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

Urgent appeal: Faith criteria incorrectly applied

88 replies

aquarimum · 01/03/2024 08:06

Hi,
A school we are on the waitlist for has incorrectly applied the faith criteria- it changed this year to prioritise baptism over siblings, but siblings have gotten in ahead of baptised eldest children. How do we challenge this?
Can provide links if necessary
thanks!

OP posts:
New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Original poster
aquarimum · 30/04/2024 10:12

And @Lougle how could I forget you! thanks again for all your help!

OP posts:
Lougle · 30/04/2024 10:06

Fantastic news.

prh47bridge · 30/04/2024 09:36

That's great news.

PatriciaHolm · 30/04/2024 09:25

Phew, and hurrah! Great news.

SheilaFentiman · 30/04/2024 09:23

Brilliant!

Original poster
aquarimum · 30/04/2024 09:17

We got an email this morning offering us a place, so we've accepted that and the appeal's been withdrawn. Thank you to everyone on this thread, particularly @PatriciaHolm @prh47bridge

OP posts:
Original poster
aquarimum · 15/04/2024 18:21

Thanks! No idea how many other appeals there will be but I suspect there will be quite a few as it’s a popular school. There is at least one other appellant that is using maladministration as a case that we know of.

Frustratingly the school has a PAN of 180 and has for the past 2 years admitted 190 so will certainly claim that it’s too full. But there are 6 classes in each year group and some of them are smaller than the others (as 190 divided by 6 isn’t a straight split) - and they’ve clearly had the opportunity to admit at PAN if they were too full but gone ahead and over admitted anyway.

We’ve tried to make our case for admission anyway as strong as possible as this school offers things that no other school in the region does, and have letters of support from clergy and others to say why it would be beneficial.

OP posts:
PatriciaHolm · 15/04/2024 17:35

If at stage 1 the panel considers that not all applicants (whether their case concerns maladministration or not) can be admitted without prejudice, the appeal must proceed to stage 2.

Obviously part of your stage 2 case will be that the criteria were incorrectly applied and that this has cost you a place. However, the panel has to consider all the cases it is presented with whatever their grounds.

It may be that there are just too many maladministration cases for the school to cope with, and so the panel would admit those with the strongest prejudice cases, and/or it could decide there are non-maladministration cases that have significant prejudice too.

All you can do is make the error as clear as possible with proof that you should have been allocated a place; and reinforce that with a case for prejudice.

As a panel, in these cases you do want to make it right for the applicants, but not at the cost of the education for all the students in Year 7.

Do you have any idea how many appeals there are, and what is the PAN?

Original poster
aquarimum · 15/04/2024 17:08

Thanks for the speedy reply. Does a panel actually take into account that criteria were unfairly applied then? Because then it all comes down to the block 2 case, and it then doesn’t matter that the admission criteria weren’t correctly applied :(

OP posts:
prh47bridge · 15/04/2024 17:05

If they have a combined hearing for stage 1, it will be for all appellants.

Original poster
aquarimum · 15/04/2024 16:56

Does anyone know in an appeal situation, whether the Block 1 part of an appeal is for all appeals submitted, or would there be a separate block 1 process for appeals where we are showing that the criteria was incorrectly applied, and one for appeals where the appellant is just appealing on more normal grounds?

OP posts:
Rhayader · 26/03/2024 15:25

Essentially you need to show your “prejudice” of not getting in is worse than the schools of having to provide an extra space… which as you’ve pointed out, is impacted by them being over-roll.

I have sat “in”* appeals boards before lots of times but always for Reception places where the rules are totally different.

In the case of reception the LA can’t really force the school to go over-roll because the class can’t be more than 30. But even then we did need to show that the school had followed the rules correctly or we could have lost. Usually people appealing didn’t understand the admissions criteria (complicated faith school criteria) and thought because they lived closer than a friend who got in they should have got a place.

*as a school governor representing the school

Original poster
aquarimum · 26/03/2024 14:42

The frustrating thing is we had pointed out the mistake (and had the evidence from the school) well within the 3 days thought to be the limit for correcting errors. The school didn’t want to know.

OP posts:
PatriciaHolm · 26/03/2024 13:00

hangingonfordearlife1 · 26/03/2024 12:07

they won't be made to rectify their mistake anyway, once a child has been notified they have a place they can't then take it away because of their error. unfortunately it is what it is.

Yes, they can. Places awarded in error can be removed, but the admissions authority only has a very limited time in which to do so - generally agreed to be a few days. It is absolutely possible though.

Lougle · 26/03/2024 12:59

hangingonfordearlife1 · 26/03/2024 12:07

they won't be made to rectify their mistake anyway, once a child has been notified they have a place they can't then take it away because of their error. unfortunately it is what it is.

They can be made to award a wrongly denied child a place on appeal. The problem is that if they have gone over PAN in the main admission round, it is likely that a panel would decide they are 'actually full' rather than 'nominally full' and either decide that they can't admit any more children at all, or only one or two. In that situation, the OP would be relying on having the very strongest case for needing the place.

If the mistake hadn't been made in the first place, the OP thinks their child would have been awarded a place in the main round.

hangingonfordearlife1 · 26/03/2024 12:07

they won't be made to rectify their mistake anyway, once a child has been notified they have a place they can't then take it away because of their error. unfortunately it is what it is.

Original poster
aquarimum · 26/03/2024 11:52

Thanks all. Yes, we've been made to appeal and they haven't updated their waiting list to reflect the correct criteria. I don't think they have been dropping back to the PAN as people decline offers, as the waiting list has seen significant movement. I don't think the waiting list would have moved so much had they just dropped back to the original PAN.

@Lougle that's where I'm coming from. I feel we've been doubly disadvantaged - once because they've screwed up the criteria, and secondly because they've then over admitted, which means that they will claim they have less scope to rectify their mistake.

OP posts:
PatriciaHolm · 26/03/2024 11:47

@lougle Yes - though on the flip side, if they over offered but have dropped back to PAN, at least 10 getting in on appeal in those circumstances should be very likely!

@aquarimum I'm assuming the school so far is not budging and pushing you all to appeal?

Lougle · 26/03/2024 11:16

However, it is an interesting point because if the school thinks they should offer an extra 10 spaces, but they have made a mistake in their handling of the admissions process, so an applicant has been denied a place that is rightfully theirs, then going over PAN makes it even harder for that applicant to get a just resolution at appeal, because if the school is sitting at PAN + 10 and there are 15 children who have wrongly been denied a place, then there is an even greater prejudice to the school to admit further children.

PatriciaHolm · 26/03/2024 11:06

As @prh47bridge says, they are not trying to game the system. There is no advantage to them either way - they are likely to end up with the same number of pupils either way. If pupils drop out from the initial offers of PAN+10, and there a number of appeals, it's actually likely that some appeals will be won, as the school won't be able to make a hugely strong case against admitting up to that number - but if no pupils drop out, fewer or no appeals will be won. It doesn't make a difference to the school either way.

Overoffering on PAN is a normal thing to do in many areas, to ensure that all pupils in the area get an offer on offer day. The usual plan is then to drop down to PAN before offering any more places, but that's not always the case, and it doesn't always happen anyway.

prh47bridge · 26/03/2024 09:11

A school is allowed to admit beyond PAN. If they are doing so consistently, they ought to update PAN. However, as far as appeals are concerned, this simply makes appeals harder to win. This isn't regarded as gaming the system. It just means that more pupils get in via the admission criteria and fewer via appeal.

Original poster
aquarimum · 26/03/2024 08:51

Another question - the past 2 years, the school have admitted 10 over PAN, and the number of children admitted on appeal has dropped accordingly. So I think they are deliberately over admitting on offer day so they have "better" grounds to refuse anyone on appeal. Is a panel likely to think the same way and to realise that the school is trying to game the system? And if so, how would a panel react to a school behaving like that?

OP posts:
Hamsterdamn · 09/03/2024 12:21

I’m so sorry you’re going through it. I remember it as the most stressful experience. Ours was an infant class size appeal. Hopefully secondary schools can be more accommodating?

In our case the school also thought it was fairer that siblings got in but the admissions said something different.

Are they reordering the waiting list to the correct order now? Our school refused to do so, so a few places were given over the summer to children in the wrong criteria.

Original poster
aquarimum · 09/03/2024 11:12

Hamsterdamn - that’s pretty much it, they’ve applied what they wanted the policy to do, not it actually states. But their doing so has affected so many children, that they almost certainly won’t be able to accommodate everyone who appeals.

And then there’s a double whammy, because at appeal we then have to justify why our kid should get in over all the other kids denied a place, rather than via application of objective criteria.

OP posts:
Hamsterdamn · 09/03/2024 10:46

OP. Do you think the school applied the over subscription criteria they thought was” fair”, rather than the published oversubscription criteria? If it helps something similar happened at my DC primary school and with the help of the MN experts we won the infant class size appeal.