School Appeal tomorrow

[NT2010]

All,
very annoyed that I've discovered this fantastic resource so late but here goes anyway.
I'm appealing to Devon County Council tomorrow for my son who is entering year2. We've moved from Peterborough to Devon because of a new job for me.
I originally was looking in a particular area near my work to live, and also requested that my son have a place near that school (back in June). That school was under subscribed so there was no problem.
We then found that we couldn't find a house in that area at all, but found a house in another area nearby but 1.5 miles from the planned school.
Because of this I then asked if my son could join the (hugely popular) school 150 yards away from our new house.
He was rejected on the grounds that the school was full so I appealed.

The council's case can be summarized as follows -

• C.H. is an excellent school, well run and managed
• The accommodation is sufficient to meet local demand, however, there are restrictions on class room sizes and mixed teaching takes place so number must be monitored carefull and roll forward effects considered.
• The headteacher makes every effort to accommodate arrivals into the Village outside the normal round, within the current class structure.
• Some classes in KS1 have reached the legal limit of 30. To admit further would incur qualifying measures and be in inefficient of school resources when places are available locally.
• The Admissions Team wish to maintain the determined planned admission numbers as far as possible.

Other key facts are revealed in their case however. PANs for the school are set at 45. They are currently at 48 for year2. So my son would take this to 49.

In Year5 they are at 51 pupils - 6 over the current PAN.

Does this suggest that the school would not be prejudiced with the inclusion of my son.

Also their point -

Some classes in KS1 have reached the legal limit of 30. To admit further would incur qualifying measures and be in inefficient of school resources when places are available locally.

Is actually wrong I think - the Year 2 classes are currently mixed

• Class 3 is year1 only containing 29 pupils
• Class 4 is 12 year1 and 18 year2 30 pupils
• Class 5 is 30 year2

So if a year1 child was to move from Class4 to Class3 then Class4 could accommodate my son.

The LA received my request for my son to attend C.H. 2 weeks before the school term began so it had plenty of opportunity to contact the school around this.

I'm thinking the main reason they didn't was sticking to the PAN numbers (which had already been breached - at 48).

One thing I didn't mention in my appeal letter which I wish I had now I've seen what is important is my son's ability on the piano.

I've been teaching my son since he was 4, as well as an external teacher.
Our practice sessions start at 8am to 8.40am. His old school was 5 mins walk away - so this was practical. He is at grade 1 standard which is pretty high for

The suggested school is at least 20 mins away which impacts his ideal lesson time. This time is completely wasted as he'll be sat in the car instead. It also reduces the lesson time down to 20 mins which is also a major impact.

Doing the lessons earlier would not be practical from experience unless we started waking my son up earlier which could then impact his school work.

So the school my son attends isn't important here, but the time wasted travelling to school is.

I did not add this point in my original case so will this info be inadmissable?

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

thanks,

Neil

Taking your last point first, you are free to add information to your case. However, if you add significant new evidence the chair of the panel may decide to adjourn the hearing to a later date to allow them and the LA to absorb the new information. I doubt they would do that for the additional point you want to raise but you never know. Having said that, I doubt that an appeal panel would find this argument compelling. I think they would conclude that you should rearrange his piano practise sessions to accommodate the school.

They don't seem to have stated this very clearly but it sounds like an infant class size case to me in that they talk about qualifying measures being required. They should state what those measures are - probably an extra teacher. If they don't, make the point that their case fails to meet the standards laid down in the Admission Appeals Code for infant class size cases.

Whilst you are correct that your child could be accommodated the way you suggest, the panel cannot tell the school how to arrange its classes. Even if they could, they would probably be uncomfortable about telling the school to move a child to another class in order to accommodate your son.

They must be well under PAN in year 1 or they would already have breached the limit.

You can try making the point that it is possible to accommodate your son without breaching the class size limit by admitting him to the class that is currently Y1 only. You could also point out that your son, as a successful appeal, would be an excepted child so they wouldn't need to take qualifying measures this year. Next year he will be in Y3 which doesn't matter for infant class size regulations so they will be ok then as well.

The LA is likely to point out that they have to admit up to PAN in Y1 if additional children come along during the year, in which case they will go over the class size limit. You could point out that they will go over the class size limit if Y1 goes up to PAN whether or not they admit your child.

It may be worth exploring why they are so far over PAN in Y2 and Y5. They are not supposed to breach PAN unless there are successful appeals and, once they are over PAN, they are not supposed to replace children that leave until they are down to PAN. I am therefore surprised that they are so far over PAN in these years. It is not unknown for head teachers of primary schools to admit children when they shouldn't. If this is what has happened it weakens their position.

If the panel accept that this is an infant class size case you are likely to lose. To win you would need to show that the LA has made a mistake or is acting unreasonably. You have no evidence to support such a conclusion.

Even if the panel don't accept that this is an infant class size case, you need to give them some positive reasons to admit your child. This really needs to be about ways in which your child's education will suffer if he does not go to this school. This could be about facilities or after school clubs this school has which are particularly beneficial to your child, for example. I'm afraid that if you tell the panel the school your son attends isn't important but the wasted travelling time is, you will almost certainly lose.

Thanks very much prh47bridge,

I can add some more info around the numbers on roll.

There are additional classes in lower year groups as follows:

Class 1 22R
Class 2 24R+5Yr1

R=46 (one over pan - agreed by admissions and school)
1=46 (one over pan - 1 appeal allowed)
2=48 ( does not say it is over PAN)
3=45
4=46 over PAN
5=51 over PAN
6=43

It's interesting that they do NOT remark year 2 as being over PAN whereas they are explicit about this in the other year groups.

PANS have been breached in just about every year group. Doesn't that set some kind of precedent that the school is able to cope?

I should also mention that the school is one of the best in the county - and the school has demonstrated in nearly every year group that it can cope with higher levels of admission than the assigned PAN.

The other criteria I've given is that this school is 100 yards away whereas the offered school is 1.5 miles away.

Does the distance to school not count for anything?
What about taking into consideration that my son is new to the area and all the local children will be attending C.H.? Can I not argue that his social well being will be affected - none of the local children will know him from school which will affect his integration.

He is also first in the waiting list for a place so there isn't a lot of competition for places - does that increase his chance?

thanks,

Neil

I think that the fact the school has been able to cope with extras will assist you. It did in our case.

We appealed at primary stage and secondary (secondary school being a job move to a different area too).

We were successful on both occasions. Both schools were a few hundred yards from the house and the offered school for secondary was 2 train rides and a bus away. Thankfully the authority saw sense.

Good luck.

So they are keeping the Y1/2 classes below 30 by pushing some Y1s into a Reception class.

Whether being so consistently over PAN sets a precedent really depends on the reasons. If it is all due to successful appeals or SEN children there is no precedent. However, if the school is admitting children over PAN for other reasons it may do. I suspect that examining why they go over PAN so often may be your best chance of winning.

I'm afraid distance counts for nothing at appeal. If it is an ICS case the panel can only admit if the LA has made a mistake or acted unreasonably. If it is not an ICS case the panel have to decide whether the prejudice to your son through not being admitted to this school outweighs the prejudice to the school through being forced to take on an additional pupil. Things like distance, travelling time, child care arrangements and so on don't generally enter into it.

You can argue that your son's social development will be hindered by making him go to the offered school. I'm not sure the panel will think that is enough. The argument would carry more weight if there was a greater distance involved.

Being first on the waiting list makes no difference to the appeal. It only means you have a reasonable chance of getting in via the waiting list. However, if the school is sticking to the rules, your son will not be admitted until 4 children have left.

Thanks pr47bridge,

I think 1.5 miles is a huge distance in terms of my son's ability to extend his school friendships outside into the community environment.

I've experienced how natural and important living and playing with friends known through school is. My son would be 'different' from the majority of local children in that - purely because he's moved into the area late in the school round - he goes to a different school.

We are living in a village environment outside of a town. His currently allocated school is in the town, and so even though it's 1.5 miles away it might as well be 10 miles away. The village children live and play locally which is quite natural given the isolated feel of the village.

I do appreciate your objectivity however - and that I may be less so.

I have always thought the ICS was the major issue- I think your point about asking for a place in Class3 which has 29 Year 1 pupils inconveniences the school and its current pupils less than asking for a child to be moved from the mixed Class4 into Class3 to accommodate my son.

That might well make it even more difficult to accommodate my son however as he is very bright for his age (2 years ahead in Numeracy and Literacy according to his yr1 report).

What about bringing up his academic record?

C.H. has the best academic record of any school in the county. Could I argue that my son needs a highly stimulating environment and that the evidence is C.H. is the best school to provide that?

thanks again

Thanks scurryfunge,

the distance and difficulty in getting to the school is relatively less than what you describe.

I'll definitely query why the school has gone over its PAN so often?

pr47bridge? What reasons would give me a stronger case? That the school felt taking local pupils was important (it takes a large number from outside the local area at present) or that the school feels the PAN is set too low? I know that the head teacher is extremely successful and fiercely independent too.

I still have time to contact the school to find out exactly how the year2 and year5 groups are so far over their PANs.

I've also been through the prospectus at C.H. I remember in my interview with the headteacher earlier this year that we both shared a love and musical education.
The head teacher is a educated to degree standard and puts a large emphasis on music in the school's curriculum including after an school music club. The school also actively encourages performance in the local community.

The school offered does not have such an emphasis on music, or any school music club.

I will emphasise this as the key positive that this school can offer my son that the other school does not. I also think the school is much better placed to encourage my son's musical development.

I'm not too confident about the ICS issue at all though. I will have to hope that the panel look favourably on creating a space for him in the mixed class set up.

Looking at this more completely...

I am not clear if the LA is arguing:

• infant class size prejudice
• ordinary prejudice with a hint of infant class size
• infant class size with a fallback of ordinary prejudice

The way the panel will decide this case is:

• first they will decide if infant class size rules apply. You need them to decide that they don't. If the LA is presenting this purely as an ICS case, if the panel decide ICS rules don't apply they should admit your child. However, if the LA also argues ordinary prejudice we move on to...
• next they will decide if admitting your child will cause prejudice to the school. If they decide that it won't they will decide in your favour
• finally they will decide if the prejudice to your son through not admitting him outweighs the prejudice to the school

So, dealing with the infant class size issue first, your arguments are:

• There is room in one of the KS1 classes for your son without breaching ICS limits
• The school is already teaching mixed age group classes in KS1 so no major re-organisation is required
• The school is already over PAN in every year in infants so there is no question of additional admissions causing the ICS limit to be breached
• If the panel admits your son he will be an "excepted child" throughout the one year he will be in infants, so admitting him will not mean the school has to take qualifying measures whichever class they put him in

Then, as we've already discussed, there is the question of why they are operating with 5 years over PAN, one of them over by 6. If the answer suggests they are playing fast and loose with admissions the panel may feel there is no reason not to admit your son. You mention that the head teacher is fiercely independent. It is not unknown for such head teachers to admit children when the rules say they shouldn't. If that is what has happened here that may well help your case. The panel may well conclude this shows that admitting your child will not cause prejudice, in which case you should win.

The point where your case is weakest is if they get on to looking at prejudice to your child. I'm afraid nothing you have said so far would allow them to conclude that your child would be prejudiced if he isn't admitted.

As I've already said, things like distance, transport arrangements, child care arrangements and the like rarely make a successful case unless it is particularly extreme (as in Scurryfunge's case) or there is a reason why the child is more affected by it than the average child, e.g. some form of disability. I would recommend avoiding his academic record and that of the school. It is unlikely to help and may have the reverse effect to that intended - the panel may think that an able child is better able to cope with a lower ranked school and could help to improve that school's results.

The only thing you've mentioned that may help here is your son's musical talent. If the school has particular music activities that are missing from the allocated school, that would be an argument you could put forward. Any other facilities or after school clubs this school has and the allocated school hasn't should also be thrown in provided you can justify why your son will miss out if he doesn't have access to them. I would also throw in the stuff about social development.

There are no guarantees but a lot may depend on what emerges about why the school has so many years over PAN.

Good luck.

You posted while I was typing! Go big on this aspect. That is a good argument.

Regarding ICS, I think you have a reasonable argument that admitting your child won't cause class size prejudice. If the panel don't agree I would be tempted to refer it to the LGO to see what they make of it.

Thank you so much for your help.

It's been so helpful and focused me on what's important.

I will be sure to let you know the outcome in any event. :)

Sorry but I am going to be very pessimistic here and say that having read all your posts around the numbers, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that this should for all previous appeals have been an infant class size case. The reason it is an infant class size case is that with a PAN of 45 the school operates 3 split age classes for year1 and year2 of 30. To add any more would breach the regs.

Having said that there have been additions to reception, year1 and year 2 which confuse and muddy the situation. These additions should not have taken place but regretably have. However I would expect and hope that a panel should be able to see what is legally required.

The situation is that there is a class of year 1s with 29 in it. If your child was a year 1 I would argue strongly that there is a space and that the school has left that space available by keeping 5 pupils in the reception class. However your son is a year 2 pupil and any way that you look at this the two classes for year 2 have 30 in it and to add a further pupil would breach infant class size regs. The panel is not allowed to demand that the school alter the class composition.

By all means argue that it is not an infant class size case but expect to be told it is, when you will regretably have little chance of winning.

And there was I trying to give you some confidence!

I'm a little more optimistic than Admission, mainly because they've mixed some Y1 in with Reception. They are therefore operating 5 classes for 135 children across infants, rather than 2 classes for 45 in Reception and 3 classes for 90 in Y1/2. That may be a temporary measure to cope with being over PAN in infants by a total of 5 children as a result of appeals and/or SEN. If that is the case the panel probably will decide it is an ICS case (and I would agree that they ought to). However, if it turns out that the reason they are over by 3 in Y2 is because they are voluntarily admitting children over PAN without justification that throws a different light on the situation. That's why I think this issue could prove to be crucial.

The weakness in all of this is that there are 30 children in each of the classes that currently have Y2 pupils in them.

Hi prh47bridge,

There is more evidence to suggest that the school actively pursues mixed classes at every level.

In Key Stage 2 every class is mixed.

There are 3 Year3/Year4 classes and 3 Year5/Year6 classes all fairly evenly split.

The school has the opportunity to create single year group classes but chooses not to.

In my view this clearly demonstrates that the school approaches mixed classes as a holistic approach and not just as a means to workaround potential ICS level breaches.

Therefore I'm much more confident that admitting George to a currently Year 1 dominated class would neither prejudice George or any of his classmates.

The school clearly chooses to run mixed classes in preference to year exclusive classes.

It may help but this is mixing within a key stage rather than between key stages - Reception is Foundation Stage whereas Y1/2 are KS1 and Y3-Y6 are KS2. Mixing within a key stage is more common than mixing between key stages.

If the LA is presenting this as an ICS case you will not win unless you can convince the panel that ICS regulations don't apply. You therefore have to give it your best shot to prove that it isn't an ICS case, so throw in anything that may help. You never know what will happen in the hearing. Evidence may emerge which undermines the LA's case completely.

By the way, if the panel are on the ball my point about your son being an "excepted pupil" if they admit him is one they shouldn't take into account. The question they should ask themselves is whether admitting your son would cause class size prejudice if he was not an excepted pupil. If it were me I would see how the panel are reacting before deciding whether or not to throw that one in.

Hope it goes well for you today.

I must say it's very frustrating.

I feel that if the LA has turned this into a ICS case but not informing the school earlier that my son was trying to enter the school.

It would have been easier for the school to provide an extra space in both Year 2 and Year 1 given the mixed class structure.

Then I would now be arguing an ordinary prejudice case today with more chance of winning.

Oh well - lap of the gods now.

I'm not sure I understand your latest comment. What are the relevant dates? How has the LA delayed things? Why would it not have been an ICS case if they hadn't?

This may be nothing but it could be very significant.

Here's an update,

It turned out that the LA had no idea why year2 was over PAN by an additional 2 pupils. All it could say was that the school had taken in the pupils without any appeal - in fact independently by the school - ie. school had gone "rogue".

I also mentioned that although I'd told the Admissions Officer about our intention to get into C.H. on 23rd of August (some two weeks before school term started) it seemed strange that a fiercely independent head who - I was told - did everything she could to admit local children, did not take the opportunity to make a minor adjustment to her mixed classes that would have given her an extra Year1 place AND a Year2 place (albeit both subject to PAN breaches).

I also mentioned that I received an email some 5 minutes later from the Admissions officer explaining that George had been rejected. This did not support the view that the school had been contacted in my son's case.

The LA had already stated that they are to contact the school in ALL cases regardless of a PAN breach. I think that whether they'd followed this protocol was brought into serious doubt.

I think for these reasons (I'll find out tomorrow) the ICS case was rejected.

So we went on to stage 2. I think that went well - I really pushed the music - I found that C.H. really does push music much more
from their website.

I also threw in the social aspect.

I got the distinct impression that the panel were very sympathetic towards my case.

But I could be wrong.

I'll find out tomorrow morning at 10am.

The appeal has to go to stage 2 whether it is infant class size or not. Are you making an assumption that it was not being classed as ICS because it went to stage 2 or because of something that was said by the panel chair?

I agree that the wording was not good and could be taken both ways. The fact that the LA could not explain the year 2 figures is interesting (and presumably they would have even less idea about year 5 numbers). Their case was a bit of a mess really, especially over the statements about contact the school and the school taking in local pupils over the PAN. There is just a possibility that even if considered an ICS case if the appeal panel were so inclined that they may feel that the decision to refuse admission was unreasonable. They shouldn't if they follow the letter of the law, but I have known it happen when they feel the LA and school have been particularly cavalier in their attitude to admissions previously.

I would not presume having not heard all the evidence to suggest what any decision might be but on one thing i am clear, if the panel had decided that it was an ICS case I would have stopped the appeal at that stage. I would have actually adjourned the hearing some time during stage 1 so the panel could make that decision. I would have wanted the appeal to have been heard again with a different panel but with an LA case that says very definitely that it is an ICS case but then allow you to attempt to demolish the case on the basis that the school has habitually ignored the PAN and altered the classes to ensure they can get around the ICS Regs.

That would be the theory, the practical is that you will find out tomorrow, which hopefully will be good news for you.

The panel chair heard evidence at Stage1 and I summed up saying I didn't think the admissions process had been followed correctly in that the admissions officer had not contacted the school as they stated they would.

The panel were also visibly unimpressed with the LA non-existant reasons for going above PAN in year2.

We then withdrew.

The panel then invited us back in and the panel chair explicitly informed us that this case was no longer an ICS case and was to be heard as a - in his words - 'normal' appeal.

Infact as you say - I think the ICS appeal process was documented on a pink sheet, and the 'normal' appeal process was documented on a green sheet.

We effectively started a new process using the green sheet but with the same panel members.

Interesting. I haven't encountered that happening before and I'm a bit non-plussed by the idea of separate processes. However, since the panel have explicitly said that it isn't an ICS case they can't go back on that, so now it is down to whether they think the case you've made outweighs whatever was left of the LA's case.

The documentation is slightly different for an ICS case and a "normal" case but I have never seen them on different coloured paper before.

As PRH says it is now down to what the panel thought of your reasons for wanting this particular school. Though the panel should still not be putting a 31st pupil in a year 2 class!

Unfortunately I heard this morning our appeal had been refused.

I'll have to wait for the letter to understand the reasoning.

Thanks everyone for your help.

I felt that I gave it my best shot.

Sorry that the news is not better. It would be very interesting to know what the reasons given are for the refusal.

I would also be interested to know the reasons. Sorry you didn't win.