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?

"So which one of you has a daytime job handling education appeals?"

I've just been accepted onto the Appeals service, so will have very soon. All such roles are voluntary, as it happens. Obviously, until my induction is complete, my knowledge is that of someone who has done a lot of reading and looked at many cases. Which is why I've always stressed that I'm not an expert when talking to Perma.

My sister sits on appeals panels, I might ask her what she thinks.

I'm not raging about Life's uneven playing field. Both my kids are in selectives thanks to a pair of pushy educated parents who knew their way around a 11+ exam. So I am the last one to rage about MC bias in education (and Life).

It's not quite a 'rage' but the double standards of some MN regulars does irk me a bit.

tiggytape well said.
HabbaDabbaDoo the point is that the admission dept have ill-served the OP. And they will continue to ill-serve others if they can get away with the chaotic way they have managed this case (including sending a standard letter relating to y3 admissions....).
Vulnerable and less well-connected people have a better chance of fair treatment in a system where there are rules, and those rules are followed. There are numerous thread on MN regarding the unfairness or otherwise of selective education - this is not one of them.
This is a thread that looks a the specific details of one case.
I am very impressed with the level of knowledge of posters, particularly Yellowtip and prh, who are genuinely trying to help the OP, and who are doing so in a calm and civilised way.

Thanks tiggytape

In spite of the experts on the opposing team, I'm still with Yellowtip. I'll check in at some point to see whose opinion is substantiated.

... because at the moment all that we are doing is playing Armchair Lawyers.

We're not playing a game, Habba

On 29th April, Perma asked for advice. Several people have tried to give the best advice they can, based on the words of the Admissions Code, the Admissions Appeals Code and various LGO decisions following appeals.

That is all.

Thanks Catherine, as well as Habba :)

I can see the argument that admissions authorities need to be called to account especially bungling idiots like these ones. I also understand perfectly the rationale for honouring offers made in error in the case of non selective schools. Where I have a problem and where I think and hope the law will discriminate is in the case of selective schools, because while the Code applies to all schools, selectives have different admissions criteria, specifically the academic one and upholding that criterion is central to the delivery of education at the school. A child taken in under these circumstances whose pass mark was so far below the cut off could well be deemed not suitable for the specific type of education on offer and also, possibly, to represent a source of prejudice for other pupils at the school, if the child finds it a struggle to keep up in class. The test score can be a blunt instrument I agree but it is the instrument of choice and law and so is bound to be the decider, in the absence of striking mitigation.

It may be that the a further appeal is allowed, but I have a degree of faith in common sense underpinning most of the law so my money is on the decision being upheld. I think an 'in all the circumstances of the case' caveat for future cases could usefully be slipped in, as I can see circumstances where an appeal in similar circumstances should be allowed: where the offer was wrongly made on allocation day as opposed to six weeks later and where the child in question was very close indeed to the cut off or where seriously adverse circumstances affected performance.

I would add that the EFA are new boys on the block, so I suppose the wind could conceivably blow either way.

tiggy - I would be more receptive to your point if the OP wasn't a lawyer.

I mean, she is hardly a WC mum who is unable to prep her DC and unable to afford a tutor. Which only leaves her with the appeals process to level the playing field against MC mums.

"Where I have a problem and where I think and hope the law will discriminate is in the case of selective schools, because while the Code applies to all schools, selectives have different admissions criteria, specifically the academic one and upholding that criterion is central to the delivery of education at the school."

Yellowtip, can you see that whilst the admissions criteria must comply with the Admissions Code, the appeals must comply with the Appeals Code?

Once the admission process is over, the admissions criteria are irrelevant, save for the scrutiny of the appeals panel to ensure that they complied with the Code. Once the appeal is lodged, it is the Appeals Code that determines success or failure of the appeal and there is no provision there for such discrimination.

The only specialist exemption afforded to Grammar Schools is that they may retain places if no-one meets the grade and refuse to admit even if there are spaces.

In Perma's situation there was no pass mark. It is quite possible that last year, or next year, the score her DD attained would have got her a place. This year it didn't.

There is a very good reason why they split the appeal into 2 stages. This should not have gone to second stage.

Well put Yellowtip. It's exactly my point but I seem unable to frame it such a way that it doesn't sound antagonistic or rude

Lougle, that's the bit I don't follow. I thought stage 1 was without the mistake the child would have got a place? Not, with the mistake the child got a place? And that the appeal should have won based on case law re: timing of removing a place offered in error.

lougle it's not 'quite possible' that the score the DD attained would have got her a place last year or would get her a place next year. The scores remain remarkably constant, apparently. I don't know on what evidence you make that claim, since it's wrong.

They have to proceed to stage 2 or the primary issue which needs to be addressed wouldn't be. Ok, and sorry Perma (and I do accept that the test score may fail to reflect ability): the DD's score was spectacularly below that of thelast child in, hugely, vastly, extravagantly so. There were no mitigating circumstances to explain the low score. If the law can dapt to find a common sense solution, it will. It seems to have done so. The EFA may be all at sixes and sevens at the moment getting used to the job, so an appeal may succeed, but it shouldn't.

You're correct in what you say, but I believe that the conclusion is wrong, Nerfmother. I'll break my argument down into numbered points, just to try and make it clearer.

1. The Appeals Code.

The exact wording is:

"3.5 The panel must uphold the appeal at the first stage where:
a) it finds that the admission arrangements did not comply with admissions law or had not been correctly and impartially applied, and the child would have been offered a place if the arrangements had complied or had been correctly and impartially applied; or
b) it finds that the admission of additional children would not prejudice the provision of efficient education or efficient use of resources."

On first reading, you'd think 'well yes, they made a mistake, but that mistake benefited the child, so it doesn't fall under this criteria.'

1. Perma quoted part of the appeal decision:

"Here's part of the appeal decisions: ".... the panel agreed that the admissions arrangements complied with the mandatory requirements of the Schools Admissions Code and Part 3 of the Schools Standards and Framework Act 1998 and that the admission arrangements were correctly and impartially applied......"

"and that the admission arrangements were correctly and impartially applied......" is clearly untrue. The admission arrangements were not correctly applied. If they had been, Perma's DD would not have been offered a place.

At that point, you may think 'well then it clearly doesn't count'. Especially as it was not the Academy, who are also the admission authority, who made the mistake.

However

1. The Appeals Code sets out the 'Statutory Basis for the Schools Admissions Appeals Code.' Clause 6 says:

"6. 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." (emphasis mine)

Also, Clause 4 of the same section says:

"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."

This means that the LA was bound by the Code and the Admission Authority was responsible for the mistake made by the LA, even if they didn't directly make the mistake, in so far as taking the consequences of that mistake.

1. The appeals panel must consider whether a mistake was made that deprived the child of a place. We know this wasn't so in the first instance - the mistake gave Perma's DD a place.

However, they made several mistakes. They repeatedly assured Perma that her DD had a place. This strengthened the legitimate expectation of a place that had been created by an Official telling her that her DD had a place.

1. The last mistake they made, was to remove the place long after the established 'window' given by LGO rulings. Perma took a call 6 days after the event and a letter followed that.

This mistake is the one which I believe is covered under the criteria of "the child would have been offered a place if the arrangements had complied or had been correctly and impartially applied".

1. LGO case 99C01876 dealt with an appeal where a Head Teacher offered places when he had no authority whatsoever to do so. Because the retraction was too late, the LGO upheld the places. 5 places. The reason given was that there was a legitimate expectation of a place.

1. There is no provision in the Code for Grammar schools to deny a wrongfully given place on the basis of aptitude.

1. The appeals Code says that Stage 2 should only be heard if Stage 1 is not satisfied.

1. Stage 1 was satisfied.

10. The appeals panel got it wrong.

Sorry it's so lengthy.

Yellowtip you are wrong. They do not " have to proceed to stage 2 or the primary issue which needs to be addressed wouldn't be."

The Code specifically says:

"The panel must uphold the appeal at the first stage where:
a) it finds that the admission arrangements did not comply with admissions law or had not been correctly and impartially applied, and the child would have been offered a place if the arrangements had complied or had been correctly and impartially applied;"

Regardless of the prejudice, a mistake had been made and was not corrected quickly enough. That's the bottom line.

Thanks lougle. Good luck with the new position! Was thinking of applying as its very interesting. Don't think I have time tho.

Thank you, Nerfmother. I don't think it's too time consuming - there will be a reasonable pool of panel members and I think they try to spread out the cases each member hears, as they know that the position is voluntary and people have commitments.

Sister does two or three full days a week in appeal season, think she really finds it rewarding

If the law can dapt to find a common sense solution, it will. It seems to have done so.
Yellowtip I think this statement is debatable. Their actions have cost OP the chance of a decent appeal for her second choice school, which may or may not have been acceptable. OK people will say that she asked to delay the appeal, but in this case the GOV.UK site states "The ?admission authority? for the school (usually the school itself or the council) must give you at least 10 school days notice before the hearing to confirm the date."
So telling her on 2nd May that the appeal for the 2nd choice was going to be on 7th May isn't in accord with that either.

May or may not have been successful is what I meant to say there.

I agree when yellowtip says "lougle it's not 'quite possible' that the score the DD attained would have got her a place last year or would get her a place next year. The scores remain remarkably constant, apparently. I don't know on what evidence you make that claim, since it's wrong."

Totally irrelevant to the discussion but nonetheless of interest: a score that puts you 188th on the waiting list, is highly unlikely to get you a place in any year. I can say that qualifying scores this year, for one particular super selective, have been higher than previous years.