APPEAL TOMORROW!!

Admission authorities are required to take all reasonable steps to ensure that all appeals for a particular school are heard by the same panel. It increasingly feels like this school is making it up as it goes along.

@Hye000
I've been waiting for your news.
I can't believe you're having to go through this.
It doesn't sound right at all.
As if it isn't stressful enough!

This is crazy and implies a huge breach of the Appeals Code. Send the Appeals Officer an email setting out what she has just told you so that you've got it in writing. If you lose, you can use this to try and get a fresh hearing as it clearly implies that the panel were making decisions as they went along, which is not allowed. They should not have made any decisions until all appeals had been heard.

As prh says, the code says " The panel must communicate the decision of each appeal, including the reasons for that decision, in writing to the appellant, the admission authority and the local authority. The clerk or chair must sign the decision letter and send it to the parties as soon as possible after the hearing but not later than five school days, unless there is good reason."

Realistically, good practise means they should be sent together, but that's not stated in the code.

There is nothing that specifically says all appeal letters must be sent at the same time, but they should all be sent by the fifth school day following the final hearing unless there is a good reason.

educationhub.blog.gov.uk/2023/03/07/secondary-school-offer-appeals-everything-you-need-to-know/

On this link it states that it may take longer than 5 school days for results if there are a lot of appeals.

It's also not unknown for harassed heads to say 'Oh, I'll see what I can do' to get people off their case, knowing that in reality, there is no way on earth they're instructing the much put upon Admissions person to break Admissions Law and keep it secret so that Governors do not find out about it (as the Clerk/Governance Professional would also be obliged to report the lawbreaking, never mind the Governors themselves).

As it is, Governors on a ranking committee withdraw specifically when they have knowledge of a particular candidate - including the Headteacher - even when the rankings have been anonymised, just it case it could be interpreted as sitting on the committee without withdrawal, even when the list is anonymised, is dodgy/a conflict of interest - and whoever is actually responsible for handling the applications in school would be making it known if they are being pressured by anybody.

I am not encouraging anyone to assume that is what happened. It is not only unethical, it is unlawful as it is a breach of the Admissions Code. I agree that most heads wouldn't do this, but I have come across cases where this has happened. And the question I was answering was whether there is anything the head can do.

Prh47bridge, it may not be "unknown" but it certainly isn't ethical, and it would require the school's admissions officer, and potentially governors (if the "exceptional circumstances" route was used) to conspire with the Head. So, please don't encourage anyone to assume that has happened! People who run schools are usually highly principled, as are people who sit on appeals panels.

Within the Admissions Code, there is nothing the head can do. However, it is not unknown for heads of schools that are their own admission authority to ignore the Admissions Code and admit a child that isn't at the head of the waiting list. The head definitely cannot reverse an appeal panel's decision to admit a child.

You're probably overthinking it and over-reacting to rumours. Just chill, and assume its a workload issue, if only for your own peace of mind.

The school is not allowed to actively support the case of an appellant.

@NeverDropYourMooncup yes, I do agree the simplest answers are normally the best!

It's also very possible that whoever was spoken to at the LA has the wrong end of the stick completely ;-)

It's only a possible suggestion for a delay as an alternative to a school is seeking a judicial review or a panel member not acting in good faith and therefore calling into question the outcome of all appeals heard by the panel. I would always tend to assume that logistics are behind any delay before something more nefarious or catastrophic. unless it's Harris.

I am very well aware of the amount of work that goes into panels, so I know the due respect is meant as exactly that, but sometimes clerks do try to accommodate their schools (and vice versa when the clerks are snowed under) when there's a 'Do you think you could possibly hold off until Monday?' request. Unfortunately, sometimes, particularly in the case of LA clerking and their Admissions Team, there can be far too high a workload and some interesting explanations for delays have also been heard that are actually nothing to do with the panel members or the school. Although going by the number of 'Just to let you know, I'm going on annual leave' emails received this week, I think our LA is finally experiencing a brief lull in the secondary section, having worked their backsides off for all but one week over Easter since the rankings deadline in January.

I'd still look for a simpler workload explanation for a delay first, as it is the most likely reason in the vast majority of cases.

That makes it tough because, as far as the Appeal Code is concerned, it is up to the school to ensure the panel is independent. The school may have a case against the LA, but I think they would have been in trouble if they'd tried to re-organise the hearing.

The school was the admission authority but it was using the LA's appeal service.

Interesting. I've not come across that. However, there is a clear requirement for the panel to be independent and it is up to the admission authority to ensure their independence.

If the school is its own admission authority and finds that one of the panel is not independent from the appellants, my view is that it has to live with the consequences. However, if the school is not the admission authority, it has legitimate cause for complaint in this situation. It would then be up to the LA, as admission authority, to decide what to do. I suspect most would tell the school it is hard luck, as attempting to reorganise the appeal(s) concerned could lead to the parents complaining to the LGO. Indeed, if they only reorganise the appeal directly affected, those parents who lost could complain on the grounds that their hearing may have been unfairly prejudiced by this panel member. But I really can't say for certain what would happen.

With respect, @NeverDropYourMooncup , that's not the clerk's problem. It's up to the school to manage, and it seems they have already had a week where they have known the outcomes, and I'm not sure what they can be doing at this stage anyway given they can't actually do anything until the parents accept the offer (if they win). The clerk shouldn't be holding anything back just because the school is annoyed about the logistics for some reason.

The clerk will be sending all letters out at the same time anyway - that always happens with appeals, decisions are made at the end of all appeals. So that's not the reason either.

My LA send out very quick "yes or no" letters immediately and then follow up with the explanation a couple of weeks later, which I think is a good system! (for parents anyway)

All I can think of is either the judicial review as mentioned, or, possibly as @knotordinary said they have realised something about a panellist which has caused consternation - the person spoken to at the LA probably wouldn't know the detail at this point.

Yes I understand.
I saw the length of my own decision letter, so I do see why there is such a wait for news.
However, OP was given a date by the LA, and school have pushed it back.
OP was given no valid reason for this.
I just find it strange.
As do a couple of the experts above 🤷‍♀️