Schools Appeal

[emilipops]

My dd wrote 11plus Entrance exams and passed. She scored 340 and the cut off mark was 338. Because we lived out of the catchment area she was considered under Cat4 of the school's admission policy. We received a letter from the school stating that, because the school is oversubscribed my daughter was not offered a place. Hence, I decided to appeal the decision.
I went to the appeal hearing, during the appeal it was then I was made aware by the school head of governors that for those children living out of the catchment area, the pass mark was 340 and that my dd scored exactly that. She went on to say, because there was a tie, between my daughter and another girl, the place was offered to the other girl because she lived closer to the school. Bear in mind, I wasn't made aware of this until the day of the appeal hearing. The head of the governors could not give me the distance from my house to the said school.
I presented my dd's academic brilliance- school report, a medical report from GP highlighting the bullying my dd has suffered and the fact that the same children will be going to the school that she has been offered. A report from a private tutor stating that my dd is already prepared to take GCSE Maths( Bear in mind the school is a STEM school), my dd's diary stating how she is looking forward to going to the school. All that was considered but the appeal was unsuccessful. What is the next step for me and my daughter?
I just recently discovered that I am entitled to people premium, which if I had known before the appeal I would have stated that because children on pupil premium are top of the admission Cat for the school. Any advice?

The question is whether the school carried out the correct procedures. Firstly in the admission criteria was it clear that there was a different cut-off point for those out of catchment to those in catchment.If it was not clear then you need to question whether the process was fair.
Secondly in terms of the tie on marks, it happens but what is most important is that there then a clear way of having a tie-break decision. Again what the admission criteria says is what should have happened. It would be quite normal for the tie break to be based on nearest to school gets the place.
The only doubt in my mind is the lack of knowledge of the distances by the chair of the governors, which if they had carried out the process effectively I am sure they would have had, so they could prove to you that it was correct that the other person got the place.
If you feel you want to take this further then you would need to go to the Local Ombudsman claiming that the school had not followed their own admission criteria process.

Have you made the school aware that she receives pupil premium now, if the criteria are as you state then she should go to the top of the waiting list. There may still be parents deciding between private and state options so she might get a place on the waiting list.

Thanks for getting in touch. At no point or stage in the admissions criteria did they make mention of a different cut off point between children in catchment area and those outside. It was at the appeal hearing that I was made aware of that distinction.
Secondly I was sent a generic letter stating that the school was oversubscribed hence my daughter couldn't get a place. Again it was only at the hearing that the head of governors stated that because my daughter was under Cat 4, there was a tie break and it was decided in favour of the child who lives closer to the school.

Shouldwestayorshouldwego.Thanks. I have done that.

If you would like to PM me the name of the school and LA involved I will be happy to take a look at their admission criteria. It may be possible to take this further.

Whether the passpark was 338 or 340 doesn’t really matter does it? Or am I missing something. Your DD got 340 regardless of what the pass mark was she would still be in exactly the same place in the list.

Unfortunately as you have discovered just getting the pass mark isn’t the only thing. It is normal for places to be given in order of distance from the school. Unlucky for you that the other person was closer.

You could double check the distances to ensure no mistake was made but I can’t see that they haven’t followed their admissions policy based on what you have put.

You would have had to provide evidence of being on pupil premium when applying. You could now provide evidence and hopefully be put at the top of the waiting list.

BrieAndChillie you are spot on. I live about 13 miles from the school. Approximately 30 minutes drive from the school. However my concern is for someone ie head of governors to not state emphatically the distances in her decision is troubling. More so I wasn't made aware of this until the day of the hearing. They may be right in their decision but the process itself or how it was done remains undesirable. On a similar note I asked the head of governors that if the school does an in year admission how many children do they admit ? She couldn't give me an answer.

Whether the passpark was 338 or 340 doesn’t really matter does it

Yes, it does. If the pass mark is 340 but some children have been admitted with scores of 338 or 339 the OP's child has been disadvantaged. Having different pass marks for in catchment and out of catchment applicants would be highly questionable, to say the least.

