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?

Yellowtip you have yet to show where in the Appeals Code there is separate provision for selectives???

How hard is it to understand that the rules are universally applied in Stage One for general (non ICS) appeals?

5madthings according to the experts on this thread case law confirms the OP. But they're struggling to come up with cases. I wonder why? :)

Yellowtip,

Since the legal precedent in these cases seems to be based on 'expectation of a place', could you explain how 'expectation of a place' differs between selective and non-selective schools?

Do parents in selective schools somehow process things more slowly, so their 'expectation of a place' develops more slowly than those in non-selectives?

Do selective parents, for some reason, never develop 'expectation of a place' ... maybe taking the 11+ magically removes it??

Perma - but you said in one of your posts that your DD was really excited at the thought of going to the same school as her sister. So you are saying that had nothing to do with it. You also said that none of her friends are going to the GS so I know it's not because of that. So why is the GS your DD's first choice?

I know that you meant it sarcastically but you probably would had a greater chance if you had put wanting to be at the same school as a sibling in your appeal. I mean, you put that school as choice 1 so obviously it is the school that your DD wants to go to. Arguing to the panel that they should reconsider because DD really really wants to go there wasn't much of a strategy.

Come on teacher, you're very switched on: marks or categories are now known; the child was way off. No expectation there, let alone reasonable. Perhaps a mad kind of hope of profiteering from an idiot mistake, but no 'reasonable expectation', not in the ordinary or the legal sense of those terms.

You can't reasonably expect your kid to get a place at a grammar unless your kid does the business in the exam, or has extraordinarily strong reasons for having messed the exam.

Well, as you haven't given any reference to the appeals code, despite me asking at least 3 times, I think we're talking pot and kettle.

Also, we've countless times referred to LGO case 99C01876, which shows 5 days as too late to withdraw a place given in error.

IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HER MARKS

Yes, I shouted.

Her marks are irrelevant. She had a written offer of a place. She accepted the place. End of.

hubba what do you mean by WC mum who is unable to prep her DC and unable to afford a tutor.? She wanted and we wanted her to go there for the same reason her sister wanted to go there and we wanted her go there; for the same reasons most GS entrants want to go there! Because they're academically bright kids.......! Of course she was excited! Her sister wants her there and she loves it there so of course she was excited! But this is nothing to do with it. Why am I rising to this??

lougle not sure I follow this point: 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". because she wouldn't have been offered a place if they had complied/been correctly and impartially applied.... (thanks for all that explanation BTW - and also congratulations!)

So still struggling with this bit of the Code: "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;" because she wouldn't have been.... That's the crux of this paragraph.

Sleep calls. Night all !

tiggy that's all fine and dandy for non selectives but since there's an extra layer to consider with selectives you simply can't draw a reliable analogy.

In addition, would one of the experts like to confirm that there's a case where an offer has been made in error after allocation day. That would help me a little.

I just love this business that you can't get the distinction with selectives.

There is no extra layer - point to it, yellowtip. You asked for a definition of 'admissions arrangements'. I gave you a link to the Admissions code and told you which pages contained it.

Can you do the same?

Perma I think you're right to worry about that bit of the wording too.

Yellowtip I think you need to grasp that we all need clarification on this grey area which, unfortunately for my DD, we appear to fall into. That may come from the EFA. Or the LGO. It may come following a judicial review. But as the current law stands the most critical element (that I can see at 11pm when I'm foggy brained and should be in bed asleep!) is the delay period during which the child got used to the idea/had a legitimate expectation of a place.

The Panel should have addressed this issue and followed the precedent by which it is bound. It didn't. The ruling might have been fair (as some quite legitimately believe) but it was wrong in law.

Of course there's an extra layer lougle, it's about academic ability. It's not subtle at all. I can look at the admissions criteria for endless super selectives and ordinary grammars and it's there in black and white over and over again.

LaVolcan - my DS walks ten minutes to his school bus pick up point. In the afternoon he does the reverse. But why does this invalidate my comment about how 11 year olds typically make their own way home?

I realize that a lot of posters are emotionally invested but it's getting silly. The OP has made no mention of uniform buying or arranging childcare. For all we know both schools are within walking distance. Yet we are getting posters going about the decision is unfair because the OP might have have arranged stuff in that 7 days.

"In addition, would one of the experts like to confirm that there's a case where an offer has been made in error after allocation day. That would help me a little."

Yes, Yellowtip. LGO Case 99C01876!

The case in question went as follows:

Allocations day: 223 first preferences for 177 places. 27 appeals were lodged and 13 pupils were admitted due to balance of prejudice.

25th May (after allocations day) the Head Teacher decided that it was financially unviable to have a class of 13, but financially viable to have a class of 18.

In his wisdom, he decided to offer places to applicants outside of the council's area despite the fact that a)he'd been told not to offer any places and b) there were people within the council's area who were waiting for places.

Later, the places were retracted.

The LGO upheld the places because of legitimate expectation of a place, despite the HT having no authority to give the places.

I'm sorry for distress caused to your DD Perma and I absolutely get the difficulty caused by having an older sibling there at the school in question, but the fact remains that you knew on the test scores that your youngest DD had no legitimate expectation of a place. Especially since that was the decision on allocation day. I think the AP's decision was right in law, not wrong, because the decided cases don't relate to this precise situation. That said, since you believe your younger DD to be at least as able academically as your older DD I do understand why you'd push it. But on objective grounds, on the test score available to the AP, I think the correct decision both in law and equity was made.

Brilliant lougle. Thanks, but not a selective case.

"Of course there's an extra layer lougle, it's about academic ability. It's not subtle at all. I can look at the admissions criteria for endless super selectives and ordinary grammars and it's there in black and white over and over again."

Yes, in the admissions process.

However, once the admissions process is complete, and it is once an offer of a school has been made, any withdrawl of places have to comply with the rules. That means that the error is corrected swiftly and clearly.

Perma was told 4 times that there was no mistake. She had a written offer of place.

Once there is a dispute over the place allocation, it is the appeals code which applies and there is no dispensation for Grammar schools (other than the rules surrounding appeals on the basis of 'didn't perform on the day) to apply those rules differently.

"but the fact remains that you knew on the test scores that your youngest DD had no legitimate expectation of a place."

The communications from the LA gave Perma a legitimate expectation of a place. The school may have appealed the mark, they may have contacted the authority and appealed on the child's behalf. Who knows.

The point is that an offer is an offer.

The parents outside of York City knew they had no chance of a place - 27 had appealed and only 13 were given places. They still kept their places when the HT acted outside his remit.