Withdrawal of high school place after 11 weeks

I have read your updates and I think the school is pushing a point in this instance and may have gone too far. It will depend on what the detail is about the expectation surrounding where your son was going to be in September. It sounds as if, one way or another, he was not going to be at the school and would either be at a new school or have been permanently excluded. If that is the case they can possibly claim they did make the offer in error and this might be accepted as being within the code.

It is an unusual circumstance and I suspect the school is using it as an excuse - perhaps not wanting to take your daughter because of their experience with your son. What kind of school is it? Local authority/academy/free school/religious school?

This is great, thankyou. I couldn’t see “expected” but it wasn’t directly quoted and I can now see that - apologies.

They can stipulate that the sibling is expected to be on the roll in September. No problem with that. But a stipulation that the sibling must still be on the role in September is unenforceable.

@LolaSmilesa slightly pedantic point but the Admissions Code applies to all areas. Admissions policies can vary and must comply with the Admissions Code
Not pedantic at all. I meant the local policies. Good spot. Thank you for spotting that.👍

@LolaSmiles a slightly pedantic point but the Admissions Code applies to all areas. Admissions policies can vary and must comply with the Admissions Code.

SeatonCarew
I wonder, and a lot depends on how the admissions code for OP's area is worded, if the argument will be that the OP wasn't intending on her older child being in the school from September and/or something about the dates of the managed move.
prh47bridge is good on the technicalities and has offered to advise the OP by PM.

Given that the OP was in discussions with the Head Teacher of the school in question over a period of time to determine the best outcome for her DS, it would be ludicrous for the LA to claim her application was in any way fraudulent.

She would be the worst, least subtle, fraudster in the history of the Universe.

Given that fact, I can't see how the LA would have a leg to stand on at this late stage.

I know some areas the stipulation is sibling has to be on the roll in September when you look at the rules. Have you been able to ask this?

Also happy to take a look if you want to PM me.

Yes, as above - the three dots at the bottom of this message will enable you to PM me. Happy take a look.

Go to a post of someone you want to message, then there's three little dots in the bottom right hand corner. PM is one of the options there.

Good luck. Some posters like to kick people when they are down for no reason.

“The school can’t (in my view) keep reviewing the situation up to and including the start of term. There comes a point (and I would argue that it’s national offer day) when the matter has to be considered settled and offers have to stand.”

This seems very reasonable - otherwise it would be possible to eg withdraw a place from a child if their older sibling died between March and September, which would be awful (and someone upthread mentioned she had heard of such a thing!)

As always, prh47bridge hits the nail on the head.

That proviso is intended to deal with the foreseeable scenario that the older sibling is in Y11 or Y13 and will have left the school by the time the younger sibling would start. It’s not intended (to the best of my knowledge) to deal with unforeseen scenarios such as the older sibling being permanently excluded or joining another school on a managed move.

The school can’t (in my view) keep reviewing the situation up to and including the start of term. There comes a point (and I would argue that it’s national offer day) when the matter has to be considered settled and offers have to stand. If the LEA unearths an error, previous case law suggests they have three days in which to withdraw the offer.

“Purpose limitation of data is one of the seven principles of GDPR.”

well said

Yes, that policy typically means a sibling not in year 13 (or year 11 if planning to leave after GCSEs) - ie circumstances that would be very clear at the time of application.

Not necessarily, for example if the information about the sibling leaving the school has come from the education welfare team then arguably the personal information has been used for a purpose beyond the scope of what the education welfare team should have been using it for.

Purpose limitation of data is one of the seven principles of GDPR.

That admission policy is unenforceable. They can insist that the sibling must still be expected to be on roll at the time of admission, which I suspect is what they mean, but they cannot withdraw a place just because the sibling leaves the school. The Admissions Code is very clear as to the situations in which an offer can be withdrawn. This is not one of them.

I want to say it's actually usually in the admission policy. Our (in Hampshire) says Children living out of the catchment area of the school who at the time of application have a sibling (see (iv) in Definitions) on the roll of the school who will still be on roll at the time of admission.

This means the OP place will be withdrawn because it no longer meets the admission criteria. It'll really be dependent on what hers says.

Well said.

I think it is difficult for those who are new to this board to know the qualifications and expertise of those posting, so for those at the back,

"I would urge you to focus on the replies from @PanelChair @PatriciaHolm @prh47bridge and follow the advice they have given.
They are experts in this topic and have given invaluable advice to many over the years."

And a huge thank you to all of you for your time and expert opinions on these matters, they are very much appreciated.

you mentioned that you are new to this forum so I would urge you to focus on the replies from @PanelChair @PatriciaHolm @prh47bridge and follow the advice they have given.
They are experts in this topic and have given invaluable advice to many over the years.
Agree with this advice.

Whilst having a sibling on roll at the time the youngest child starts is fairly typical for admissions criteria, I suspect what will matter in the OP's situation is the exact timeframes surrounding the managed move.

The 3 posters above are excellent in their ability to advise on cases that aren't black and white.

I wouldn't place too much store on any alleged "experts" at schools or even at LAs. I have won several appeals in situations where the school or LA was getting it wrong and helped many parents to win appeals in similar situations.

Wouldn't the LA know anyway? I know our ed welfare team etc are involved in arranging managed moves etc

Sounds more like the OP struggled to get good support for her son from them and the school have decided they don't want "that parent" on their books anymore, so someone in the office has seen a way to get rid of her, by notifying the LA...

Sneaky.

I just can't imagine why you would even want your daughter to go to a school that's clearly been shit for your son?!