Does being a young carer help in a Year 7 school appeal?

They can't have a 'group' with one young carer, but they certainly can with two. Schools create groups like this based on need. Have a chat with them to see what they can do to help your DC.

@theOP, I’m not in the UK and have no experience of young carers. May I ask what care your child provides for someone please.

@Lougle I’m not offended but as I understand it, dc has a grammar place. I just think some people want the earth for their own convenience. I’m all for getting right dc into right school but none have carer provision. So is this argument best for dc? I’d suggest not. Let dc go to the school allocated now term has started. All this seems unnecessary and somewhat unkind. Bucks will have provided transport and new dc are being settled in. Just my opinion but it’s OTT.

@MeetMeOnTheCorner I'm curious about why you are so offended that the OP is pursuing the avenues available to her? The reason we have the appeal system is that things do go wrong, and people do sometimes have reasons why their child should be an exception to the rules. The reason we have a review body is that appeals panels sometimes get it wrong.

Every single parent whose child has a place at that grammar school has made a decision to take action for their child by sitting the exam and applying. The OP has taken action by appealing the decision to refuse, then comparing the process they experienced with what is written in the Code and realising that it didn't match. It's perfectly reasonable to then take it further.

So who can possibly judge whether the appeal school is better when it’s nothing to do with education?

That is the job of the appeal panel. It is precisely what they are there for.

Panels can also take advice. It’s not outsourcing

Appeal panels cannot take advice from anyone other than the clerk, and the clerk can only advise them on the law around admissions and the relevant codes. They must decide the case on the evidence presented. Saying that the social/medical panel decided against you so we aren't going to look at your case is outsourcing their decision and is not allowed.

Where is if documented that the decision was not taken by the panel? That’s entirely spurious

We don't have the exact wording, but OP suggests the decision letter references the decision taken by the social/medical panel. If they simply noted that the social/medical panel came to the same decision, that is fine. If they said that they weren't going to do anything because the social/medical panel decided against OP and therefore the correct process was followed, that is wrong. They should have taken an independent look at OP's case. They could legitimately decide that the social/medical panel got it wrong, or that the social/medical panel were right but they still think OP's child should be admitted. What they cannot do is say that the social/medical panel decided against you so that is the end of the matter.

She can use public info

So you haven't even digested OP's posts properly. The appeal panel refused to allow her to use information that is publicly available, arguing that it was sensitive information she should not have had.

There are no young carer provision at any of them. So who can possibly judge whether the appeal school
is better when it’s nothing to do with education? What are the grounds for saying the allocated school cannot meet the needs that fall under social and medical. Caring for a sibling when parent isn’t around isn’t normally a criteria. Panels can also take advice. It’s not outsourcing. Any more than taking note of what a GP says is outsourcing. They wanted to know if criteria were met in order to reach a decision. It’s not outsourcing - it’s research. Where is if documented that the decision was not taken by the panel? That’s entirely spurious. What a parent asks for in terms of data and info is up to them. She can use public info but no one has any idea if this info was remotely relevant. Lots of appeals coming all sorts of detail and lots is not remotely relevant. As I said, Op has a place for dc and this ongoing saga is bizarre. Usually social and medical refer to the child who is the subject of the appeal, not the sibling and parental logistics.

I have little to add to prh47bridge’s posts, beyond observing that those who are most vehement in telling this or any other OP that they have no grounds for appeal generally seem not to be well-acquainted with the appeals code. Saying that an OP has “no grounds” is evidence of that; the appeals code does not prescribe grounds of appeal and parents can put forward any arguments they choose. It is for the panel to decide whether the parent’s case to admit outweighs the school’s not to admit, based on the balance of prejudice (detriment).

As prh47bridge says, there seem to be irregularities in the way the panel reached its decision, so it’s not unreasonable to ask the DfE to investigate and reach a view.

This is a complaint to the DofE and nearly everyone said in the first place she had no grounds

Whilst a number of people said she had no grounds for an appeal, those with expertise (PanelChair, PatriciaHolm and Lougle) were all of the view that she potentially has a case. I agree with them. If the appeal school has better provision for young carers than the allocated school, OP clearly has a case.

