Summary: We will not investigate Mrs 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. Mrs X complained about an unsuccessful school admission appeal for her daughter (Y). Mrs X has questioned if her preferred school should have offered Y a place.

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 Tintwistle C of E Primary School (the School).
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

What I found

Background

5. Mrs X applied for her daughter (Y) to join year 2 at the School. All schools are required to have a Published Admission Number (PAN). This is the number of places a school will normally offer. The School’s PAN for the current year 2 is 17. PANs, however, only apply to the relevant age group – this is the point at which children are normally admitted. In the School’s case this is to the reception class. So, even though when Mrs X applied for a place there were only 15 children in the year 2 class, the School was not required to offer Y a place. The School refused Mrs X’s application on the basis it would breach the Infant Class Size limit. This is because the School mixes children from different year groups together. The law says the size of an infant class must not be more than 30 pupils per teacher. Mrs 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. 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.
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.

Appeal

9. Mrs X asked for her appeal to be heard in absence. The clerk’s notes show the School’s representative presented their case. They explained why the School had not offered Y a place and how admitting a further child would breach the infant class size limit. The panel could ask questions.
10. The panel considered Mrs X’s written appeal. Mrs X had explained she wanted Y to move to a school which could offer her more support. Y no longer wanted to attend her current school and wanted to go to the School as it was closer to home. Mrs X had health problems and a younger child to care for.
11. In its deliberations the panel considered information about the School. The panel decided its admission arrangements were lawful the had been properly applied. There had been no errors with the handling of Y’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

12. I understand Mrs 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.
13. In her complaint to the Ombudsman, Mrs X said that when she visited the School she was told there were places available. I was not there at the time, nor can we consider the actions of the School – our role is to instead look at how the panel considered the appeal. But as explained in paragraph 5, while the School was below its PAN, admitting a further child would breach the Infant Class Size limit. This was why the School refused Mrs X’s application.
14. 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). The panel were provided with the written information Mrs X sent with her appeal. The clerk’s notes show the panel considered all the information it was presented with. The panel considered the required tests and that included the handling of Mrs X’s application. The panel decided not to uphold the appeal. This is a decision the panel was entitled to take. The clerk’s notes and the panel’s decision letter show how the panel reached its decision.
15. 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

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

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman