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

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Miss X, complained about an unsuccessful school admission appeal for her daughter (Y). Miss X questions if the panel considered all the information it should have done.

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 St Bernard’s RC Grammar School (‘St Bernard’s’ / ‘the School’).
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

What I found

The appeals process for grammar schools

5. Independent appeal panels must follow the law when considering an appeal. They need to consider if the school’s admission arrangements comply with the law, and if they were properly applied to the appellant’s application.
6. In appeals for grammar / selective schools, the panel needs to decide if the appellant’s child meets the necessary academic standard. If they decide this is not the case, then the panel cannot uphold the appeal.
7. If the child meets the academic standard and the panel decides the school can offer them a place without it causing ‘prejudice’ to the school, then they must offer a place.
8. If the child meets the academic standard and the panel decides the school cannot offer a place without it causing ‘prejudice’ to the school, they need to balance the appellant’s case against the prejudice to the school.

Background

9. Miss X’s daughter (Y) sat the 11+ test which is used to decide which children St Bernard’s will offer places. The required score was 111. Y scored 110 and so the School did not offer her a place. Miss X appealed the decision. Y’s father attended the appeal hearing.

The appeal hearing

10. The clerk’s notes show that during the appeal, the School’s representative presented their case. They explained how places had been offered. The panel and parents could ask questions.
11. Mr X explained Y had become overwhelmed on the day of the test. Y had a connection to the school through a sibling who attends and this created extra pressure. Miss X and Mr X had sent information in support of their appeal. This included a letter of support from Y’s primary school and information about assessments carried out by Y’s school after the 11+.
12. The panel considered Y’s case. The panel decided the School’s admission arrangements were lawful and had been properly applied. The panel decided there had been no errors with the handling of Y’s application. The panel decided there was not sufficient information to show Y was of grammar school ability. The panel also decided that admitting Y would cause the school greater prejudice than refusing the appeal. The panel therefore dismissed the appeal.

Assessment

13. I understand Miss X is unhappy her appeal was unsuccessful, but we are not a right of further appeal. We cannot question decisions unless there is enough fault in the decision-making process to call into question the decision itself.
14. In her complaint to the Ombudsman, Miss X has referred to the panel’s decision letter which stated there was no year 5 school report to show Y’s level of work. Miss X says she was willing to provide further evidence. But it is for parents to decide what evidence they present at an appeal and send in advance. We would not criticise the panel for failing to request a copy of the year 5 report.
15. Each panel needs to reach a decision based on the information before it. The evidence I have seen shows the panel considered all the information presented. Mr X had the chance to present his appeal.
16. The evidence I have seen shows the panel considered the relevant tests set out in the School Admission Appeals Code. Once the panel decided there was not enough evidence to show Y was not of grammar school ability, it had no choice but to refuse the appeal. Its consideration of the issue of prejudice was over and above what it needed to do.
17. Based on the evidence available there is not enough evidence of fault in how the panel considered Miss X’s appeal to warrant us investigating.

Back to top

Final decision

18. We will not investigate Miss 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