And the information OP has posted shows that she may well have grounds for a complaint to the DfE. For a start, the panel appear to have decided to reject the appeal on the grounds that they were not convinced that the appeal school was the only school that can meet her child's needs. If that was their approach, it is clearly wrong. The only question is whether the appeal school would meet her child's needs better than the allocated school. The fact that some other schools may be equally able to meet her child's needs is irrelevant. The other schools may not have places available.

There is also a suspicion in the decision letter that the appeal panel may have effectively outsourced their decision making to the panel that decided which children met the school's medical and social needs criteria. If they did, that is also clearly wrong. They are required to make their own decision, not rely on someone else's.

Also, the panel excluded some of OP's evidence on spurious grounds, arguing that she should not have had information which the school would have been required to provide if requested and which is, in any case, publicly available. Excluding this information may have damaged OP's case.

I don't know if her reference to DfE will succeed as I haven't seen all the information, but there is certainly enough in OP's posts to suggest she may have a case for a fresh hearing with a different panel.

@prh47bridge She’s already appealed. I know about appeals thanks and of course appeals are standard procedure. No issue there.

This is a complaint to the DofE and nearly everyone said in the first place she had no grounds. I think dc HAS a grammar place just not the one she wanted. In Bucks that’s a great result. Maybe you don’t know Bucks? There is no category of carer for special consideration or naming a school. Of course parents appeal but don’t go to these lengths to prove a point. Many of our grammars DO take over PAN on appeal , but we also have the appeals where dc have just not quite got the mark needed. I do think the op is a nightmare - I’m not retracting that. This DofE complaint won’t get anywhere. School decisions have been made by the appeals panels and the op still thinks dc as a carer (somewhat dubious) is what matters. It’s not, it’s process. Every Tom Dick and Harry could be said to be caring for siblings while parents work. What then? This is all about convenience for the Op and the grammar given is NO different in quality to the one she wants. There are NO useless grammars here. Most people would be over the moon to get in.

In addition I would be amazed if Bucks had messed this up. As a LA, they hear hundreds of appeals each year for secondary schools/11 plus appeals. In my day it well exceeded 500. It’s probably more now. They know the time of day. People appeal the 11 plus mark and the school allocation so more than just school.

Appeals only happen when a school is full. For secondary schools, an appeal can still succeed on the basis that the disadvantage to the child from not being admitted outweighs the problems the schools will face from having to cope with an additional child. Calling OP a nightmare for appealing is really out of order.

Also, to be slightly pedantic, schools are not full until an appeal panel has decided they are so full that they cannot take another pupil. Until then, they are only 'full' in the sense that they have reached or exceeded the Published Admission Number. To push the envelope even further, it could be argued that they are never absolutely 100% full because there could be an appeal case that was so compelling that even a quite over full school would still be expected to accommodate an extra pupil.

Parents have every right to appeal, no matter how tenuous their grounds. @busySunflower was asking for guidance on the processes surrounding a failed appeal, which is also fair enough. At the end of the day, as long as someone is polite and respectful, following through to the very end of the process is absolutely fine. When it's all done, they won't have to wonder if they could have got a better outcome if they tried.

In my opinion, if certain areas didn't have systems of education that give a better education to those who have the means to secure it, the world would be a better place. But they do, and @busySunflower is in such an area, so I can't see how s/he can be blamed for trying to get the best education for their child.

I’m feeling sorry for Bucks! This is the parent that would drive you to drink. Appeals are not upheld because schools are full! They are full based on the LA following the admissions code. You know there was no special category for a young carer and it was a highly dubious appeal in the first place. You really are a nightmare!

Apologies, my colon isn't working.

ETA that it was my keyboard colon, not my bowel! Happily, it is working again.

:

I think you're getting a bit confused. This is an administrative exercise. They will look at things that are raised as relevant, so not every review will need to look at all of these factors, but they may include

• Was the appeal panel independent?
• Did the deadline for lodging appeals comply with the code?
• Did you get at least 10 working days notice of your appeal date?
• Were you told that you could submit additional evidence and were you given a deadline for that evidence?
• Did you get a decision letter within the timeline set out in the code?
• Did the admissions authority comply with reasonable requests from the appellant for information?
• Did all parties get all the information submitted to the panel in advance of the hearing (the bundle)?
• Was the venue suitable to the needs of the appellant?
• Did the clerk ensure that all parties were present at all times during the appeal?
• Did the parties get a notification of the order of the appeal hearing proceedings in advance of the hearing?
• Did the clerk take notes of the decision making process?
• Did the panel follow the two stage process for deciding the appeal?
• Did the clerk record the decision on stage one and stage two?
• Did the clerk record the votes of the panel?
• Where the vote was tied, was the chair of the panel given the casting vote?
• Were the notes from the hearing kept securely and available for scrutiny by the SCCU?

Nobody will be asked to justify their case. The panel is appointed to assess the evidence and make a decision. The SCCU will not override their decision, nor ask for a fresh appeal because they don't agree with their decision. The only reason they will recommend a fresh appeal is if there is evidence that due process was not followed, and they think that there is a likelihood that it impacted the appeal process.

For example

• if the venue wasn't suitable for the appellant but the appellant didn't notify the clerk that they had difficulties with the venue, that won't be considered relevant.
• If the clerk didn't notify the appellant of the right to submit further information, but the appellant had phoned the appeals department, was told how to do so, and submitted the extra evidence, the SCCU may remind them of their obligation to include that information, but it won't have affected the appeal hearing, so no fresh appeal would be recommended.
• If the appeal panel turned out to have a member with an active connection to the appeal school, it's likely that the SCCU would recommend a fresh appeal.
• If there was no evidence of consideration of evidence, a fresh appeal is likely to be recommended

It really is about the process, not the outcome.

The DfE is not going to rehear your case or reconsider the evidence. This is entirely about whether the correct process has been followed. There is no question of anyone defending. The DfE will only be interested in establishing how the appeal was conducted and whether the Appeals Code was breached.

Why are you so concerned about who the DfE might contact?

The school will not be involved in investigating the complaint. The DfE investigator will conduct the investigation and decide the outcome.

As @Lougle says, the only question the investigation will look at is whether there have been any breaches of the Admission Appeals Code. They do not look at the evidence to see whether they think the appeal panel made the right decision. The clerk's opinion of the outcome is irrelevant, as is anyone else's.

If the appeal was procedurally correct, they will uphold the panel's decision. However, if the Appeals Code has been broken and this has affected the outcome, they will recommend a new hearing with a different panel.

Without knowing the 8 grounds you have submitted, it is impossible to say whether you have any chance of getting a new hearing. Note, however, that you did not need to get the clerk's notes before referring the matter to the DfE. They will get the clerk's notes directly from the clerk.

My answer above answers that question. There will be a procedural review, and after that they will either decide that there was no maladministration, that there was incidental maladministration (i.e. it didn't have an impact on the outcome) or there was maladministration and they recommend that you are offered a new appeal.

I don’t think any of us know the precise processes within the DfE, beyond what’s outlined in the guide linked above. Lougle has provided an excellent summary of what they’re looking for and what they can and can’t do.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/academies-admission-appeals-complaints-review/academies-admission-appeals-complaints-review-academic-year-2025-to-2026

This page might help? Last year, of 284 cases referred, only 120 of them were within the SCCU remit, and of those only 45 were found to have maladministration. Of the 45, only 19 were felt to have maladministration that affected the outcome, so a fresh appeal was recommended. There were a further 7 cases where fresh appeals were offered without the intervention of the SCCU and 2 cases where a place had been offered.

You need to be aware that the complaint is only considered in light of procedure, not outcome. They won't consider whether they think your child should have been awarded a place. They also won't consider whether particular evidence should have been given more weight. They will literally look at the Code and whether there is evidence that all the steps for considering appeals and communicating the outcomes were followed.