Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the conduct of a school admission appeal panel in refusing an infant class place for Mrs X’s child. There is not enough evidence of procedural fault by the panel to warrant our further involvement.

The complaint

1. Mrs X said she did not feel the panel that heard her appeal against the refusal of a place for her child at her preferred school considered it properly or fairly.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way a school admissions appeals panel made its decision. If there was no fault in how the panel made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. 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 Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mrs X’s appeal was for a place in a Year 2 class. That is a year group where the infant class-size limit of 30 children applies. In such cases, a panel has only limited duties.
6. First, it must satisfy itself that what is called infant class-size prejudice applies and that it cannot be overcome. The pupil numbers provided by the school stated there were 30 children in each Year 2 class. In such circumstances, the admission of another child would mean building a new classroom. It was not fault for the panel to decide infant class-size prejudice applied.
7. Second, it must be sure the child does not belong in an excepted category, where the child may be admitted even as a 31st child. These categories are rare exceptions. None of the evidence of the hearing showed Mrs X’s child should have been in an excepted category, so the panel could find there was no exception.
8. At this point in a hearing, the panel does not have to balance the parent’s case for admission against the school’s case that it is full. The panel may only uphold an appeal if it finds one of three grounds. These are:

• Fault in the application of the admissions arrangements that cost the child a place;
• Using admission arrangements that that the Office of the School Adjudicator has told the school it may not use; and
• A refusal to admit a child that is utterly unreasonable. This category applies a very high test that is intended to address issues such as a refusal to admit children to a school on illegal or wholly illogical grounds such as their ethnicity or hair colour.

9. The panel found the admission arrangements were legal, and that they had been correctly applied given that the year group was already full to the infant class-size limit at the time Mrs X applied. In those circumstances, it could also decide the decision to refuse a place was one a reasonable admission authority could take. Mrs X’s case included elements that are often raised in appeals. The panel could decide this did not engage the third reason.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the panel reached its decision to warrant our further involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman