Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about an unsuccessful appeal for a school place. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault and so we cannot question the panel’s decision.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about an unsuccessful school admission appeal for his daughter. Mr X is unhappy the clerk asked questions during the hearing and is concerned this influenced the panel’s decision making.

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 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the School.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

What I found

Background

5. Mr X applied for a place in reception at St Margaret’s (‘the School’) for his daughter (Y). Because the School was oversubscribed, it used its oversubscription criteria to decide which children it would offer places. The School offered its 45 places to children with a higher oversubscription criterion than Y. Mr X appealed the decision not to offer Y a place.

The appeals process

6. Independent school admission appeal 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, where admitting another child would mean there would be more than 30 pupils per teacher.
7. 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;
• the decision to refuse a place was one which a reasonable authority would have made in the circumstances.
8. What is ‘unreasonable’ is a high test, and for it to be met, the panel would need to be sure the decision to refuse a place was “perverse” or “outrageous”. For that reason, panels rarely find an admission authority’s decision to be unreasonable.
9. Infant class size appeals also apply to situations where admitting a further child would lead to a breach of the infant class size limit in future years. The school admits 45 children into reception – taught in two classes. But the school mixes its year 1 and 2 children together in classes of 30 children with one teacher, leading to ‘future infant class size prejudice’. Mr X’s appeal was therefore considered under Infant Class Size legislation.

Mr X’s appeal

10. Mr X’s written appeal included:
• Background to the application and appeal. This explained Y had originally attended the nursery at the School. She had transferred to another nursery, attached to another school (School Z) but this had not gone well. Y had therefore returned to her original nursery.
• The Council had offered a reception place at School Z. Y’s parents were not happy with her attending there because of her experience with the nursery.
• Y’s experience at School Z had affected her health. Y’s parents sent information in support of their appeal.
11. Mr X and Ys mother attended the hearing. The clerk’s notes show the School had the chance to present their case. In the hearing, the School’s Headteacher said they supported Y’s appeal. This led to a short recess as schools are not allowed to support individual appeals. The hearing resumed and the School finished presenting their case. Y’s parents and the panel could ask questions.
12. Y’s parents presented their case and explained why they wanted Y to attend the School. They expanded on the points in their written appeal. The panel asked questions.
13. In its deliberations the panel considered information about the School. The panel decided its admission arrangements were lawful and had been properly applied. The panel decided admitting a further child would breach the infant class size limit in future years. The panel decided it was not an unreasonable decision to refuse admission. None of the grounds for allowing an infant class size appeal had been met and so the panel refused Mr X’s appeal. The clerk’s letter explained the panel’s decision.

Assessment

14. I understand Mr X is unhappy his appeal was unsuccessful. But we are not a right of further appeal and cannot question decisions which were properly taken. As previously explained, the threshold for an infant class size appeal to succeed is very high.
15. The evidence I have seen shows the panel followed the proper process to consider and decide Mr X’s appeal. The panel asked questions and explored the issues at the heart of the appeal.
16. The School’s local council arranged the appeal hearing. I asked it about the clerk asking questions during the hearing. It said this was to clarify points and help the panel. The School Admission Appeals Code sets out a clerk’s role. This includes making the necessary administrative arrangements, responding to queries before the hearing, providing independent advice, and keeping an accurate record of proceedings. Questioning parents or panel members is not listed, but nor is it prohibited. On occasions, the clerk asking questions will be appropriate to ensure key points are understood. On balance, there is not enough evidence any questions asked by the clerk adversely affected the panel’s decision making and disadvantaged Mr X.
17. Each panel needs to reach a decision based on the information before it. The evidence shows the panel considered all the information it was presented with and reached a decision it was entitled to. The clerk’s decision letter is detailed enough to explain the panel’s decision.
18. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the panel considered and decided Mr X’s appeal for the Ombudsman to become involved. An investigation is not therefore appropriate.

Back to top

Final decision

19. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because is not enough evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman