Summary: We will not investigate Mr 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, Mr X, complained about an unsuccessful school admission appeal for his son (Y). Mr X says the panel failed to properly consider the evidence presented. Mr X also questions if the panel was appropriately constituted.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

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

What I found

Background

5. Mr X’s son (Y) sat the Kent Test. This is used to decide which children will be offered places at selective (or grammar) schools in the Council’s area. The school Mr X would like Y to attend (School Z) is a selective school. It therefore uses the Kent Test results to decide if children are of the required academic standard to attend. Test results, combined with the school’s oversubscription criteria, are used to decide which children School Z will offer places. Mr X applied for Y to attend School Z.
6. The required standard in the Kent Test was 332 with no individual score in the test below 108. Y scored more than the 332 required, but one of their individual scores was below 108.
7. Y’s result in the Kent Test meant School Z did not offer him a place. Mr X appealed this decision.

The appeals process

8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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.

Mr X’s appeal

12. The clerk’s notes show that during the appeal, School Z’s representative presented their case. They explained how places had been offered. The panel and parents could ask questions.
13. In Mr X’s appeal he explained why he wanted Y to attend School Z. Mr X said he believed Y was of the required academic standard and his score in part of the Kent Test was not representative of his ability. Mr X referred to problems encountered by Y’s sibling and how they had affected Y’s test performance. Mr X sent information from Y’s primary school along with other documents in support of his appeal.
14. The panel considered Y’s case. The panel decided School Z’s admission arrangements were lawful and had been properly applied. The panel decided there was not enough evidence to show Y was of grammar school ability. The panel refused the appeal, and the clerk’s letter explained the decision.

Assessment

15. I understand Mr X is unhappy his appeal was unsuccessful. But we are not a right of further appeal and cannot question decisions which were properly taken.
16. The evidence I have seen shows the panel followed the proper process to consider and decide Mr X’s appeal. The panel considered the relevant tests set out in the School Admission Appeals Code.
17. The evidence shows Mr X had the chance to present his case in line with the written information he provided.
18. In his complaint to the Ombudsman, Mr X said the panel did not properly consider or question the information presented in support of his appeal. Mr X said the panel was from a single demographic.
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. It is for the panel to decide the weight it gives to each piece of evidence. It is for the panel to decide what questions to ask.
20. The evidence I have seen shows the panel balanced the evidence presented and reached a decision it was entitled to take. While I understand Mr X is disappointed with the panel’s decision, there is no evidence to suggest the panel did not properly understand or consider the basis of the appeal.
21. The School Admission Appeals Code says panels should be “transparent, accessible, independent, impartial” and be trained in their duties under the Equality Act. There needs to be at least one ‘expert member’ but there are no requirements around categories such as gender or race. We could not therefore criticise the constitution of the panel. It is only the panel’s decision-making we can consider here.
22. Based on the evidence available there is not enough evidence of fault in how the panel considered Mr X’s appeal to warrant us investigating.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman