St. Teresas RC Primary School (24 006 966)

Category : Education > School admissions

Decision : Closed after initial enquiries

Decision date : 20 Aug 2024

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about an unsuccessful school admission appeal. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault for us to be able to question the panel’s decision.

The complaint

  1. Miss X complained about an unsuccessful school admission appeal for her daughter (Y). Miss X says the panel lacked knowledge about the Catholic faith. Miss X says one panel member asked inappropriate questions and shook their head when Miss X asked questions. Miss X says the panel did not take into account all the information presented during the appeal.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. 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

  1. I considered information provided by the complainant and St Teresa’s RC Primary School (School Z).
  2. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

What I found

Background

  1. Miss X applied for Y to start reception in September 2024. Miss X wanted Y to attend School Z as it is the nearest Catholic school to her home. There were more applications than places available at School Z. This meant School Z used its oversubscription criteria to decide which children it would offer places. School Z did not offer Y a place. Miss X appealed this decision.

The appeals process

  1. 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. Appeals under these rules are known as “infant class size appeals”. Infant class size legislation applied to the appeal which is the subject of this complaint.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.

Appeal

  1. Miss X attended the appeal. The clerk’s notes show School Z’s Headteacher presented their case. They explained how School Z and the Council had dealt with Miss X’s application. School Z’s Published Admission Number was 30 and this matched the number of offers the school had made. Admitting a further child would therefore breach the infant class size limit.
  2. Miss X and the panel asked questions. School Z’s Headteacher explained the school could physically accommodate more children - but infant class size legislation limited them to 30 children.
  3. Miss X presented her case. She explained the family lives in the parish and the local church baptised Y. Miss X wanted Y to receive a Catholic education and School Z was close to her home. Y already attends School Z’s nursery and had built a relationship with staff. There would be logistical issues if the panel did not offer Y a place. Miss X sent written information in support of her appeal. This included information from Y’s nursery and local councillors.
  4. In its deliberations the panel considered information about School Z. The panel decided its admission arrangements were lawful and School Z and the Council had properly applied them. There had been no errors with the handling of Miss X’s application. The panel decided admitting a further child would breach the infant class size limit. 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 the appeal. The clerk’s letter explained the panel’s decision.

Assessment

  1. I understand Miss X is unhappy the 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.
  2. The evidence I have seen shows the appeal followed the expected process and contained the stages required by the School Admission Appeals Code (the Code). All parties had the chance to present their cases and could ask questions. The panel were provided with the written information Miss X sent with her appeal. The clerk’s notes show the panel considered all the information it was presented with. The clerk’s notes are detailed, as is the decision letter.
  3. Turning to Miss X’s concerns about the panel’s conduct in general, I was not there, and so the Ombudsman needs to base its decision on the written evidence available. This includes the clerk’s notes, and I have also considered a complaint made to the Council by School Z’s Headteacher. This referred to the questions asked and the conduct of one panel member in particular. The Headteacher also said the panel lacked knowledge about the Catholic faith.
  4. The Council, which arranged the hearing, has responded to the Headteacher’s complaint. Following an investigation, the Council said the facilitators of the hearing had not witnessed any behaviour of concern. The Council said one panel member had explained at the start of the hearing they had little understanding of Roman Catholicism. The panel’s questions were to seek clarity and understanding. Having looked at the panel’s questions, the Council could not say they were asked for any reason other than to properly understand and decide the appeal. The Council said all panel members are trained annually in line with statutory guidance.
  5. It is clear from the evidence available that Miss X and School Z’s Headteacher had concerns about the way the appeal took place. But for us to investigate and recommend a fresh appeal, we would need to say there was enough evidence of fault to bring the panel’s decision into question. Based on the evidence available that test has not been met.
  6. The panel has a wide discretion about the questions it can ask. We could not say the questions asked represent fault or contravene the Code in a way which calls into question the decisions reached.
  7. Personal conduct of panel members during hearings can be difficult to comment on; for example, does yawning show a panel member is not paying attention? The Council has investigated the concerns raised about the appeal and it is unlikely we could add anything to this. It is unlikely an Ombudsman investigation would provide more conclusive evidence on which we could base a decision.
  8. Based on the information we do have the clerk’s notes clearly show the panel considered the information presented and applied the required tests from the Code. The panel reached a decision it was entitled to.
  9. I also note the panel’s decision was unanimous, and I again refer to the high threshold for an infant class size appeal to succeed. School Z’s Headteacher was clearly happy to admit extra students. But the panel was bound by infant class size legislation in its decision making. It found there were no errors in how Miss X’s application was dealt with. To uphold the appeal, it would have needed to find the refusal was perverse or outrageous. These are exceptionally high tests. It therefore follows the threshold for us to be able to say there is enough fault to recommend a fresh appeal is also high.
  10. Based on the information available there is not enough evidence of fault in how the panel considered and decided the appeal for the Ombudsman to become involved. An investigation is not therefore appropriate.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault.

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