Advice on how to effectively object to schools admissions policy via the OSA

[Pl242]

Hi there, have posted elsewhere on this issue, but starting a fresh thread to focus on the specifics of this process and seek any advice and resources on how to mount the most effective objection to a schools admissions policy via the Office of the Schools Adjudicator (OSA).

Our local secondary school has just closed its consultation on a proposal to add a second feeder school and for this to apply for the next admissions round, i.e. the current Year 5 who will transfer to secondary school in 2027.

I hope they will change their mind off the back of the consultation (a local campaign was launched, detailed responses of objection gone in etc) but suspect they will go ahead regardless and we will then want to file an objection via the OSA.

The most effective angle we have is the displacement of children from their closest secondary school, as the proposed policy will prioritise feeder school children living further away, thus reducing the number of placements available by geographical distance and hence reducing the further place offered by distance measurement.

Looking at previous OSA determinations on similar cases, some have held up objections on these grounds and some have not. If I've understood the process correctly it seems like previous determinations do not provide any formal precedent in the guise of case law, and each case is determined on its own merits and the same case could be upheld or rejected depending on the views of the particular adjudicator it is assigned to? Grateful for any advice or views on this one, I cannot find the answer easily via public research.

Either way I would be grateful for any tips advice or links to resources or advisors re how we can lodge the most effective objection. We have data/evidenced points and think we understand which parts of the Code we need to reference; and also understand the process in terms of how to lodge it and the timescales we need to adhere to etc, but any advice in general would be much appreciated.

Thank you and Happy New Year!

"Looking at previous OSA determinations on similar cases, some have held up objections on these grounds and some have not. If I've understood the process correctly it seems like previous determinations do not provide any formal precedent in the guise of case law, and each case is determined on its own merits and the same case could be upheld or rejected depending on the views of the particular adjudicator it is assigned to?"

@Pl242 No, I would disagree with that. Each case is different because of local circumstances and demographics. The views of the Local Authority are given material weight because they are responsible for ensuring all local children get a school place. Also, the characteristics of the displaced children are material - if they are provably from a distinct social demographic, especially a 'protected' demographic, then that will be given weight. For example, if an admission policy change cuts out children in social housing in favour of those from private housing then the objection would be more likely to be upheld.

I have experience of the adjudicator process as an objector (multiple upheld) and also as the defender of objections (multiple defended). The process is:

1. Follow the timetable. As soon as the 2027 policy is formally determined and published (by March 15th latest) then you can object to it, but the deadline is May 15th.
2. Fill in the objection form, setting out exactly which admissions code clauses you think the school has breached. For your case it is presumably clause 1.8.
3. The form enables you to ask the adjudicator to give you anonymity from the school/LA, but its your responsibility to make sure any evidence you submit is anonymised (e.g. check for, and remove, hidden properties in MS Word docs that name you as the author)
4. Submit the form and sit back and wait. You will be sent copies of the replies from the school and LA, and can comment on these if you wish to.

In my experience, the Adjudicators have always been very thorough. As well as considering your objection they will scrutinise the school's policy as a whole.

If children in your area have access to other schools within a reasonable travel distance then the fact that you have been displaced from your nearest school will not be considered material unless there are other aggravating factors, such as discrimination against a particular social group.

As @happynyooyear has said, you will need to identify how you say the admissions criteria breach the requirement in paragraph 1.8 of the Code that oversubscription criteria must be reasonable, clear, objective, procedurally fair and comply with equalities legislation. You may also want to look at para 1.15 which says that the selection of a feeder school must be transparent and on reasonable grounds. You haven’t mentioned anything about the proposed criteria not being clear or objective so I am assuming you will be relying on unreasonableness. This isn’t something for the adjudicator to decide subjectively, rather they will be looking objectively at all the circumstances.

Thank you both @happynyooyear @Squidgemoon for taking the time to respond here. I really appreciate it. I think the reason I am confused is that I am trawling previous similar cases to help me understand it and for example these two seem to take almost opposing stances on the same issue which I can't understand - maybe there is something in the underlying context that I'm missing - any views on that?

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5f27ec55d3bf7f1b1119248a/ADA3656_The_Thomas_Aveling_School_Medway_3_August_2020.pdf

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6703db1ac71e42688b65f231/The_OSA_s_decision_on_the_objection_to_the_admission_arrangements_of_Maritime_Academy.pdf

@Pl242 there is nothing confusing about those two contrasting decisions. They are two very different cases.

In the first (which was upheld) the objector, which was the LA, gave robust reasons for why the feeder school status would disadvantage applicants living in a specific area by giving them an unreasonably long journey to alternative schools.

In the second (which was not upheld), the objector and LA had no case on grounds of fairness - they simply objected to the principle of children not being able to access their nearest school. Based on current evidence, displaced children will be able to access other schools a reasonable distance from their homes. The adjudicator acknowledges that may change in future. If so, then another objection can be raised at that point.

For you, the key question is whether you and other displaced families can easily get a place at another school a reasonable distance from home.

Thank you @happynyooyear that is useful feedback, thank you for taking the time to read and respond.

The second decision is much better than the first in explaining its reasoning. As the second decision notes, there is nothing inherently “unfair” in one group having an advantage over another, that is the whole purpose of admissions criteria. The first decision is a bit misleading I think in giving the impression that children being forced to travel past their nearest school to another, further away school is in itself unfair, but that isn’t the case.

As @happynyooyear says, the key distinction between the two seems to be that in the first case there was evidence of actual displacement of children who would have to travel unreasonably far to another school, whereas in the second there was lots of choice of local schools and a lack of evidence that the more local children who wanted a place wouldn’t still get one.

@Pl242 do you know what the local authority’s position is in your case? That is likely to be given a fair amount of weight, in the second decision it looks like the LA didn’t really object, and confirmed that it had sufficient places across the authority for all children. Most parts of the country now have falling birth rates and reduced demand for places which is also likely to be relevant.

The LA's views will always be sought because they have a legal obligation to make sure all children have access to a school place within a reasonable distance from home. This Government guidance explains what can be considered reasonable: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/659d7ebb0dd0a200138b612a/Travel_to_school_for_children_of_compulsory_school_age.pdf

Thank you for all these posts. Delighted to update that I have no need for them as the school has decided - off the back of strong local opposition - not to go ahead with the proposed changes! This is a huge and unexpected surprise and we are delighted. Truly grateful for the insight and expertise offered here on the OSA process. Many thanks.