Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful Infant Class Size appeal for a school admission. This is because we are unlikely to find fault with the Council’s appeal process.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains that the Council did not properly consider her husband Mr Y’s disabilities when deciding not to award her daughter a place at her preferred school. Mrs X says the walk to school has negatively impacted Mr Y’s health and has been distressing for the family. Mrs X wants the Council to reassess the application taking into account Mr Y’s disability.

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 and Mr Y applied for a place at a different school for their daughter C. The school that C currently attends means Mr Y has to walk up a hill that makes his mobility problems worse. This means Mr Y struggles to take C to school.
6. The Council decided not to grant admission to the new school because it was full.
7. The School Standards and Framework Act limits the size of infant classes (a class in which most of the children will reach the age of 5, 6 or 7 during the school year) to 30 pupils a teacher. The Appeals Code refers to these as infant class size (ICS) appeals. Panels can only uphold these appeals in limited circumstances.  
8. Admission authorities must provide parents with information on the limited circumstances in which an infant class size appeal can be upheld so they can make an informed decision about whether to submit an appeal. 
9. The Appeals Code says in an ICS appeal the panel must consider:

• whether the admission of an additional child or children would breach the infant class size limit; 
• whether the admission arrangements complied with the mandatory requirements of the School Admissions Code and Part 3 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998; 
• whether the admission arrangements were correctly and impartially applied in the case in question; and 
• whether the decision to refuse admission was one which a reasonable admission authority would have made in the circumstances of the case. 

10. What is ‘reasonable’ is a high test. The panel needs to be sure that to refuse a place was “perverse” or “outrageous”. For that reason, panels rarely find an admission authority’s decision to be unreasonable. 
11. In limited circumstances, children can be admitted as exceptions to ICS limit. These exceptions include children of compulsory school-age who move into the area outside the normal admissions round for whom there is no other available school within reasonable distance.  
12. Mrs X and Mr Y appealed the decision to refuse their daughter a place at their preferred school. They provided the panel with evidence of Mr Y’s disabilities and explained why they wanted C to move to a different school.
13. The panel properly considered the criteria for ICS appeals and Mr Y’s disabilities and health problems during the appeal hearing. It provided evidence to Mrs X and Mr Y of the class sizes and the classroom dimension. It explained why admitting another pupil would negatively impact other pupils at the school.
14. The panel told Mrs X that Mr Y’s disabilities did not meet the criteria for a higher priority. It also confirmed C has a place at a school which is in a reasonable distance.
15. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong.
16. I have considered the steps the Council took to consider the issue, and the information it took account of when deciding not to allow admission to the school.
17. I am satisfied that the panel properly followed the admissions appeal process. Therefore, it is unlikely we would find fault.

Back to top

Final decision

18. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman