Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Secondary education

Connect with other parents whose children are starting secondary school on this forum.

Original poster

Plenary Hearing Today & Seems We Have Irregular Goings On With Admissins/Appeal ?

63 replies

RockinHippy · 01/05/2014 21:43

Lots of angry parents as a result & some excellent pointed questions asked - I'm glad I went along. It was interesting to say the least, but I didn't ask a question that maybe I should have, though maybe that can go in my favour now Confused it's daunting to say the least

Basically, thanks to a local news article slating our complicated local allocation pool system & our LA because a significant number of DCs who listed only the 2 schools in their catchment area which I didn't even realise you could do, as it's not clear in the booklet & I was given bad advice didn't get an offer of a catchment area school, which I now know putting only those 2 schools, guarantees a catchment area school - that number of children have now been split & both schools forced to take half each

This means that all the extra spaces in our chosen school, that would usually become available by other families turning down offers of places & going elsewhere - have now been absorbed by these children - given priority on catchment area only & not really allocated as part of the usual much bigger allocation pool

So it turns out that whilst all us appellants are frantically building our cases & gathering evidence together - the LA have given away the spaces we were most likely to have a chance of getting Hmm & as the panel were grilled by a several of parents! including a school governor from other school - he was good Grin

  • nothing in their information booklet or website says this is something they can do, so I suspect lots of complaints will be had, as it's soul destroying to sit there & suddenly realise that all number of appeals won in the past - is just not going to happen this year - even though when pinned down the chair of appeal said it would make no difference - but boy did he not want to answer that question - so I doubt anyone else believes it either :( & from the number of over PAN places the HT agreed he would comfortably take - the number of appeals won is going to be very low this year :(

No-one asked if they acted illegally by giving priority to catchment area DCs only - we have catchment area & strong medical grounds, with a ton of good supportive evidence - though the only medical grounds allowed in at admissions stage - were statemented DCs - everything else was ignored Hmm

I'm wondering if this could be considered as disability discrimination ? - I thought of asking the question, but wasn't feeling good myself & sort of hoped if no one else was asking it, maybe we are the only ones with strong medical grounds too, so have a better chance of what looks likely to be only 4 appeals won [hopeful]

Hope that makes some sense - long day & I didn't sleep well last night - this is a huge deal for us, as DD just can't travel to the other schools :-/

OP posts:
Original poster
RockinHippy · 03/05/2014 19:43

That reads badly - DD has had no less than 6 weeks BETWEEN injuries, though often less

OP posts:
Original poster
RockinHippy · 03/05/2014 19:38

Thanks Admisions

It's reassuring to know that it's not just me that's finding the whole thing & the admissions booklet very difficult to understand, I've read & re-read & just couldn't see where they guaranteed a place in catchment IF you put only both schools - despite one of those 2 schools not being great as far as behaviour & bullying go, academically etc they are equal, so I would have put only those 2 schools myself had I realised doing otherwise meant we could be allocated anywhere, especially such a bad school so far away. Even our other catchment school would have been better - at least it's still under control of our LA so a useable complaints procedure to follow etc, unlike the Academy we have been allocated

I read the leaflet as you have, as recommended to put 3 choices & I was also advised by DDs old HT to not put less that 3 preferences & with only 2 schools in our catchment area, I found out afterwards, that putting schools out of catchment was the reason we were allocated a school so far away - but all schools even this one are less than the 75minute journey you mention, so going by your understanding of this & also the parents questioning the panel at the Plenary hearing, there is no reason to justify giving those 22 places away at all, but justify it they didHmm

Excuse me I'm dealing with migraine right now, so hope I'm replying to everything,

The PAN given at the PH was 330 - 332 places now taken. So the extra 10 spaces taken were explained as places that have already become available, via the offer of this school being turned down, which is usual, because of some DCs accepting places at local private grammars, getting a 1st preference elsewhere, moving etc etc - this school having been allocated 12 DCs & the other 10 was explained as the 22 DCs were put into an allocation pool (hmm) for both schools, which resulted in a set of twins getting a place at each school, parents made a fuss & therefore ended up being allowed to choose the best of the 2 schools.

Last year there was 19 places allocated at appeal last year & 30 the year before, which meant an extra class, but no room for that now & the school is arguing for a lot less this year as say it has caused them issues, especially as they've had a lot more Statemented DCs allocated this year - though the Govenor who grilled them, did get them to admit that it's still less than the national average of SEN for a school that size, so not much of an argument - he also got them to admit, that despite overcrowding, they have a very low level of accidents too - The behaviour at this school is noticeably better than others, hence why amongst other reasons, we need it for DD as she is vulnerable to injury & for a large part due to unruly behaviour at her last primary school. Up until we removed her from that school in early February, she has spent no less than 6 weeks without a cast, sling, neck collar or crutches in the last 3 years.

I've since found out that at least one of those 12 DCs actually lives closer to the school they were allocated, which still has 35 spaces - but due to catchment boundaries being moved, where now in catchment for the school we are appealing for & the other school in our catchment - we on the other hand, at the opposite side of this catchment area, have no schools closer, bar a faith school that is equal distance & was our second choice school, but is also massively oversubscribed, so would stand no chance at an appeal.

I didn't get a response to my call where I was wanting information as to perhaps us being able to use an educational lawyer for our appeal hearing etc (friend of a legal friend) so as it's bank holiday weekend, & less than a week to our appeal date when they reopen, I suspect it's going to be too late anyway, but I'm taking DSIL along with me as back up & she is a legal Secretary and can be a bit of a Rottweiler if needed

The whole thing now just feels very very daunting as a huge number of us (nearly 60) appealing for what is likely to be a very small number of places & though I know I have done my homework, have lots of very good supporting evidence, even medical letters naming the school ec & stating DD needs the shortest possible journey to school, good pastoral care, mentions how badly she has been affected by bullying etc etc etc - I have no idea what the rest of those families have & we really do not have another choice of school, DD gets sick with a 15 minute car/bus journey, there's no way she can arrive at school able to cope after a 35/45 minute bus journey, probably over an hours journey each way by the time she's walked to bus stops etc :( - it's pretty scary right now

OP posts:
admission · 02/05/2014 18:30

I have to say having looked at the LA website that this is a mess and very difficult to understand. This is what I think it means.
What the full admission book says (and that is what should be considered the agreed process) is that if you are within the catchment of two schools, the LA will do their best to ensure that you are offered a place at one of these schools, as long as you list preferences at both of the schools in your catchment area. That is page 22 under catchment areas. However where the admission criteria is detailed it does not make any reference to this very important fact. That is not a guarantee of a place.
My reading of the admission process therefore is that for each admission category a list will be drawn up. So when it comes to the catchment zone category you will have three preferences and two of them could be in the same catchment zone. To agree the order within that category the computer lottery draw takes place. So by my logic there will be a list of every person who wanted that school and was in zone. The initial allocation of places has to be upto the PAN of the school.
There is a statement about how places were offered on the LA website and this is where these figures come from. So one of the schools involved has a PAN of 270. 63 places were offered before the catchment category and 207 places were offered in that category. There were in fact 568 pupils who were in catchment and expressed a preference for the school but because many were allocated higher preferences, there were only 23 pupils in catchment who could not be offered a place. At the other school in the catchment there were apparently 136 pupils in catchment who could not be offered a place. Apparently according to this report 22 pupils who applied for both the schools have not been offered a place at the catchment schools.
That all seems to make some sense and we are saying that because 22 had specified both schools as preferences, there were in fact 137 pupils who were in catchment who were not offered a place at either of the two schools.
It then appears that the 22 were offered a place because they listed both preferences. That is illegal for two reasons. Firstly because it is not in the admission criteria and only says they will do their best to get places. However the second reason is a further twist under my reading of the admission criteria in that the way that the admission criteria is written if the LA made a decision (which they can with the school's agreement) to admit 22 extra pupils then they should have allocated 11 places to both schools and run a second lottery run, as per their reallocation pool. It must not be the 22 with preferences at both schools. So 22 have been offered a place incorrectly and therefore for 22 pupils there is maladministration because if process had been correctly carried out they would have been offered the place. The problem is that there was no lottery run, so order generated, so how would the appeal panel decide who had been denied a place.

What this should mean is that the two schools are now both 11 places over the PAN. But from you posts this does not seem to be the case. What were the figures quoted at the plenary?
You also said that the LA will not admit pupils when a place allocated becomes available. This is I am afraid standard policy, because you cannot admit over PAN unless the school specifically agrees it.

Original poster
RockinHippy · 02/05/2014 13:45

Thank you,

They are definitely in breach of the admissions code - possible even more so as those 22 DCs were part of 115 families city wide who did not get allocated any preference at all - ourselves included

I have just rang Appeals & queried the missing documents - the guy I spoke with has said that he was puzzled by the missing copy if a DWP booklet I originally submitted with our application, but that maybe the original admissions assessors rejected it Hmm but that the documents put through by email on Wed & Thurs would have been missed as they printed off everything that day, but he is now going to make sure they are included & sent off the the panel before our hearing -

Though not sure the Thurs document will be taken very seriously as it's a sort of C.V of DDs Aptitudes & interests, including photos of winning artwork & her performing a gig at a recent local fete -etc etc - I put it together after the Plenal hearing & finding out there, that the school is no longer officially considered to be a "sports college"as it's just lost the funding - which was one of our arguments for getting her in, as she needs exercise to help her keep fit, she is when fit, very sporty too & they do have fantastic facilities, own state of the art gym & swimming pool etc etc

  • but I figured as they are also known for performing arts/arts in general & have an amazing music dept, something DD was blown away by & I've not so far played on her talent there, figured I had nothing to lose - even if it does look a bit PFB/tackyBlush

I also requested a copy of the minutes of the Plenal hearing & will put that in an email to the Clerk of Appeal too, I want to get it all in writing from THEM, so they can't deny it was all said in a complaint situation - along with another copy of the first missing document too

Also going to look into possible legal representation, can't really afford it, but starting to think we might not really have a choice - even looking at the fact that they can't legally ignore the waiting list when places become available, it's still will be a fight & after the year we've had, I am just fed up with fighting the LA as regards schooling - I also have health problems & it's taking it's toll :-/

OP posts:
prh47bridge · 02/05/2014 13:08

As they've only gone a little over PAN that won't affect appeals too badly. But the fact remains that any places that became available due to people rejecting offers should have been offered to the waiting list as I outlined above. If they have given priority to those families who didn't get any of their preferred schools they are in breach of the Admissions Code.

Regarding the waiting list, my view is that if a pupil leaves and they don't offer the place to the waiting list it is open to parents on the waiting list to appeal and argue that there is no prejudice to the school in remaining over PAN.

I would ring them to enquire about the appeal pack. It may be that they plan to send out the additional information later, although it is odd that they are missing bits from the original application. You don't want to be put in the situation of turning up on the day with evidence the panel hasn't seen.

Original poster
RockinHippy · 02/05/2014 12:30

Thank you Prh4 & tiggy

tiggy thanks for that info - ridiculous isn't it, I've got to admit I'm pretty ignorant as regards SENs - I stupidly thought they were only for learning difficulties only & remember our friends whose son is Autistic fighting & being refused a SEN for him - makes sense now when the LA have to take medical needs into consideration if they have a SEN, but not otherwise - ironically, he got his first choice school - the other in our catchment & they've had to remove him & his DIS due to poorly managed & serious bullying & they are part of the reason we don't want DD going there

& thanks for taking the time & trouble to look into it prh4

I've just checked my iPad notes from yesterday's meeting & yes they have gone over PAN by 2 students as a result of these DCs being forcibly allocated to the school we are appealing for by the LA - this was as a result of twins according to what we were told yesterday, they ended up taking more DCs than the other in catchment school - it's also quite probable that because of the change in catchment area birders - for some of those DCs, other schools may be closer to their homes - which isn't the case with us Hmm & there are 35 spaces still available at a school that is that side of town & was the old catchment area for some Angry

Very interesting how you read the allocation information too, as the LA representatives yesterday argued strongly that the info booklets were clear & this was allowed - parents arguing heatedly that it wasn't!

Also interesting & a real worry as to how you view their plans for not placing any further DCs from the yr 7 waiting list in the school until the school is back down to its PAN - it's now already 2 over PAN & I would imagine as the HT admitted (after a grilling from a governor who is an appellant parent Grin ) that they can comfortably take 4 more over PAN without it affecting education - so if we don't win our appeal, we have at least 6 DCs leaving the school before we have a hope of getting in :(

I'm kicking myself, we had the opportunity for a bursary/scholarship to a very local, very good private Grammar, - DD didn't want to go there & having chatted with friends with DCs there, one who left to join the school we are appealing for - we realised that DD just wouldn't cope well there because they have a much longer school day & a lot of homework that must be done every night & due to hormones, her health is set to get worse over the next few years - I would much rather her nearby & a long day in a good school, than a long day travelling to a bad school that just won't meet her needs at all - hindsight is a wonderful thing :(

Though as far as we go it's been a farce all through - I was originally told I had to have all evidence in 5 working days before our personal hearing - on ringing up to make sure emails were getting to the right desk - I was then told I had to have it all in by yesterday

Just received our copy of the appeal pack - the evidence I emailed on Wednesday & Yesterday is not included & a few other bits missing from the original application too Hmm

I will definitely complain - but right now I just don't know what to do for the best, in the hope of securing a place for DD very noisy roadworks outside not making thinking easy either Shock -

Ironically the LA representative at the Plenal Hearing is the same woman who played a big part in making a space for DD at another oversubscribed local primary school, after we were forced to remove her from her old primary school after Xmas as she was getting injured too often & was a complete nervous & depressed mess due to bullying - This new school is also one that deals well with bullying & is known for good behaviour & excellent pastoral care - which is exactly why we need this High School for DD - you couldn't make it up could you :(

OP posts:
tiggytape · 02/05/2014 10:40

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

prh47bridge · 02/05/2014 09:55

I've looked at all the documents. To say this LA is sailing close to the wind is putting it mildly.

They are using a lottery as the tie break for all schools where they are the admission authority. This looks like a possible breach of Admissions Code 1.34.

I can't see anything that says you are guaranteed a place at one of your catchment schools if you only list those as preferences. On the contrary, the admissions booklet seems to encourage people to use all their choices.

What seems to have happened is that some children named both catchment schools but failed to get a place at either of them and were therefore sent out of catchment to a school that wasn't one of their preferences. The LA has then reacted to anger from this group of parents by getting the catchment schools involved to admit the affected children.

The LA is allowed to increase PAN for these schools. However, if they do that they must admit from the waiting list. So for each school they should have put all the in catchment applicants on the waiting list into the pot then randomly selected the ones to be offered places. They could not exclude anyone from this simply because they had been allocated one of their preference schools. If they have admitted these children by increasing PAN they will, in my view, struggle to justify refusing to admit from the waiting list when pupils leave. And if they have not admitted from the waiting list correctly that is a clear case of maladministration which an appeal panel should consider.

The other possibility is that they have used their powers of direction to tell the schools to admit these children, presumably on the basis that they have been refused entry to every suitable school in a reasonable distance. Unless the schools allocated to these children involved a journey of 75 minutes plus each way this would, in my view, be a misuse of the powers of direction.

Unfortunately, whatever they say, the LA's actions may well have reduced your chances of a successful appeal. And if they do intend to refuse to admit from the waiting list until they get back down to PAN there could be a long wait.

If you lose your appeal you should definitely refer this to the LGO. You may also want to refer the admission arrangements to the Schools Adjudicator for a ruling on whether they are allowed to use random allocation as the tie break for all schools.

Original poster
RockinHippy · 02/05/2014 08:09

Reasonable PAN, not plan - autocorrect

OP posts:
Original poster
RockinHippy · 02/05/2014 08:07

That's interesting Ph47 - I think it might have been you that told me the whole thing was against rules on an earlier thread - but now the LA have gone even further with making the rules up as they go alongAngry

I can't see it written anywhere that the guarantee it per se, I got caught out by not understanding that might even be a possibility - I only put one of our catchment schools down, as the other just isn't good for DD - issues there with poorly dealt with Bullying.

At the time I just read little scenarios, such as "Jenny put only x school down in the box & no other, so when they didn't get a place from the pool for that school, they then went into the allocation pool for all schools & were offered Y, school -

this is still what I think happened with us, as the online form didn't work with our computer & only gave one box fir school choice & wouldn't accept DDs name properly - our offer came in the name the form accepted & was emailed - they owned up to an error & then said differently - so nothing I can do about & did try via our MP - who was completely useless

But from the plenary hearing, they are using this scenario as if it's a guarantee of a catchment area place & have backed down to anger from this group of parents & the a story in the press - seems the LA moved the boundaries for these 2 popular schools in the last 2 years, but even though warned they were warned that would mean there wasn't enough places at both schools for the larger catchment area - whole thing looks like one big cock up Hmm

The other thing they have said, that they are now doing & have already promised the school, is that any places that become available in this year year 7 in future, won't be filled from the waiting list, so as to allow the school numbers to drop back down to a reasonable plan

To us, that means we are really shafted if we don't win our appeal - DDs health problems (Ehlers Danlos, with the POTs & frequent injuries it brings) mean she really can't travel far, one of the other 2 close schools isn't suitable because they don't deal well with bullying & DD sufferers with physical symptoms of anxiety & we've just been through all of that & had to take her out of a primary school until a new place was found for her elsewhere - & we have no chance if our second chance school as it's hugely oversubscribed this year with Catholics, who get priority there

So my back up plan was going to have to be homeschool & keep her on the list & keep plugging for a space as they come up - that now, thanks to the LA changing the system, isn't an option :(

I'm going to ring AMAZE today to see if they have anyone legal who can advise as to whether us being catchment & strong medical needs & now having less chance of a place thanks to this change of plan by the LA is effectively disability discrimination - I have submitted so many doctors & specialist letters detailing DDs problems, they just can't ignore it - but they have :(

I will pm the details to you too.

OP posts:
prh47bridge · 02/05/2014 00:47

I would also be very interested to know which LA this is. I cannot think of a way they can legally guarantee a school in the catchment area to anyone. And saying that you will definitely get a place at one of these two schools provided they are the only schools named as preferences sounds like a direct breach of the Admissions Code.

Original poster
RockinHippy · 01/05/2014 23:02

Hi admissions

Thanks for replying, I will PM you the link & news article

But to clarify - they don't guarantee a place at a particular school - but a school in our catchment area - IF you only list the 2 schools in our catchment area & not 3 schools that the firm tells you too

OP posts:
admission · 01/05/2014 22:37

I am very interested in knowing which LA we are talking about here and looking at their admission criteria. The reason I say that is that I would expect an admission criteria that guarantees a place to be illegal but I think I need to see the absolute wording. Maybe best to PM me with the information on school and LA.
If it is wrong then those pupils allocated places under that scheme have got them illegally. Now it would be unrealistic to expect the admission authority to take the places off them - though if we take a literal reading of the 2012 admission regs, there was a mistake made and so they can be striped of their places. But I would not want to be the person who suggested that!
So the panel is left with trying to establish who are the appellants with a strong enough case to overcome the prejudice to the school and then whether the school can accept all these pupils or not.