Late Grammar School offer: over the moon but stressed/flummoxed

[PermaShattered]

What a 3 days we've had - any insightful comments welcome. In short:

1. Our daughter was offered 3rd choice (her 11+ score was about 30 down on passmark);
2. 3rd school is outstanding but we appealed to 2nd choice school as was our preference;
3. Last Friday took calls from our local Ed admissions authority saying why appealed when have offer from grammar school?
4. Said we hadn't. She made further calls to other relevant admissions authority and came back and told us we definitely have an offer and it would be in post next day (Saturday just gone);
5. It duly arrived, and we posted our acceptance same day (they should have got it today) - verbal acceptance of place given by phone on Friday;
6. On Friday the Authority also withdrew both our place at 3rd choice school and our appeal to 2nd choice school;
7. Today i take a call from a friend whose daughter got substantially higher score than my DD - and she is 188 on waiting list;
8. I call our admissions auth to check they received our acceptance (they said still in posttray but will be dealt with this afternoon);
9. I query whether there could possibly an error and i'm told categorically 'no'. And if there was, we have a written offer, accepted it and they can't take it off our daughter;

10. Finally, my other DS is that grammar school.

I'm perplexed. What could be a possible explanation?

Very kind, but I only copied and pasted

The experts on this thread are understandably righteous, since at the moment they're thwarted. And they've been rather too pompous in putting their questioners down, and clearly can't bear to look silly.

This is a common sense decision by the Appeals Panel. The appellant was way short of the mark on the test day and in reality is no more deserving of a place at an oversubscribed grammar simply because the incompetent administrative authorities ballsed up. The mum took a punt as most mums would, given the error, but it didn't succeed. I can see clear water between appeals decisions for non selectives and those for selectives, as I said before this particular decision was made. I asked the 'experts' for case law relating to selectives and they couldn't give it. If new territory is breached then that's because different types of schools offering different education are in question.

Yellowtape: I don't think the type of school has any bearing at all on this. Had there been a fixed qualification mark, things might have been a little different, in that the receiver of the offer would have known that it was not correct. This school merely allocates on score order with no fixed qualification mark.

Lougle: The admission authorities of foundation and voluntary aided schools and Academies may ask another body, e.g. the local authority, to carry out some or all of their admissions functions on their behalf. However, the admission authority remains responsible for ensuring those functions are carried out properly.

I think the problem here is that in the normal admission round, whilst the school ranks its applicants and communicates this to the LA, the actual allocation of places and co-ordination is NOT a function of the Admissions Authority but of the Local Authority.
And again, LGO decisions do not set precedent in the same way as some other legal decisions.
I do not wish to discourage Perma from taking her case forward and seeking further resolution at all, but I am just a little unsure and not terribly confident about what the outcome will be.

Yellowtip - Whatever you may think, an appeals panel is bound by the Appeals Code. This panel seems to have ignored the Code. You may see clear water between appeals for non selectives and those for selectives but the Appeals Code does not. ALL case law applies equally to selectives. The Appeals Code is completely clear about the treatment of appeals for selective schools. The first stage of the decision making process remains the same and this appeal should have succeeded at that stage.

Whether or not the appellant's child was deserving of a place is irrelevant. A place was offered and the offer was withdrawn illegally. The appellant's child is therefore entitled to the place.

The Appeals Code has the force of law. If this were to go to judicial review and the judge found that the appeal panel had ignored the Appeals Code their decision would be overturned regardless of whether or not you or anyone else thinks it is common sense.

Oh and I am not thwarted. I am incensed that the appeal panel has flouted the Appeals Code so blatantly.

Flaxengate - The LGO's decisions are usually regarded by appeal panels as setting precedents. Similarly the LGO will follow its own previous decisions were appropriate. The courts of course can ignore LGO decisions and a precedent set by judicial review therefore takes priority over one set by the LGO. The complication here is that the next step is the EFA rather than the LGO but my understanding is that the EFA is trying to use the same standards as the LGO and will generally regard LGO decisions as setting a precedent.

"I can see clear water between appeals decisions for non selectives and those for selectives, as I said before this particular decision was made."

Yellowtip, could you remind me which clause of the appeals code gives the clear water? I can't see it. Anywhere.

Flexengate, it's still irrelevant. The Statutory basis of the Appeals Code states:

"4. This Code imposes mandatory requirements and includes guidelines setting out aims, objectives and other matters in relation to the discharge of functions by the bodies listed below:
a) admission authorities of maintained schools as defined in Section 88(1)(a) and (b) of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998;
b) governing bodies and local authorities (when not admission authorities);
c) admission appeal panels.
These bodies have a statutory duty to act in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Code."

x-posted with prh47bridge, who is an expert.

I, by the way, am not, have never claimed to be and have explicitly stated so to permashattered by PM on several occasions.

I don't feel thwarted, I don't feel bruised. I feel gutted for Permashattered that she was unlucky enough to get a panel who at best didn't know what they were doing and at worst deliberately circumnavigated the appeals code to issue their own verdict based on their prejudice.

I also feel that some posters should remember that while they are enjoying picking over the juicy details of this case, Permashattered is having to pick up the pieces of other people's mistakes.

Well said lougle- there is 10/11 year old child here with her next 7 years education uncertain. I actually feel sick for perma - and her daughter and if she threw the towel in now I would still admire and respect her- but why should she?

I did not want to pre empt the decision, but I had a feeling they wouldn't roll over at appeal, but think the appellant won't take it further. Grrrrr.

Seriously this is ridiculous now. Her daughter didn't get in even with a monumental bureaucratic cock up. Her daughter is clever and still could be anything she wants because she has a well educated family with high expectations ...
But she still wants her child to be at a selective school which divides rich from poor (yeah how much tutoring people from households that have good food and a table to do homework on).
I'd hoped having brilliant, original children would be an end goal in 2013. the country is going down the pan for a reason.

The function of the panel was not to 'apply common sense', it was to apply the appeals code. Pretty clear that has not happened.

Op I feel for you. I think you're a wonderful mother and you're children are very lucky to have you

Maybe the country is going down the pan because various groups of people (LA, Academy, whoever else was involved) have decided that if they Law doesn't suit their purposes they can just ignore it?

Chicken - it all goes to show how you can never predict the direction the winds will blow here on MN.

The OP described her allocated school as being 'outstanding' but she is determined to get her DD into the grammar school by hook or by crook. I was expecting her to get hammered by the anti-selective education crowd but she seem to have got a pass. Totally unexpected but that's MN for you.

Can we give the OP character assassination a rest finally? It's pathetic.

Perma I am so sorry to hear you lost the appeal, I was really hoping for good news. I have a 10yo dd who would be devastated by this. All the best with getting through this part. x

I didn't suggest Perma was acting as though she was thwarted, she seems to be responding appropriately. I said that the experts on here were thwarted because they've been absolutely insistent that they were right and that no contrary view could be countenanced.

So far no-one has been able to marry up this business about offers not being withdrawn with the distinct criteria which apply to admissions in the case of selective schools. I mooted the point and was firmly slapped down. The law is only the law when it's been applied to a situation which is identical to the one in case. The interpretation of the law throws up distinctions all the time. Sometimes decisions are founded on policy, which is fine, often. It's fine here and correlates with common sense: this was a child who on the day was way below the cut off, not just slightly, and she had been aware of that for some while before this ludicrously incompetent offer was made. It was worth a punt by the mum, but she was chancing it a bit and she knew that too. She was hugely egged on by the MN experts in this. So it's far more subtle than saying the law is the law. Yes, sometimes it is but on new territory it may or may not be. I would expect any further appeal to end with the same result.

Perma - I've been following this thread and was so hoping that you would get the right decision at appeal. I think you have behaved wonderfully and your daughter is very lucky to have such a lovely mum. If you have the strength to continue I really hope you do - I would hate to see the authorities in this case ride rough-shod over the law at the expense of your family.

Yellowtip - are you saying that selective academies should be outside the law? That if there is an error in offering a place that place can be withdrawn whenever the school chooses? After the child has started school? Before GCSE? Anyway it doesn't really matter as the law states that all schools including selectives have to abide by the appeals code which means Perma's daughter is entitled to have her place reinstated.

I think there's room for interpretation forheavenssakes. I can't really see that the Appeals Panel isn't abiding by the Code. As far as I can tell it simply isn't applying the 'mistaken offer' precedents to this case because the child hasn't satisfied the academic precondition of eligibility and that's probably (quite reasonably) deemed to carry more weight than say geographical distance or residency. The fact of how far away she was from the cut off appears to have been material in their decision too - which again strikes me as fair. I don't think hyperbolic arguments strengthen the case. We're not talking about rescinding an erroneous offer in Y10, we're talking about seven days in a child's life when having thought she'd not got into a grammar she then thought she might have done after all. It really does need to be put into perspective. I think it would be a far worse mistake if on allocation day the wrong offer had been made. As it was, on allocation the correct offer was made and then there was the bog up. So the child presumably had had all the right things said to it about not getting in, that it wasn't the end of the world etc. etc.

tiggy I completely understand your reasoning but I really do think it's the academic criterion which makes the difference. I believe it's that and that alone which marks this case out ad I'd expect the AP decision to be upheld for that reason and that reason alone. I'd also expect the bumblers who got it wrong to be severely reprimanded if not sacked.

Its probably not a good idea to pick such a heated thread and an unpopular position for a maiden thread but hey ho, one has to start somewhere.

I'm another one that is surprised that the OP isn't getting any flack for being hell bent on getting her DD into a GS even though the non-selective that the DD was allocated was described by the OP as 'outstanding' (in the interest of full disclosure, mine are at selectives).

I am not saying that the OP shouldn't be trying for it. But I am surprised that the OP hasn't attracted the usual accusations about not wanting her precious DC to go to the same school as the 'thick' kids even though she considers that school outstanding. In other words, where is chickenlivers backup?

A few random thoughts.

Some kids probably spent months, or even years, prepping for the 11+. The OP's DD did 1-2 papers over 6 weeks. I think that the OP said somewhere that she wanted to avoid the exam stress. With hindhight, the stress of the past few months coupled with the effort expended on the appeal would have been put to better use prepping the DD in the first place.

.. maiden post ..

I've just read the appeals code, but firstly I would like to say that I have a lot of sympathy for perma. It's shocking to have offered a place, insisted it was correct and then to have withdrawn it far down the line. But, I can see why the panel reached the decision ( not an expert)
Child was not offered a place, and then was offered one later. A mistake was made in applying the admissions criteria ( when the offer was made) but if he mistake had not been made, a place would not have been offered.
Also, the appeals section on grammar schools looks at whether there is evidence that the child is academically able enough - maybe not enough evidence was given of this?
I hope your dd can start to look forward to school.

But tiggy I don't think there is any real danger of poor parents getting letters all through the summer etc. since I'd expect this decision to relate to grammars only and marks or at least categories are now known, so parents have a pretty good idea of where they stand. I expect the decision might have been different had this child been first on the waiting list/ 29 marks better off and so well able, as demonstrated by her test result, to benefit from a grammar education and not struggle. But she was miles off, unfortunately for her.