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

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Ms X, complained about the decision not to offer her daughter (Y) a sixth form place. Ms X questions if the panel properly considered the appeal and followed the correct process.

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 Maidstone Grammar School for Girls (the School).
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

What I found

Background

5. Ms X applied for Y to attend the School’s sixth form. The School’s admission arrangements for the sixth form require a student to have achieved certain GCSE results. These are:
• At least a grade 5 in English Language or Literature.
• At least a grade 5 in Maths.
• At least 6 GCSE subjects of grades 9 – 5.
• The specific entry requirements for the subjects to be studied.
6. Y did not meet the second criterion and so the School did not offer Y a place. Ms X appealed the School’s decision.

Sixth form appeals

7. The School Admission Appeals Code (the Appeals Code) contains a section on appeals for admission to sixth forms.
8. The Appeals Code states that where a child did not reach the specific entry requirements, the appeal panel must not make its own assessment of a child’s ability. The panel instead needs to decide if the admission authority’s decision the child was not of the required standard was reasonable.

Ms X’s appeal

9. At the appeal, the School explained why it had not offered Y a place. The panel asked questions and Ms X had the chance to present her case. Ms X expanded on her written appeal. Ms X explained Y had only missed the required mark in Maths by one mark and there had been an increase in the grade boundaries. Y had recently been diagnosed with dyslexia and had faced several personal challenges. Y sent a letter in support of the appeal.
10. The panel considered the information they had been presented with. The panel decided the School’s admission arrangements had been properly applied. They decided the decision Y had not met the required standard for entry to the sixth form was reasonable. The panel refused the appeal. The clerk’s letter explained the panel’s decision.

Assessment

11. I understand Ms X is disappointed with the panel’s decision. But we are not a right of further appeal and cannot question the panel’s decision unless there was a fault or flaw which brings the decision into question.
12. From the evidence available the panel followed the process set out in the Appeals Code. It considered the correct tests in reaching a decision. The panel considered the personal circumstances Ms X presented but decided the decision Y was not of the required standard was reasonable. That is a decision the panel was entitled to reach and there is not enough evidence of fault for us to intervene.
13. In her complaint to the Ombudsman Ms X said none of the appeals heard at the same time were successful. Ms X also says the panel’s letter was generic with only extracts from her appeal included.
14. We can only consider how the panel considered Ms X’s appeal. The panel deciding not to uphold any appeals is not evidence of fault. It is also expected that decision letters will, to an extent, be similar, as the process followed in each appeal will be the same. The letter explains the panel’s decision and is detailed enough to meet the requirements of the School Appeals Code.
15. Ms X has also raised concerns about more appeals being heard at a later date with a different panel. Ms X says some of these later appeals were successful. Ms X says she was originally told she would only receive a decision once all appeals had been heard.
16. The School Appeals Code states this about multiple appeals:

“Admission authorities must take all reasonable steps to ensure that multiple appeals for a school are heard by one panel with the same members. Where more than one panel has to consider appeals for the same school, each panel must make its own decision independently. A panel hearing multiple appeals must not make decisions on any of those appeals until all the appeals have been heard.”

17. In this case, one panel considered a group of appeals, including the appeal for Y. The panel did not issue decisions until it heard all the appeals. A different panel heard other appeals at a late date and then issued its decisions. This approach is in line with the Code and there is no evidence of fault which would warrant us investigating.

Back to top

Final decision

18. We will not investigate Ms 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