However, having seen the admission criteria for the school, I don't think that is what has happened here. I believe the pass mark was 340. All applicants living within catchment were admitted. However, there weren't enough places left to admit all applicants living out of catchment. They then use the child's mark in the entrance exam as the tie breaker. As it turned out, everyone who scored 341 or more was admitted, but they then had two applicants tied on a score of 340. In that situation they use distance as a tie breaker, so the OP's daughter missed out, as did all the other applicants living outside catchment who scored 338 or 339 - they all achieved the pass mark but didn't get a place.

As far as I can see there hasn't been a mistake. However, the OP should have been given full reasons for her daughter not getting a place before the hearing. Indeed, it should have been in the letter telling her that her daughter didn't get a place and in the school's written case for the appeal. Simply coming up with that information on the day isn't acceptable. Unfortunately it is unlikely that a complaint about that will go anywhere as it is difficult to see that the outcome of the appeal would have been different if the school had disclosed the information earlier.

The pass mark was 338 and not 340. If she lived in Trafford and had 338, she would have had a place. Because she lived in out of catchment area, I was told the pass mark for out of catchment area was 340 and beyond. And as you rightly suggested she and another girl scored 340 and the tie breaker was decided based on the distance from the school.

Straight away they broke appeals procedure. All evidence has to be presented and seen by all sides prior to the appeal. Any evidence used during the appeal- for instance as you say the 340 cut off/distance tie- is against the rules.
Did the chair of the appeal not mention this?
If not you have grounds to contact the education ombudsman.
We were in a similar situation- DS wasn't offered a place at primary with his DD, evidence was presented during our appeal hearing which didn't allow me time to respond fully and we lost.
I contacted the Ombudsman who agreed with me 100% that they failed to follow procedure, and suddenly, DS who was third on the waiting list was magically given a place.
It's always important to look up rules and regulations on appeals.

Do they mean that the lowest score admitted in out of catchment children was 340? If there had been more places available the lowest score admitted for out of catchment could have been 339?

Doesn't this depend how the admissions criteria are worded?
For grammar schools, for example, the oversubscription criteria sometimes say something like priority is given in the order:

1. Looked after and SEN children
2. Children in catchment achieving the pass mark
3. Children out of catchment in order in order of the mark they achieved (highest first) with distance as a tie breaker if 2 or more children achieve the same mark

Which would be exactly OP's situation and would effectively mean that in catchment children could score lower on the test and get in over out of catchment children. Surely that is just the risk you take if you apply for an out of catchment school?

Without giving too much away, RedSkyLastNight is broadly correct as to how the admission criteria to this school work.

Regarding BiBiBirdie, the requirement is that any documentary evidence must be presented before the appeal. That does not stop either side giving more information verbally during the hearing. The information on precisely why the OP's daughter was not admitted should have been in the decision letter. That is a requirement of the Code. It should also have been in the school's written case but that is good practice, not a requirement.

Even if the admission authority has breached the Code that will not automatically help the OP. She has to show that this breach has disadvantaged her, i.e. that the outcome of the appeal may have been different if this information had been available to her earlier. I suspect that the EFA or LGO would not award a fresh hearing in this case as it is unlikely that late disclosure has disadvantaged the OP.

I strongly suspect be that the information disclosed before the hearing (which would probably be that the OP's daughter missed out on distance) would be regarded as adequate with the information around scores being a minor detail. If the admission criteria were exactly as RedSkyLastNight says (they aren't but it is near enough), all the information around scores reveals is that the OP's daughter was in category 3 (which was already clear), that everyone in category 2 was admitted (which was clear from the fact that children in category 3 were admitted) and that everyone in category 3 with a better score than the OP's daughter was admitted (also clear from the admission criteria). So the fact that everyone with a score of 238 or better in category 2 was admitted but only children scoring more than 240 were admitted from category 3 was not a major revelation. It was something that was apparent from the admission criteria and the fact that the OP's daughter missed out on distance.

Schools/Councils run their procedures water tightly these days as they know people will appeal and they want to keep successful appeals to a minimum. Unless they have messed up I don't think your appeal will be successful. They have to have a cut off point someone, so it looks like your child and yourself will have to accept that you failed to make the grade on this occasion.