New Admissions Code

[prh47bridge]

An updated Admissions Code has been published and comes into effect on 1st September. This isn't a major overhaul but there are some changes:

• PAN now only applies to the normal year of entry. Admission to other years cannot now be refused on the basis that the year is full to PAN. However, admission can still be refused on the basis that it will prejudice the school. I doubt this will make any practical difference.

• The requirement to give top priority to looked after and previously looked after children has now been extended to include children who were in state care outside England and were adopted from state care. State care in this instance includes being cared for by a religious organisation or some other care provider whose purpose is to benefit society. This change applies to 2022 admissions so existing published admission arrangements must be amended to comply.

• The current Code makes it clear that schools cannot prioritise based on practical or financial help parents give to the school or any associated organisation. The new Code clarifies that this includes donations, paid work or voluntary activity that supports or benefits the school, associated organisations or employees either directly or through work in the community.

• When measuring distance, the selection of a "nodal point" from which distance will be measured must be made on reasonable grounds and clearly explained.

• A clarification has been added explaining that the requirement to notify parents of the outcome of selection tests before the closing date for applications does not extend to banding tests.

• Determination of the admission arrangements must be recorded in the minutes of the meeting of the governors/trust at which this occurs.

• The admission arrangements must be published on the school's or LA's website by 15th March.

• A school cannot give priority to someone just because they have completed a Supplementary Information Form. So, if it is clear from the information submitted to the LA that the child falls into a particular admissions category, they must be placed in that category even if no SIF has been submitted. I doubt this will make much practical difference - most SIFs are to record attendance at church and have to be signed by the priest/minister, so you won't get priority on faith grounds without that.

• It has now been clarified that, where a school is its own admission authority, the committee that decides whether to admit children can meet virtually.

• A footnote informs readers that most applications for summer born children to be admitted out of their normal age group will come from parents of children born in late summer or prematurely. I have no idea why they felt it necessary to add this statement. It does not alter anything.

• The arrangements for children of UK service personnel and crown servants have been clarified. Previously the Code suggested that a unit postal address or quartering area address was needed. It is now clear that an application must be processed even if the parents don't have an intended address. If the parents can provide some evidence of an intended address, that can be used for admissions purposes. There is no longer any requirement for a unit or quartering address, although parents can still ask for that to be used.

• The LA's co-ordinated admissions scheme must now cover late applications, which are defined as those made before the start of the school year but too late for an offer to be made on national offer day (this definition is not new but, worryingly, the LGO recently got it wrong, accepting an LA's argument that an application made in May was an in-year application).

• Several paragraphs have been added covering in-year applications. The only real change here is that LAs and admission authorities are required to publish on their website information as to how in-year applications can be made. I think most, if not all, LAs already do this. It also clarifies that in-year applications must be determined using the school's current admission criteria.

• Parents should be informed of the outcome of an in-year application in writing within 10 school days and must be informed within 15 school days. For grammar schools, the clock starts running when the child takes the entry test. If the application is successful, the child must be admitted as soon as possible

• When dealing with in-year applications for a year other than the normal year of entry, a school with a high proportion of pupils with challenging behaviour or pupils who have been permanently excluded can refuse admission if it has good reason to believe the child may display challenging behaviour. Previously they could only refuse pupils who had been permanently excluded from two or more schools.

• There are a number of tweaks around Fair Access Protocols of which the most significant is that, whereas the Code used to list 7 categories of children that must be included and left it open to LAs to extend this list, the new Code lists 13 categories but makes it clear that these are the only categories that can be included.

• The deadline for LAs to produce their annual report on admissions has been moved from 30th June to 31st October.

That pretty much covers it. If anyone has any questions I will be glad to answer them if I can.

I don't know if there's a legal answer to that. My instinct would be that they couldn't, because admitting the pupil in year 2 would prevent them from going to PAN in year 1, and if they're under the PAN, they 'have a space'. To allow the admission in year 2 would prevent them from complying with the code in year 1.

I do think this is simply intended to allow admissions in cases where, for example, a PAN is 27 children in a year 1 class. The following year, they would have to allow up to the 30 ICS limit.

I don't think there is a legal answer. I agree with Lougle's instinct, but we'll have to see how this plays out in practical terms. Note that, since the regulations are about actual class sizes, not averages, admitting one more in Y2 only works for schools that have mixed Y1/Y2 classes.

School admissions nightmare. Please forgive the lengthy explanation but it's complex! I don't feel that Admissions have taken into account the criteria and child/family needs and welfare. We have a son who will be going into Year 4 in September. We moved area last year and were refused a place due to the PAN in his year group; two schools merged and were replaced with one. Three classes in year group, currently 32, 31,31 pupils. KS2 class numbers are not limited to 30 as in KS1, but we've been told it's ' local authority policy'. We applied for a September start and have just received another refusal. Been offered a school which is impossible to get to for me as a non driver, with a baby. The cut through is regularly flooded and in a wooded area which is unsafe. Only alternative is a good half hour walk there and then back ie 2 hours daily which will be impossible when I'm back in work in November as I work in the opposite direction and am reliant on buses. Husband starts work at 7am. Baby's future childminder delivers children to local school we want. My son has no siblings of school age, but his cousin one year younger lives around the corner is as close as a sibling, He goes to the school which is a couple of hundred yards down the road from us all. I'll be reliant on the child minder for childcare when I'm back at work for delivery and collection and sister in law to cover any illness. Grandparents live in different areas of the country. Child has had to stay at his old school, relying on a lift there and back from a family friend who is now returning to work after home working (covid). It will be logistically impossible to get child to and from his present school on the other side of town in September or to the offered school. Child lost his grandfather earlier this year, all his local friends and football club friends go to the school we want. He has had some bullying issues in his current school and we're all desperate for him to go to the school up the road. Current Head and teacher understand and are sympathetic but not allowed to write any letters of support as it compromises their position! I need to show that his well being is more important than any possible issues that having one extra in a class may affect the other 30 children. He has been first on the waiting list since last year, but we were told that won't guarantee a place if a child leaves as LAC and SEN children take precedence. Any advice on where we go from here please as it's causing us all a lot of stress?

Cheadle

It might be better if you start a new thread of your own.
Normally though your personal logistics don't hold much weight at appeal iirc.
The experts will be able to advise you better than I can.

@Cheadlehulme I've answered on the new thread you posted. If you answer on there, this thread can stay focused on the updates to the admissions code 🙂

Hello all! Not sure if you can help me. I live in London, as does my ex who, for school purposes, has custody of the children (in practice we have them pretty much 50:50 but their official address is at hers.)

As such, I asked my ex to fill in the CAF so my younger daughter could join our older daughter at the same secondary school. This she did; but AFTER the deadline for a SIF at that school.

The SIF, as far as I can tell, is mainly used as a mailing list to invite pupils to a banding exam, which is in common with other schools we are applying to, and where the SIF deadline is next week.

Am I right, thrn, in thinking the late SIF shouldn’t affect our daughter’s chance of getting a place? Because, I’ll be honest, since my ex told me yesterday that she’d missed this deadline, I’ve been worrying A LOT about this.

Can OP or anyone else put me out of my misery on this one?

Thanks!

@prh47bridge I have a question about clause 2.7, and in particular the bit in bold:

"2.7 Admission authorities must allocate places on the basis of their
determined admission arrangements only. A decision to offer or refuse admission must not be made by one individual in an admission authority. Where the school is its own admission authority the whole governing body, or an admissions committee established by the governing body, must make such decisions. The admission authority must keep a clear record of any decisions on applications, including in-year applications."

Surely this should instead say "Where the school is coordinating its own admissions ...", because many schools that are their own admissions authority will nevertheless be part of the borough's coordinated in-year admissions process (as per clause 2.23), in which case it will be the LA that is making the decision to offer the place, not the school. The school's only involvement will be (as it is for the normal admissions round) to answer the LA's questions about whether the child is a sibling, child of staff, etc, which can be done without forming a governance committee,

I'm asking as a school governor, because there seems to be some confusion about this among schools in my local area.

No, it is correct as it stands. In most LAs, the school receives a list of applicants from the LA in the normal admissions round. The school is then responsible for putting that list in order using its oversubscription criteria. This clause tells us that must be done by the governing body or an admissions committee. It must not be done by a single individual. Even if the LA determines the order of the list, they still need to know which oversubscription category each child should be in. That should be decided by the governing body or an admissions committee. In all honesty, a school is unlikely to get into trouble over this when dealing with questions of fact, but it may be an issue if subjective judgement is needed (e.g. if the school has a special medical needs category).