The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Mrs B complains about the way an admissions appeal panel considered her appeal. Mrs B says the panel did not properly consider her appeal, which was the same as a previous appeal for her other daughter for the same school, which was successful. Mrs B says her daughter now attends a school that is less suited to her needs and feels discriminated against. There was fault in how the panel considered the appeal. A further appeal with a new panel is satisfactory remedy.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mrs B, complained the Council’s admissions appeal panel failed to properly consider her daughter’s appeal. Mrs B says the reasons for the appeal were identical to the appeal she put in for her eldest daughter for the same school in 2019, which was successful. Mrs B says the appeal panel therefore did not treat her daughter fairly.
Mrs B says the impact on her daughter is significant as she now cannot attend a school that offers her GCSE dance and the opportunities her other daughter has received. Mrs B says her daughter feels discriminated against.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended) If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
As part of the investigation, I have: considered the complaint and Mrs B's comments; made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided.
Mrs B and the organisation now have an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I will consider their comments before making a final decision.
What I found
What should have happened The School Admission Appeals Code (the code) provides statutory guidance for consideration of admissions appeals. This says panels must follow a two-stage decision making process: 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.
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.
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. Whilst the panel must take into account the school’s published admission number, the admission authority must be able to demonstrate prejudice over and above the fact that the published admission number has already been reached. The panel may consider the following factors: what effect an additional admission would have on the school in the current and following academic years as the year group moves through the school whether any changes have been made to the school’s physical accommodation or organisation since an admission number was originally set for the relevant year group the impact of the locally agreed Fair Access Protocol the impact on the organisation and size of classes, the availability of teaching staff, and the effect on children already at the school.
Appeal panels must either uphold or dismiss an appeal and must not uphold an appeal subject to any conditions. Appeals must be decided by a simple majority of votes cast. A panel’s decision that a child shall be admitted to a school is binding on the admission authority concerned.
The clerk must take an accurate record of the hearing, including the proceedings, attendance, voting and reasons for decisions. The appeal panel must write to the appellant, the admission authority and the Council with its decision and the reasons for it.
What happened Mrs B’s daughter was due to transfer to secondary school in September 2022. Mrs B completed an application form. On that application Mrs B only named one school, which is the school that was the subject of this appeal. The school had a published admissions number for the relevant age group of 300 and received 982 applications for the year 7 intake. Mrs B’s daughter did not receive an offer of a place at the school and it is fault. Mrs B appealed and her case was considered by the admissions appeal panel.
The panel heard Mrs B's appeal in May 2022. The school's case set out the reasons why it considered the admission would cause prejudice. That included: the limitations of the school in terms of class sizes and arrangements; concerns about the implication for the education of students if more were admitted; health and safety issues; inability to carry out education in the way that is planned within the school; implications for students being able to take part in practical activities at the same time; lack of space; the implications for students with autism of a more crowded environment; the financial implication of having to appoint new members of staff; and the impact on the quality of education offered to year seven pupils.
Mrs B put forward her grounds of appeal. Mrs B made clear her daughter was keen to join the school due to the dance opportunities it provided as Mrs B’s daughter was a keen dancer and had already passed many dance examinations at distinction level. Mrs B also referred to her eldest daughter who attended the school following an appeal in 2019, referring to the fact that both daughters wanted the same opportunities. Mrs B said if her daughter was admitted to the school her two daughters could then take part in productions together and after-school lessons and travel home safely together.
The panel did not uphold the appeal. In the decision-making part of the meeting the panel said it was satisfied the Council had made ‘quite a strong case that admitting another child at the school would cause prejudice’. The panel noted that there were two schools close to the home address which offered the opportunity for dance GCSE and Duke of Edinburgh awards. The panel recorded its view that Mrs B’s daughter would be able to continue her dancing career if she did not attend the school as her parents would be able to find an alternative way for her to dance. The panel also noted that Mrs B had chosen not to express a preference for the other schools on offer with dance facilities and had not approached the Council to see whether there were any alternatives. The panel noted Mrs B had an older daughter at the school but recorded this did not provide any priority. The panel recorded its view was that the prejudice to the school outweighed the prejudice to Mrs B’s daughter.
In the letter to Mrs B, telling her about the outcome of the appeal, the Council explained the panel was satisfied the school’s published admissions arrangements complied with the mandatory requirements and had been correctly and impartially applied to Mrs B’s daughter. The letter explained the panel was satisfied the Council had proved allocating one more place to this year group would be detrimental to the education of all the children affected in terms of overcrowding, reduced teaching time and resources. The letter referred to the reasons Mrs B put forward for her daughter to attend the school but recorded the panel’s view that, on balance, the reasons put forward did not outweigh the prejudice to the school in admitting an additional pupil.
Analysis Mrs B is concerned about whether the school admissions appeal panel properly considered her case. Mrs B is particularly concerned because she says she appealed on behalf of her elder daughter in 2019 for the same school on the same grounds and that appeal was successful. Mrs B therefore does not understand how a different appeal panel could reach a different decision. I understand Mrs B’s confusion here. However, each appeal panel has to consider each appeal on its own merits. Different appeal panels can reach a different decision based on the same evidence, although it is unlikely the evidence from the school was exactly the same in this case given the passage of three years. The issue is therefore with whether the admissions appeal panel properly considered Mrs B’s appeal in this case.
I am concerned about how the panel reached the view that admitting another pupil to the school would cause prejudice. The notes from the appeal panel meeting are limited and record only that the panel was satisfied the Council had made ‘quite a strong case that admitting another child to the school would cause prejudice’. There is nothing in those notes to explain why panel took that view or what it had particularly relied on in reaching that conclusion. Failure to record the panel’s reasoning in the decision-making part of the meeting is fault. In light of that I cannot find the panel properly weighed up the prejudice to both parties.
I recognise the letter, telling Mrs B about the outcome of her appeal, provided some additional detail. That letter said the panel was satisfied allocating an additional place at the school would be detrimental to the education of all the children affected in terms of overcrowding, reduced teaching time and resources. However, even that explanation is not detailed and, in any event, the information provided in the decision letter does not reflect the notes from the appeal panel hearing. I am therefore not satisfied the admissions appeal panel properly considered the appeal in this case. I therefore recommend the Council hold a further appeal, with new panel members.
Recommended action Within a month of this decision, the Council should: apologise to Mrs B for the fault in the way the panel considered her appeal; and arrange for a new admissions appeal hearing with new panel members to consider Mrs B’s case.
Draft decision Subject to further comments from Mrs B or the Council, I intend to complete my investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman