Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about an unsuccessful appeal for a school place. This is because an investigation would be unlikely to find fault.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mrs X, complained about an unsuccessful school admission appeal for her son (Y). Mrs X says the appeal panel failed to properly consider the information provided.

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

The appeals process for grammar schools

5. Grammar schools can select children for admission based on academic ability – usually determined by a selection / entrance test.
6. Some admission authorities for grammar schools operate a ‘local review’ process to decide if a child who has not performed well in the selection / entrance test should be considered of grammar school ability. The local review process does not replace a parent’s right of appeal against the refusal of a place.
7. 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.
8. In appeals for 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. But where a local review process has been carried out, the panel must only consider if it was carried out in fair, consistent and objective way. Only if the panel decides there is no evidence this has been done must it follow the process set out in paragraphs 8 to 10.

Background

12. Mrs X’s son (Y) sat the selection test for Stretford Grammar. Y did not achieve the required score of 334 to be considered for a place. Mrs X challenged this via the School’s Local Review process. Mrs X referred to Y being ill on the day of the test. The School decided there was not enough evidence to consider Y to be of grammar school ability and did not uphold the review. Stretford Grammar did not therefore offer Y a place. The Council offered an alternative school and Mrs X appealed Stretford Grammar’s decision.

Mrs X’s appeal

13. 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.
14. In Mrs X’s appeal she explained why she wanted Y to attend the School. She explained her concerns about the school the Council had offered a place at. Mrs X said Y had been distracted in the appeal, but this had not been reported at the time.
15. The panel considered Y’s case. The panel decided the School’s admission arrangements were lawful and had been properly applied. The panel decided the local review process had been carried out in a fair, consistent and objective way. The panel therefore refused the appeal and the clerk’s letter explained the decision.

Assessment

16. I understand Mrs X is unhappy her appeal was unsuccessful. But we are not a right of further appeal and cannot question decisions which were properly taken.
17. The evidence I have seen shows the panel followed the proper process to consider and decide Mrs X’s appeal. The panel considered the relevant tests set out in the School Admission Appeals Code.
18. The evidence shows Mrs X had the chance to present her case in line with the written information she provided.
19. 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. Its decision not to uphold the appeal was made in line with the decision-making process set out in the Appeals Code.
20. Based on the evidence available there is not enough evidence of fault in how the panel considered Mrs X’s appeal to warrant us investigating.

Back to top

Final decision

21. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because an investigation would be unlikely to find fault.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman