Summary: Ms C complained about the way the school admission appeal panel dealt with her appeal for a secondary school place for her child. She said the admissions authority prioritised children who listed Ursuline High School as their first choice. Her child’s appeal was unsuccessful, and she did not have a school place for September 2023. We found the appeal panel for Ursuline High School did not follow the correct procedure when it considered D’s appeal, and this was fault. Ursuline High School has agreed to offer Ms C a fresh appeal and provide training to those involved in running appeals.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I will refer to as Ms C, complained about the way the school admission appeal panel dealt with their appeal for a secondary school place for her child, D. She said the admissions authority prioritised children who listed Ursuline High School as their first choice. D’s appeal was unsuccessful, and she did not have a school place for September 2023.

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 a 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)
3. 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

4. I considered:
• Ms C’s complaint and the information she provided;
• documents supplied by the admission authority;
• relevant legislation and guidelines; and
• the admission authority’s policies and procedures.
5. Ms C and Ursuline High School were invited to comment on a draft decision. Their comments were considered before making this final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Legislation and Guidance

6. All schools must have a set of admission arrangements containing oversubscription criteria. The school’s admission authority uses these to decide which children will receive an offer of a place if there are more applications than places available. The school’s admission authority sets the admission arrangements.  Admission authorities must not give extra priority to children whose parents rank preferred schools in a particular order, including ‘first preference first’ arrangements (Department of Education, School Admissions Code, 2021).
7. Parents/carers have the right to appeal an admission authority’s decision not to offer their child a school place.  The School Admission Appeals Code 2022 (the Code), published by the Department for Education, provides statutory guidance about school appeals. The purpose of the Code is to ensure the independence of admission appeals panels and to ensure that all admissions appeals are fair and transparent.
8. Appeal panels must follow a two-stage decision making process, except for infant class size appeals. 
9. Stage one: the panel examines the decision to refuse admission. The panel must consider whether: 
• the admissions arrangements complied with the mandatory requirements set out in the School Admissions Code; 
• the admission arrangements were applied correctly; and if 
• the admission of additional children would prejudice the provision of efficient education or the efficient use of resources.  
10. The panel must uphold the appeal at stage one if it decides that admitting further children would not ‘prejudice the provision of efficient education or the efficient use of resources’.
11. 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. 
12. Stage two: balancing the arguments. The panel must decide whether admitting further children to the school would prejudice the provision of efficient education, or the efficient use of resources. It must balance this prejudice against the appellant’s case, taking account of their reasons for expressing a preference for the school. This will include considering what the school can offer the child the allocated or other schools cannot. Where the panel considers the appellant’s case outweighs the prejudice to the school, it must uphold the appeal.
13. Schools have a published admission number (PAN). This is the number of children they can safely accept that academic year. The Code says the panel must consider the school’s PAN; however, the admission authority must demonstrate prejudice over the PAN being reached. The panel must not reassess the capacity of the school, but must consider the impact on the school of admitting additional children.
14. 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. 
15. The clerk must take an accurate record of the hearing. This includes the proceedings, attendance, voting and reasons for decisions.

Ursuline High School Wimbledon admissions policy 2023

16. The school exists primarily to serve the Catholic community and Catholic children always have priority of admission. However, the Governing Body welcomes all applications, particularly from those of other denominations and faiths who support the religious ethos of the school.
17. If the number of applicants exceed the number of places the Governors apply seven criteria in order from 1 to 7.
18. Criterion 7: all other applicants i.e., applicants who do not meet one of the six other criteria.

What happened

19. This chronology includes key events in this case and does not cover everything that happened.
20. Ms C applied for a school place for her daughter, D, at Ursuline High School under criterion 7.
21. In March 2023, Ursuline High School told Ms C it had not been able to offer D a place. It said it did not offer D a place because the number of applicants exceeded the number of places it could offer. It explained it had offered places to applicants in criterion 5, and D was in criterion 7.
22. Ms C appealed in April 2023. She said:
• Other applicants could not have fulfilled the stipulated practising requirements because of COVID-19.
• Ursuline High School’s admission policy did not make it clear how many children would be allocated to each of its admission criteria. Ms C said the school places should be evenly spread between the seven criteria.
• Ursuline High School’s admission policy should accommodate students from a Catholic practising faith whose circumstances meant they could not fulfil the Mass attendance requirement.
• Admitting D would not prejudice the education of other students.
23. In May 2023, Ursuline High School invited Ms C to provide a copy of D’s baptism certificate and evidence she attended church. Ms C did not provide this.
24. In the Governor’s statement for D’s appeal, it referred to criterion 2 as children who are baptised and practising Catholics’ and put Ursuline High School as 1st choice on their common application form.
25. Ursuline High School held a virtual appeal hearing in June 2023. At the appeal, the headteacher confirmed the school was not aware of how parents ranked their preferred schools, and therefore this was not a consideration when awarding school places. The school said it had applied its admissions policy correctly and it could not offer a place to any applicant in criterion 7. It said in agreement with the Council an additional 40 places had been offered due to the high movement between schools before September and historically this fell back to its published admission number by September. It explained the impact on the school of admitting over its published admission number. Ms C said D was a Catholic. The school said it had asked for a baptismal certificate, but Ms C did not send one. The minutes of the appeal recorded the panel decided the admissions arrangements complied with the mandatory requirements set out in the School Admissions Code and the admission arrangements were applied correctly. It decided there were no mitigating circumstances in D’s appeal to outweigh the prejudice outlined by the school. The panel declined D’s appeal.
26. The admission authority wrote to Ms C in June 2023. It told her D’s appeal was not successful. It said the panel considered whether the admission of additional children would prejudice the provision of efficient education or the efficient use of resources and summarised the school’s case. The letter said, ‘because of the over offering, the school had not proved prejudiced as the statement referred to the detrimental effect of additional students over the PAN [published admission number] of 210, whereas the current number of accepted places quoted was 214. That said, the panel were convinced that the additional places that had been offered were to the first child in the ranking order and this did not adversely affect any other applicant. The panel unanimously accepted the school’s argument at stage 1.’ It said the panel then considered D’s case and balanced it against the school’s case for prejudice and decided not to uphold her appeal. Ms C responded to the decision letter raising various concerns. She did not receive a response.

Enquiries

27. Ursuline High School said it did not prove prejudice.
28. Ursuline High School advised there was an error in the Governor’s statement when it referred to criterion 2 as being children who are baptised and practising Catholics’ and put Ursuline High School as 1st choice on their Common application form. It said the school did not issue places on a first preference basis.
29. The Council confirmed, ‘The School Admissions team does not share any information with schools on the preference order. The only information shared is that which is required by the school to rank against their admission arrangements. Preference order forms no part in the ranking process and is therefore not relevant information for the school to have. No school involved in the Transfer to Secondary process is provided with details of the preference order’.
30. The Council also confirmed it supported Ursuline High School’s practice of over offering places based on the expected drop out rate to ensure the school was operating at the published admission number in September 2023.

Analysis

31. My findings are:
32. The Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the appeal panel followed the School Admission Appeals Code.
33. There is no evidence the admissions authority knew how parents ranked the schools they applied to. This is supported by comments made by the headteacher during the appeal panel, and the Council which advised it did not share parents’ preference order with admissions authorities. The information in the Governor’s statement was wrong and this was fault. This fault caused Ms C unnecessary confusion about the admission arrangements.
34. There was also fault with how the school admission appeal panel conducted D’s appeal. At stage one of the appeal process, the panel needed to decide if a number of children could be admitted to Ursuline High School without causing prejudice. The panel minutes recorded the panel decided there were no mitigating circumstances in D’s appeal to outweigh the prejudice outlined by the school. However, the letter sent to Ms C with the result of her appeal stated, ‘because of the over offering, the school had not proved prejudiced’ and the school confirmed it had not proved prejudice in its response to enquiries. This creates confusion about whether prejudice was proven and uncertainty for Ms C about whether the appeal panel for Ursuline High School followed the correct procedure when it considered D’s appeal, and this was fault.

Back to top

Agreed action

35. To remedy the injustice set out above, Ursuline High School has agreed to carry out the following actions, within one month of the final decision being issued:
• Provide a written apology to Ms C for the unnecessary confusion and uncertainty caused by its faults.
• Arrange a fresh appeal hearing with a new panel and clerk, to consider D’s appeal again and issue a fresh decision.
• Provide panel members and clerks with training on the appeal process.
36. Ursuline High School should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

37. I find fault with Ursuline High School. This fault caused Ms C and D injustice. The School has agreed to take the actions I have recommended to remedy that injustice. I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman