The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: A parent complained about the way the school admission appeal panel considered her appeal regarding a place for her daughter at a grammar school. But we do not have reason to investigate the complaint as there is insufficient evidence of fault by the panel.
The complaint
The complainant, who I shall call Mrs D, complained that the school admission panel did not properly consider her appeal about the refusal of a place for her daughter (E) at a grammar school (‘the School’). Mrs D complained in particular that the panel did not take enough account of a medical incident which affected E’s performance in one of the entrance tests. She also said the panel did not adequately explain its reasons for concluding that evidence of E’s suitability for a grammar school education was not sufficiently compelling.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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 organisations, including school admission appeal panels, make their decisions. If there is no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered the information Mrs D provided with her complaint and documents from her appeal which were provided by the Council. In addition I took account of the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Applicants for a place at the School must take an entrance test comprising papers in English, Maths and Science, with each one worth 100 marks. To be successful, an applicant must obtain a minimum of 180 marks in total as well as achieving 60 marks or above in at least two of the subject tests.
E scored over 180 marks in total, but she only exceeded 60 marks in one of the subject papers. Therefore the Council turned down Mrs D’s application for E’s admission. Mrs D then appealed about this decision, but the appeal panel did not uphold her case.
Appeal panels must follow the law when considering an appeal. The panel must consider whether: the admission arrangements comply with the law; the admission arrangements were properly applied to the case.
The panel must then consider whether admitting another child would cause prejudice to the school in question and to the education of others. If the panel finds there would be prejudice it must then consider the appellant’s individual arguments. If the panel decides the appellant’s case outweighs the prejudice to the school, it must uphold the appeal.
But where an appeal concerns a child who has failed a grammar school entrance test, the panel must first decide if there is good evidence the pupil meets the required academic standard for admission to the grammar school.
The panel which heard Mrs D’s appeal decided the School’s admission arrangements were lawful and had been properly followed in E’s case. It also accepted the School’s case on prejudice. But I consider the panel had good reason to reach those conclusions based on the information presented to it.
Mrs D’s appeal case mainly related to the medical issue E suffered during one of the tests which she said impaired her ability to do the test and meant she lost time. Mrs D felt E would have achieved the 60-mark threshold if not for this problem. She complained that the panel should have explored this incident and the impact it had on E in more detail.
But ultimately it was the panel’s job to consider the information it received from both parties to the appeal and to reach its own view about what weight to give to the opposing cases.
I consider that the appeal clerk’s notes from the hearing and decision making, and the panel’s decision letter, are evidence that the panel understood and took appropriate account of the entrance test issue in reaching its view about Mrs D’s appeal. So I am not convinced there is sign of fault by the panel in this respect. As we may not question the merits of an appeal panel’s decision unless there was fault in the process which may have affected that decision, I do not see that we have grounds to pursue this aspect of Mrs D’s complaint any further Mrs D was also felt the panel had not justified its view that E was not of the required academic standard to be suitable for a grammar school education.
But I note the panel considered relevant information about E’s abilities before reaching its view about this matter, including E’s test results, the Headteacher’s analysis of those results, and reports from her current school. In my view the clerk’s notes and the panel’s decision letter indicate the panel gave due consideration to that evidence and reached a reasoned decision based on the information provided. In the circumstances I do not see sign of fault to warrant our intervention regarding this matter.
Final decision
We will not start an investigation of Mrs D’s complaint about the way the school admission appeal considered her appeal about a place for her daughter at a grammar school. This is because there is not enough sign of fault by the panel to justify our further involvement.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman