Primary school admission appeal panel hearing

[cujey]

Hi guys I wanted some light on what others think about my situation any comments or insights would be appreciated.

I just had an appeal hearing for my son today for an infant class for reception. The case put forward by the LA was that it was a Infant class prejudice. I was consequently allocated to another school which had negative consequences for my child due to social grounds relating to my child. Also my grounds of appeal included the school allocated is relocating in January 2011 and the distance used is incorrect as they did not used the new school site address. The school that I wanted my child attend to had an admission policy of 45 per set year and these year groups will progress from reception and move on to years one and two. The LA was putting forward how by placing my son would exceed the infant class size of 30. This is completely false as I have explained earlier the PAN is 45, this is then divided into classes of 22 and 23 and they are not taught in mixed age classes and to sum up quickly each year group in the foundation years (reception, year one, year two) have only two classes of 22 and 23. This was confirmed to me by the school office manager but not stated in the school appeal impact statement. as well as stated in the school ofsted report.

My hearing was treated quite unfairly as the school in legal terms is not full and the LA used false information to make claims. The panel gave precedence to the LA and ushered me to speak quickly indirectly I felt quite intimated by this and did finish what I had to say when asked if I had anything else to say.

I would appreciate what people can advise me what options I have. I am preparing for the worst as I have not heard the outcome.

[cujey]

*fourth line sentence correction 'and did not finish what'

[prh47bridge]

Cujey - There are a number of points here, some of which are irrelevant. Firstly, forget your point about the allocated school relocating. They have used the correct address for measurements relating to September 2010 admissions as the school hasn't relocated yet. In any case, unless your first choice school has unusual admission criteria the distance to your second choice school is entirely irrelevant.

If this is an infant class size case as the LA claim the social grounds are also irrelevant. You can only win an infant class size case if the LA has made a mistake.

The interesting question is whether or not this is an infant class size case. I would normally expect that a school with an admission number of 45 would do something like having 2 classes in Reception but then 3 classes covering Y1 and Y2 with 30 children in each class, in which case infant class size regulations would apply. However, you say that is not the case at this school.

The LA's written case should have included a class arrangement showing how many classes there are and how many children in each class. If this was not included in the LA's evidence it was a serious shortcoming, especially as they were saying this was an infant class size case. If they gave incorrect evidence it is even worse.

Note that stating that the school operates 2 classes in each foundation year only means they operate 2 classes in Reception (plus any attached nursery). Y1 and Y2 are Key Stage 1, not Foundation.

If you lose the appeal on infant class size grounds and you are certain that the school operates two classes in Reception, Y1 and Y2 you should refer the matter to the Local Government Ombudsman. A letter from the school confirming the current class arrangement would be useful if you can get it.

The fact that you felt you weren't given a proper chance to present your case is not good. However, if they asked you if you had said everything you wanted to say and you said yes, it will be difficult to persuade the LGO to overturn the appeal on these grounds. You can try but your chances of success depend on whether or not you can convince the LGO that you weren't allowed to present your case properly.

[admission]

This is a potential infant class size case. What has not been explained properly at appeal to you is that it is based on future class size prejudice.

Whilst i would fully accept that with a PAN of 45 and two reception classes of 22 and 23, they are not full, the situation is that in years 1 and 2, there will be 3 classes of 30 pupils. One will be a year 1 class, one will be a year 2 class and one will be a mixture of year 1 and year 2. Those 3 classes all have to meet the Infant Class Size Regs of not having more than 30. That is the future prejudice which makes it an infant class size case. It does not matter if year 1 and year2 do not have 45 in each year group, it is the theoretical potential for this to be the case that is considered.

However you have described a different scenario, where reception, year 1 and year 2 have two classes per year group, with 22 and 23 in them. That is very definitely not an infant class size case and the LA have really got themselves in a mess over the ICS Regs in this scenario.

As PRH says if you absolutely can prove that there are 6 classes across the 3 year groups, then that is a case to take to the LGO. I suspect that your use of foundation to describe all three year groups means that you are in Wales. Whilst there are differences in admission law, that around ICS regs is the same for both england and wales, but you would need to go to the Public Services Ombudsman for Wales in Cardiff.

[cujey]

prh47bridge and admiision - many thanks for your comments just to clarify my appeal with what was mentioned.

The appeal is an infant class future prejudice, as put forward by the LA representative. I am 100% sure that this isn't the case as in the admission appeal impact statement, there is no mention of mixed age teaching for KS1 or how their classes are organised only in depth talk of KS2 and exceeding the number in key stage 2 will provide real problems. I would like to also mention that there was nothing no data on the current class organisation for KS1 however for KS2 was provided which is irrelevant to my case. When I pointed this out as well as the ofsted report I was dismissed by the panel as not understanding Infant class size management. and the panel giving more weight to the LA that is how I felt in the appeal.

After the hearing I called the school that I was appealing against and pretended to be a prospective parent to actually lay claim officially by the school office manager about the class organisation of KS1. It was confirmed to me by the office manager that it is indeed not taught mixed age classes in KS1 and that in each year group (reception, Year 1, and year 2) have only 45 pupils who are divided into two classes. Thus there is only 6 classes in total with classes compromising numbers of 22 or 23. I emailed the office manager to confirm what we spoke about but haven't had any reply.

I am really angry how false information can presented at the the panel and not given scrutiny even when I had proof to counter argue the LA claims.

I hope I have made more clarification on my case

[prh47bridge]

If that was the LA's case then I'm afraid it is the panel that don't understand infant class size management. The size of classes in KS2 is irrelevant in an infant class size case. The LA may argue that going beyond 30 children in a class in KS2 is a problem but it is not against the regulations and many schools do it, so this would be a pretty weak argument. That would, in any case, be an ordinary prejudice case, not infant class size prejudice.

I would love to see the LA's written submission to the appeal in case there is something we are missing but if it is as you describe the panel should not have found infant class size prejudice. Did the letter giving their decision use the words "infant class size prejudice"? I wonder if the panel simply assumed there would be 3 classes covering Y1 and Y2 on the basis that this is the normal class arrangement for a school with an admission number of 30. However, they should not be making assumptions. If the LA wants to argue infant class size prejudice it is up to them to prove that admitting your son will cause a class in Reception, Y1 or Y2 to go over 30. In the absence of a class arrangement for those years they cannot do that.

If, as you say, the school is currently operating with 2 classes in Y1 and 2 classes in Y2 and has not made any decision to reduce the number of classes, this was not an infant class size prejudice case and you should definitely refer the matter to the LGO.

As I say, I would love to see the LA's written submission to make sure we aren't missing something here. If you would like me to take a look you can contact me on [email protected].

[cujey]

prh47bridge - below is the LA written submission hope it helps to clarify things.


ABC a 1 ½ forms of entry primary school with a standard number of 45. the organisation year on year is extremely complex and with a need for very careful management of class groups. By necessity two year groups at KS2 combine to make up classes of Y3/Y4 or Y5/6 (45 + 45 = 90 providing 3 classes of MIXED AGE). When any one cohort (year group) is allowed to exceed 45 we are provided with very real problems. when a pure year group exceeds 30 in number the teacher is challenged unnecessarily. Mixed age classes provide high level of challenge without exceeding 30. Classroom space in a building of 30. Realistically the physical space in KS2 classroom does not allow for an extra table or chairs to house the children let alone all the support equipment required for education today.

Successive decisions by appeal panels against the wishes and recommendations of the school may result in the following equation (49 + 49 = 98 resulting in classes of 33 x 2 and 32 respectively of mixed age children). As Head Teacher I have worked hard to control admissions to avoid this educationally damaging situation arising.
When I have been consulted by representatives of the appeal panels in advance of hearings I have strongly emphasised that we are organisationally full even though some cohorts may appear to have spaces. I have also gone to great lengths to explain that this school funds an additional class at KS to avoid a mixed age situation which is potentially difficult for children and teachers. This organisation can provide KS1 classes of 22 and 23 (45 divide 2) however this must not be regarded as under capacity because these cohorts will progress to KS32 with problems illustrated

[cujey]

Just got confirmation from the LA after much persistence over telephone and waiting in writing from an email about the Current class organisation of Infant classes.

Reception Year:

Class 1: 22 Class: 23

Year One:

Class 3: 22 Class: 23

Year Two:

Class 4: 22 Class: 23

the LA argument is in KS2 it becomes a problem that is when they are mixed age classes. So was my appeal an infant class size appeal/infant class prejudice? In essence was their any grounds of Infant class size appeal for the LA to refuse me.

[prh47bridge]

The argument the LA has given makes this an ordinary prejudice case, not infant class size. The organisation given is far from "extremely complex" and is in fact fairly standard. The argument that classes of more than 30 challenge teachers unnecessarily is weak given that many schools operate with larger classes (including mixed age groups) in KS2. The argument that there isn't enough space may carry some weight but it depends on the sizes of the classrooms, information that isn't given here. It is, of course, 3 years before your son would be in Y3 and anything can happen in that time. Almost certainly at least one child will leave which would immediately solve any problem caused by admitting your son. Overall I would say that this is a fairly weak case from the LA. However, the LA has not (at least in its written submission) mis-represented the position or presented false evidence. It is quite clear that they are talking about potential problems in KS2, not KS1.

This submission does not argue that this is an infant class size case nor is there any evidence that would support a finding that infant class size regulations apply. If the panel found that admitting your child would cause infant class size prejudice on the basis of this case they were wrong and you should definitely refer this to the LGO.

On the other hand, if the panel has dealt with it as an ordinary prejudice case they have decided that the prejudice to the school from admitting an additional pupil outweighs the prejudice to your son. Of the factors you raised in your initial posting only the social grounds would be considered. The stuff about distance to the allocated school is irrelevant. So the panel would presumably have decided that the social grounds did not outweigh the school's desire to ensure that classes in KS2 remained below 30.

It is up to the appeal panel to judge the relative strengths of your case and the LAs case. The LGO won't overturn the panel's judgement. They will only look at a case if there is something seriously wrong with the way the appeal was conducted or if the panel's decision was clearly contrary to the evidence.

Having said that, if this was dealt with as an ordinary prejudice case you clearly didn't understand what was happening in the appeal hearing. That is a serious failing. The panel and the clerk should make sure that you understand the LAs case and have the best possible chance to present your own case. It is just possible you could get the LGO to order a second appeal on those grounds, although I think it is a bit of a long shot.

Your case becomes a lot stronger if the clerk or any of the panel members made comments that indicate they were treating it as an infant class size case. And if the decision was made on the basis of infant class size prejudice I would be amazed if the LGO did not overturn it. Note, however, that the most likely outcome if the LGO does find that the panel got it wrong is that they will order a second appeal with a new panel.

The decision letter should have stated the reasons your appeal failed. What did it say?

[admission]

This is a mess.
Putting together your posts, my reading of the situation is that the LA Offical was pushing the suggestion of infant class size prejudice, while actually the data given, backed up by the head's comments is about the large mixed age classes that result in KS2.
Quite what the panel thought was going on I am not sure.
The key document becomes what exactly the rejection letter said following your appeal. The regulations are quite clear the letter must reflect the type of appeal.
If there is any mention of infant class size regs in it, then the panel either got it wrong or been very badly adviced. That should then go to the LGO.
If however there is no mention of ICS in the letter but it talks about the prejudice to the school in having large KS2 classes then I would say that the panel has come to the right conclusions that it was not ICS and decided the case as a normal appeal.
Is it possible to post the letter that you got?
I would have to say that whatever the truth of the matter it has been badly handled by the LA and the panel Chair - they should have made it quite clear how they were going to make the decisions. The normal process I would have adopted in such a situation would have been to call an adjournment and for the panel to decide whether it was ICS or not. This decision should then have been communicated to you and the LA and a decision made as to how to procede - it may have been that new paperwork was necessary with a new panel, if the original documentation did not accord with the reality.

[cujey]

admission and prh47bridge - again my sincere gratitude for your advice and comments

I had my hearing this Thursday 23rd September. I have not yet received the panels decision however I am very much in doubt of the outcome of the hearing, as the clerk and the LA representative stated my case at the beginning of the hearing as Infant class prejudice which the panel,the chairman simultaneously agreed. And to add insult, the LA and panel chairman tried convincing me that I did not comprehend the infant class organisation for the school when you can clearly see as stated by the school in the statement provided.

I have contacted the LGO and have advised me to wait for the outcome of the panel decision.

[prh47bridge]

If the clerk, the LA representative and the panel chairman said this was an infant class size case then a referral to the LGO is definitely called for as it clearly isn't. They have messed this up badly. If the decision goes against you I hope the letter clearly states that it was on infant class size prejudice grounds. If it does I would expect the LGO to overturn the verdict as it is clearly wrong. Infant class size regulations clearly do not apply in this case and there is nothing in the written evidence to suggest they do.

If the letter does not state infant class size prejudice you can still refer it to the LGO on the grounds that, whatever the decision says, the hearing was conducted on the basis it was an infant class size case. That might be a tougher one to win and a lot will depend on what the clerk's notes say.

As you've already found the LGO won't take the case until you've had the decision letter. Let us know what that says. I'm sure I can speak for Admission as well when I say that we'll be here if you need any help with taking this to the LGO.

For what it is worth I have experience of this kind of situation. When appealing for a place at the local primary school for our youngest the council argued that infant class size regulations applied and managed to get the appeal panel to agree with them although they were clearly wrong.

[cujey]

I have just received the panels verdict and I have been refused. I suspected this already and have already contacted the LGO to take this matter further.

As I Feared, my case has been treated as an infant class prejudice as quoted on my letter

'The Legal restriction on Infant Class Size Applied'

I would like to ask if anyone has been in my situation and what actions did they take and any advice would be very much appreciated.

[cujey]

I would like also know if anyone know about the 30days rule for receiving a appeal hearing as my one was lodged by the clerk on the 7 of July, and I was given an appeal hearing which took place on the 23 of September. Can I add to my argument of maladministration.

[BetsyBoop]

I would pass the details to the LGO ASAP, they have claimed ICS when it clearly isn't

the 30days is 30 school days though, so the summer holidays (or weekends) don't count unfortunately...

(I'm assuming we are talking about a "late" application here, not in the normal admissions round, I did check but couldn't see anything that confirmed that in the posts, but may have missed it... if it was an "on time" admission it should have been within 40 school days or the end of summer term, whichever was sooner)

[cujey]

BetsyBoop - I did apply through normal admissions round, so my application is not a late application. To clarify the 7th of July is when the Appeals Clerk confirmed receipt of my appeal.

[petelly]

I had something similar with the appeals panel wrongly assuming infant class size prejudice. I as appealing for a place at school with a PAN of 28 (due to classroom size). That's normal prejudice. When we got to the appeal, the school insisted it was ICSP and the panel agreed. I insisted that we suspend proceedings because we had no case under the ICSP so we had nothing to lose. It turned out that I was right and a second appeal was help under normal prejudice. It's extremely frustrating that so-called professionals can get it so wrong and face absolutely no consequences for their actions. There seems to be absolutely no accountability.

I also found the whole process intimidating. The school blatantly lied and behaved terribly, withholding information from me and providing me with false information when pushed. At the appeal, I was shouted at by the chair to the point where I was nearly in tears (I'm not used to being shouted at!). We lost the appeal in the end, no big surprise there (although by the end I hated the school so much I don't think I'd have sent my child there!).

Basically, if you feel the appeal was unjust, your only option is to turn to the LGO, as the others have said, who can overturn the decision. They can't award your child a place - they can only order a new appeal. I contacted them after the first appeal and they were very nice but said that there was nothing they could do since a new appeal was being set up.

I highly recommend that you turn to ACE. They provided me with fantastic advice with all the stuff that was going on with our appeal.

[admission]

The appeal date has to be within 30 school days of when the appeal was lodged. So if the appeal was lodged on the 7th July, the 30 school days would be well into September and I suspect that the 23rd was within the required timeframe. To be honest this pales into insignificance even if it over the 30 days in comparison with the apparent ineptitude over the ICS Regs.

The LGO is the correct next step who I hope will realise the stupidity of the claims being made by the LA.

Cujey would you say which LA it is, as I am always interested in knowing (being nosy) and also hoping that it is not an LA that I do appeals in!

[prh47bridge]

As others have said, the 30 days is 30 school days so summer holidays don't count. Even if they have exceeded the 30 days it isn't really relevant unless you can show that the delay disadvantaged you in some way. This case should be straightforward for the LGO so I would avoid bringing in additional issues unless they are really significant.

Having been in this situation myself with an LA trying to apply ICS regulations where they clearly weren't relevant, I've been through the process and know how it works.

The LGO will give you a case number and contact details for the person who will be investigating. I would recommend putting together a written case setting out clearly what has happened, including as much information as possible to show that the LA and the appeal panel have got it wrong. That will help the LGO understand the case, although to be honest this one is so clear cut that I doubt they will have much difficulty with it. You have my email address if you want any help. Like Admission, I would be interested in knowing which LA we are dealing with.