidance about school admissions and appeals can be found in The School Admissions Code and School Admission Appeals Code. Both are published by the Department for Education. 
8. Parents/carers have the right to appeal an admission authority’s decision not to offer their child a school place.  
9. Appeal hearings must be held in private and conducted in the presence of all panel members and parties. Appeal panels must act according to the principles of natural justice. 
10. A clerk supports the appeal panel. Parents can submit information in support of their appeal. The clerk must send all papers required for the hearing a reasonable time before the date of the hearing. This includes information from the appellant and the admission authority. 
11. Panels must follow a two-stage decision making process. 
• Stage 1: the panel examines the decision to refuse admission. The panel must consider whether: 
1. the admissions arrangements complied with the mandatory requirements set out in the School Admissions Code; 
2. the admission arrangements were applied correctly; and if 
3. the admission of additional children would prejudice the provision of efficient education or the efficient use of resources.  
12. 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 of the process. 
• Stage 2: balancing the arguments. The panel must balance the prejudice to the school against the appellant’s case for the child to be admitted.  
13. Appeal panels must either uphold or dismiss an appeal and must not uphold an appeal subject to any conditions. Appeals must be decided by a simple majority of votes cast. A panel’s decision that a child shall be admitted to a school is binding on the admission authority concerned. 

What happened

14. The School is a voluntary aided school so the Governors are the Admissions Authority and are responsible for admissions and appeals. The Council administers admissions and appeals on the School’s behalf.
15. Miss Z submitted Y’s secondary school application for the School after the closing date of 31 October 2021. The School’s admission criteria place applicants into bands A to J. The last category, category J, was for applications received after the closing date. These were then prioritised by the criteria detailed in categories A to I.
16. As there were more applications for the School than places available, the School applied the admission criteria. Because Miss Z applied late, Y’s application was placed in category J and considered after those received by the closing date. The last place was awarded to a child in category F, so Y was refused a place. Miss Z appealed the decision.
17. Miss Z attended a virtual hearing in May 2022. As there were a number of appeals the presenting officer’s case was heard in the presence of all appellants who chose to attend the appeal. At the first stage of the hearing the presenting officer presented their case. They said to admit more children to the School would cause prejudice to both the School and those already attending it. The School’s case included:
• It had allocated places up to its published admission number for the year;
• Pupils were taught in groups of 25 to 31, However the science and modern foreign language rooms only had capacity to accommodate 25 pupils and the food technology room only had capacity for 18;
• There were limited areas for 1:1 work so the dining area was used for this purpose;
• Corridors were congested at lesson changeover and pupils had to use outdoor space for circulation.
• It would increase demand on teaching and learning resources.
18. The Panel and appellants asked questions of the presenting officer regarding admission numbers and the admission arrangements. The Panel decided the admission criteria were applied correctly and that admitting further pupils would cause prejudice to the School. It went on to hear the individual appellants’ cases. Miss Z’s reasons for the appeal included:
• Miss Z wanted Y to attend a catholic school to continue Y’s catholic education
• Y was close to a relative who died a few months previously around the closing date for applications and so Miss Z was not in the right frame of mind.
• Y had friends attending the School, who were a great support when Y’s relative died.
• Y’s sibling had been bullied at the school Y had been allocated and Y was traumatised by this. Y’s sibling had not received the required support.
19. The Panel made its decision after it heard all the appeals. It noted the difficult family circumstances and the reasons for the late application. It noted Y’s friends had been very supportive and Miss Z did not want Y separated from them plus Miss Z’s desire that Y received a catholic education. However, it decided not to uphold the appeal as it considered the prejudice caused to the School outweighed Miss Z’s case for Y to attend the School.

Findings

20. Miss Z applied for the School after the closing date. This meant Y was placed in category J, rather than a higher category had the application been on-time. The School was not at fault for placing Y in category J.
21. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body and we cannot question decisions taken without fault. I have considered all the appeal documents and the clerk’s notes of the appeal. The clerk’s notes show Miss Z was given time to present her case and the Panel was aware of all her arguments in reaching its decision. The notes show the Panel asked questions of Miss Z and of the presenting officer.
22. The Panel considered the School’s and Miss Z’s arguments when coming to its decision. The clerk’s notes of the appeal hearing show the Panel was aware of the reasons for Miss Z wanting a place at the School for her child. I am satisfied it was aware of the facts of the case before it made its decision.
23. I cannot criticise the Panel’s decision, no matter how much Miss Z disagrees with it, unless there is evidence of fault in the way it came to that decision. It was for the Panel to decide what weight to give to each piece of evidence. I have found no evidence of fault in the way the Panel reached its decision to refuse Miss Z’s appeal.

Back to top

Final decision

24. I have completed my investigation as there was no evidence of fault in the way the Panel reached its decision.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

25. Miss Z also complained about the way the Council, acting on behalf of the School, maintained its waiting list for the School.
26. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if there is another body better placed to consider the complaint (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended).
27. Any concerns about a school’s admissions arrangements are for the Office of the Schools’ Adjudicator (OSA) not the Ombudsman. The OSA has the power to order a school or council to propose amendments to admission arrangements it finds unlawful or unfair.
28. In 2021, following a referral, the OSA considered the way the Council maintains its waiting lists for schools and was satisfied the Council’s arrangements complied with the admissions code. I have therefore exercised my discretion not to consider this matter as it has already been considered by the appropriate body.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman