Faith School Appeal

I very much agree with PatriciaHolm and Lougle.

The appeal - and the weighing up of the arguments for and against admitting - have to centre on the child’s needs. The panel will pay attention to your preference for a faith school, but that’s straying from what the appeal’s really about (and, as I’ve said before, the apparent flaw in your argument here is that you opted out of worship for two years, despite Zoom services being offered).

It's so hard because I'd love to say 'yes, that will do it.' but the reality is that having been a panel member, they are accountable for their decisions and they can't just allow an appeal because the parents really really want it.

You can use as many arguments as you want to and the panel will consider them all. What you need to be careful of, though, is weakening your stronger grounds by giving the impression that you're throwing everything and anything in.

What, specifically, is it that the preferred school does that sets it apart from other schools? All schools are required to have a broadly Christian character (unless they have applied for a variation based on their school population).

I suspect a Panel (I sit on appeals panels) will see your faith argument as a weak one, as I said earlier. That's not to say it has no merit at all, but it's weak, and you would be relying on the schools' case being very weak too (and that of any other appellant).

The crux is that you need to show the detriment to your daughter to not attending is greater than the detriment to the school of taking another child. Your desire for your daughter to have a faith education is a consideration, but her faith can be easily supported outside of school. If the school presents a decent case, they are likely to win.

Also; do you have any evidence that this type of education is important to her and not just to you? I don't say that to be rude, but that is what the panel will be looking at; the detriment to her, not to you.

I think you will struggle arguing faith"need"when you effectively opted out of participation for two years. Focus on the other things which set it apart for her.

Waiting last may well be held by the school itself rather than LA. You can ask your dd place but did the letter suggest she would automatically have been put on it? If not, you may need to contact them to do so.

May I ask what your reasons were for not attending during the pandemic?

I mentored briefly a child in the position of the younger child here and it had a dreadful effect on her mental health and self esteem, as well as friendships.

Op if you are genuinely thinking this: Please don't. Your younger dd needs to be at school with her friends and not have to worry about her sister. Although you probably won't think it will, but it will adversely effect their relationship if she feels that she has to look after them.

As others have said, the admissions process and any subsequent appeals have to be concerned with the letter of the oversubscription criteria as, otherwise, subjective interpretations can distort matters and introduce unfairness.

Nothing about the SIF sounds as if it has been dealt with incorrectly and (kindly) your reasons for not attending Zoom services are unlikely to convince the panel. Better to muster other arguments about why the preferred school can meet your younger child’s needs in ways that the allocated one can’t.

If you want to rely on the argument about your older child’s mental health needs, you will need a letter from a health care professional confirming what those needs are and that your younger child’s attendance at the school is essential to them. Even then, I think the panel might find this problematic, because the appeal is about your younger child’s needs, not the sibling’s.

Are there any additional guidelines on the school website for attendance during the period while the church was closed?
If the reason you were unable to attend church in 2020/1 during the limited period(s) it was open(before August 2021) were health related (including mental health) then I would add this to your case.
I know a family who won an appeal for 2021 entry, who were initially declined a sibling place due to low church attendance that year, who won an appeal. This was based on the fact that a family member was shielding during the pandemic.

our desired school particularly excels in the areas that are important to our daughter.
Which daughter? I still have concerns for dd1 who I don't think is going to be seen as a person in her own right but solely there to meet needs of her elder sister.

"General question: do the activities, clubs etc that are important to DD2 have to be unique to that school i.e. not provided by the school we've been offered? Do we have to evidence the importance of such a topic? Desirable but may be tricky. I will have a think"

I suppose it depends why you think the club is important. If both schools have the same club, then you can't say she's better off at school B because school A doesn't have the club. However, if school A has a music club run by an unqualified but enthusiastic member of staff and school B has a music club run by a peripatetic music teacher, you could argue that she'd be better at school B.

You can't say that school B has such and such club and then just ignore the point that school A has the same club. You'd have to find a reason why the club at school B is better or more suited to your DD than the same club at school A.

You don't have to have any evidence for why a club would be good for your child. However, bear in mind that where a school has more appeals for places than it can reasonably accommodate, then the panel will weigh up the strength of each appellant's argument to decide which children, if any, get a place. So a child who has strong evidence (e.g. child has been learning Mandarin since age 5 and school B has a Mandarin club but school A doesn't) will be more likely to get a place than a child with weak evidence (e.g. both schools offer a dance club but we like school B better).

Where is she on waiting list?

But would the importance of the Christian ethos not be self evident from the SIF? Are you not laying yourself open to questions about why that criteria was not met of it were so important to her? It could be interpreted that having got one child in you took it for granted the second would follow and the faith itself became less of a priority

[quote RussianSpy101]@AeroMocha no that wouldn’t wash. Many families decide to attend church for a year during Y5- Y6 and it’s not hard to figure out why. The ones who actually want to be there will be.[/quote]
yes ,I totally see why just during year 5-6 wouldn't wash, and the reasons that families do this.

I was thinking more that if someone could evidence attendance from years nursery up to Year 4 or whatever, that's well over 2 years, just not the specific two years in question. In some ways that seems like a family more interested in the faith side of things (setting aside the question of why they didn't/couldn't attend during covid) - so I thought there might be a loophole if the criteria didn't specify exact which two years it had to be!!

Of coruse, evidence many years of previous attendance wouldn't have been easy either, if there was a new priest in place who didn't know the family.

"At issue is whether the family has been regular worshipers (at least twice a month) or 'at the heart of the church' for at least 2 years prior to application."

Unfortunately there have to be objective criteria and if the criteria was attendance, you don't meet it.

Focus on why the school is important for your DD2. I wouldn't try to suggest that she's vital for your DD1, tbh, because the panel will see a thousand holes in that argument.

Presumably you knew "attendance" was important evidence for the Supplementary form, having already had a child apply successfully. Others managed it during lockdown, even with the change of clergy and format.

@AeroMocha no that wouldn’t wash. Many families decide to attend church for a year during Y5- Y6 and it’s not hard to figure out why. The ones who actually want to be there will be.

At issue is whether the family has been regular worshipers (at least twice a month) or 'at the heart of the church' for at least 2 years prior to application.

Is that the actual wording? If so, is there any scope for arguing that you have been regular worshippers for at least 2 years, prior to application - just not the specific 2 years most recently prior to the application?! No idea if this would be any kind of argument, and not an admissions expert, but just curious - it seems like the sort of slightly woolly wording that might be exploitable (whether that's moral or not is another story!).

The church have been reasonable.. you didn’t attend when you had the chance and didn’t attend the zoom sessions either.

If religion is important to you, not engaging by zoom was probably a misstep.

From the other side, if it mattered, you would have connected.

Her older sister has a health condition (mental health related) which my youngest daughter is playing a key role in supporting with. The argument here being that her inability to help and support her older sibling (travelling to and from school together, spending breaks/lunch etc together and having some commonality in education) would be of significant detriment to her @NorthernDad2022
Is your younger daughter happy with this? To not be allowed to become an individual in her own right at school? To make friends and attend clubs and activities? What happens at evenings, weekends and holidays? Is she allowed to do these then?@NorthernDad2022

It sounds like the Admissions Authority haven't made a mistake, in the sense that the SIF was filled in correctly, and administered correctly; you didn't attend, either physically or remotely, for the period required, so the form was filled in correctly. I understand your reasons, but I think an appeals panel might question why you didn't engage with the Zoom services, given how important attendance was normally to your family, and to school admissions. There is no scope for the Priest to make a value judgement here - either you attended, or you didn't.

So your appeal will be on the grounds of prejudice; that the prejudice to your child of not attending will be greater than the prejudice to the school of taking another child.

I think your arguments, as they stand, are fairly weak, but then the school's may be too. It could be said that if you are already a faith family, that side of your lives could easily be supported outside of school, and your daughters have already been separated for a year at least in different schools. It would be good to have them together, but that's not a strong argument. You need to identify other elements that the school offers that will be of benefit to your daughter - clubs? subjects? specialisms?

However, the school's case may also not be strong - you need to identify whether they have gone over PAN in other years, which would demonstrate that they can cope with more children. The school should give you all the relevant information for your appeal.