Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the School Admissions Appeal Panel’s decision to refuse an appeal. There is not sufficient evidence of fault in the panel’s decision making to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the School Admissions Appeal Panel did not properly consider evidence she provided that her child met the academic standard required for admission to a grammar school. She complains her child did meet the academic standard required to be selected for a grammar school.

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 Mrs X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Statutory guidance about school admissions and appeals can be found in The School Admissions Code and School Admission Appeals Code. Both are published by the Department for Education. 
6. Parents/carers have the right to appeal an admission authority’s decision not to offer their child a school place.  
7. Panels must follow a two-stage decision making process. 
8. Stage 1: the panel examines the decision to refuse admission. The panel must consider whether: 
• the admissions arrangements complied with the mandatory requirements set out in the School Admissions Code; 
• the admission arrangements were applied correctly; and if 
• the admission of additional children would prejudice the provision of efficient education or the efficient use of resources.  
9. If a panel decides that admitting further children would “prejudice the provision of efficient education or the efficient use of resources” they move to the second stage of the process. 
10. Stage 2: balancing the arguments. The panel must balance the prejudice to the school against the appellant’s case for the child to be admitted.  
11. Mrs X applied for a place for her child, Y, at a grammar school. Mrs X appealed the decision. She told the appeal panel:
• Child Y was one mark below the requirement standard in one part of the entrance exam due to extenuating circumstances.
• School Y was the right fit for Y.
• About Y’s personal circumstances.
• The primary school head had provided a letter in support of her appeal.
12. The panel dismissed the appeal. It said:
• Y had not reached the academic standard required for admission to a grammar school and
• Admitting another pupil would prejudice the provision of efficient education or the efficient use of resources.
13. Miss X complained to us and said the panel had not properly considered Y’s individual circumstances.
14. The appeal panel’s notes show it considered the evidence Mrs X provided about Y’s academic ability and personal circumstances. It decided there was not sufficient evidence to show Y met the academic requirements. It is unlikely that we would find fault in how the panel reached its decision. It is a decision it was entitled to make.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is not sufficient evidence of fault in how the panel made its decision to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman