Quick post appeal q for the admissions gurus

[ghenghismaam]

PRH/Admissions/Betsy - we lost our appeal not on ICS, they were already 1 over the PAN due to a late admission and claimed future prejudice from 2013.

Already one of the catchment children will not be taking a place as they are moving, bringing the PAN back to what it should be, but I have just heard that the late admission child will not now be taking the place.
We are on the waiting list but in 4th place -none of the other parents above us appealed, is it possible to contact the LEA and point out that the circumstances as at appeal have now changed? ie the only reason we didn't win were because of the late admission, who has now gone and if the parents had made that decision to not take up the place before our appeal we would have won?
The answer I know will probably be that they have to offer to the waiting list but it's so unfair!!
Cheers

I'm afraid the answer, as you suspect, is that they have to offer to the waiting list.

I'm intrigued as to how a late admission got in when they were already full up. I'm also intrigued as to how they argued future prejudice from 2013. That's 3 years away! Lots of things can happen in that time.

However, the fact that you appealed and the people above you didn't does not give you any right to jump the waiting list. If they admit your child it would be a clear breach of the Admissions Code.

You can, of course, appeal again in September (you are allowed one appeal per academic year) and you have the option of referring the case to the LGO if there was something wrong with the appeal. Your only other option is to wait until 3 more children drop out, I'm afraid.

Thanks PRH - the reason they did future prejudice was that the combined class at that stage would 1 of 16 (PAN) + 1 of 17 (PAN + 1 extra) therefore a class of 34 would be too large - in 2013.

This despite the fact that a local airbase which makes up a 3rd of the school is closing next year.

The extra was admitted because in the words of the LEA 'there was no suitable alternative' - well there obviously is as the parents have taken it!

Am hoping that the other 3 on the w/l will have settled their child into their allocated schools and won't take up the offer...!
Thanks again

PRH is right I'm afraid (& you knew the answer really anyway )

However I don't understand their reasoning "they did future prejudice was that the combined class at that stage would 1 of 16 (PAN) + 1 of 17 (PAN + 1 extra) therefore a class of 34 would be too large - in 2013"

Are they talking about a KS2 class of 34 (I think that's what they mean by 2013?) - then infant class size does not apply & 34 isn't that large unless the class rooms are really tiny & space is the issue. (Our school has a PAN of 70 & 2 classes of 35 in KS2...)

I might just be tempted to refer this to the LGO.

Firstly future prejudice in Sept 2013 is a ridiculous statement to make, it is far to far in the future.

A combined year 2/3 could still be subject to the ICS Regs if there was a majority of year 2 in the class and it was 33. By my reckoning that could happen in sept 2012, not september 2013. But if an extra pupil was admitted to year 3 then the ICS regs would not apply as the infants in year 2 were not in the majority. In Septemebr 2013 the class will be in year 3 and there is no possibility of ICS Regs referring at that point. The LA seem to be factually incorrect.

If you then put this with the fact that the LA were responsible for admitting the 17th pupil under what now appears to be spurious reasons, i think there is a case for the LA to answer. They may have a much better case than it seems from your post but it might be worth a telephone call.

I agree with Admission. If this was the LA's case I really don't see how the panel decided that admitting an extra child would cause prejudice. A case based around Y3 having classes of 34 in 3 years time is unbelievably weak, especially when coupled with the imminent closure of the airforce base. If that was their entire case, it makes me wonder whether the panel even considered whether admitting your child would cause prejudice or simply decided that they didn't think your case was strong enough. The rules are clear - they MUST first decide if admitting your child will cause prejudice to the school. If it doesn't they MUST admit your child, even if you don't have a case at all. The decision letter is supposed to set out the reasons for your appeal failing. What did it say?

I would certainly take this to the LGO.

I have just re-read your posts and we are all assuming that this is future prejudice based on an infant class size case in 2013.

But was it?

Was it actually a simple case of in 2013 we could have a class of 34 if we admit your child which is too large in the LA's opinion.

If I am right that is an even weaker case than we had thought. However in a strange way it is actually also a weaker case to take to the LGO. The whole context of the original appeal to the LGO was that the panel made a fundamentally wrong decision based on incorrect information. Now in the above scenario the panel made a decision which actually you cannot argue against because it could factually be correct, even if it was based on the weakest of cases. Under those circumstances the LGO would not get involved.

Thank you all for your input - I originally posted here

The school has a net capacity of 112, made up of 4 classes - reception + split yr 1, split yr 1 + yr 2, yrs 3 & 4, yrs 5 & 6.

So their case was that although an extra could be accommodated in class 1 & 2, in 2013 when you have the 2 full classes combined there would not be the space for an extra. The school had indicated they were happy and able to cope. Our case was that the full capacity had not been met in the past 5 years, and also the assumption that no one would leave could not be made as there was a pattern of movement in the past 5 years, even without the airbase closing.

I quote from the refusal letter 'The panel considered that the LA had proved it's case that Reception year would be full in Sep 2010 & to admit any more would prejudice provision of efficient education etc etc' They also say in reference to the late admission that 'a place had to be offered as there was no alternative school that the child could be reasonably expected to attend'

So they did consider whether there would be prejudice to the school. However, with the school saying they could cope, with the argument being based on what happens in 3 years time and with the airforce base closing, that seems an extremely odd decision. Admission is right that the LGO may not want to get involved. If I were you I might try suggesting to the LGO that the decision of the panel was irrational and cannot be supported on the evidence presented. I might also suggest that the decision is so far contrary to the evidence that it calls into question the independence of the panel. It is a long shot and I suspect the LGO won't want to get involved but you never know.

I would approach the LGO on the grounds stated by PRH but accept that there is a high likelyhood that they will say that the panel made a decision that was not totally irrational.

We may think that it was irrational but something convinced them to not admit and it was not, from your quote, the situation in 2013 it was the situation in September in the reception class. Frankly the only people who know that are the panel and the clerk who wrote the appeal letter to you.

I suspect your best bet may be to wait until the beginning of September and see exactly how many pupils there are. If the successful late application does indeed not turn up, I would ask the LA for the place based on the fact that they were quite happy to offer a place on the basis of there being no alternate school and you would like the same curtesy extended to you. They will of course say no and you can appeal and let a panel decide the outcome

Thank you all again for your input - on reflection the panel did seem to bend over backwards to agree with all the facts & figures the LA put forward, maybe there was somnething around the late admission that we don't know about but they did actually say at one point in their case that there was space in reception, but not in 2013.

However, moving on, just one more query - I did feel from the outset even though we on paper had a good case, as soon as we walked in I felt we had lost. Purely on gut feel and body language (I am former nurse & trainer so consider myself ok at picking up on these things..) to compound this feeling, at one point a panel memeber asked about our other 'choice' and where we were on the waiting list, and had we considered appealing for that school. Is this a legitimate query, as at that point I knew it was downhill all the way so to speak.
I can't thank you guys enough for al your help. Virtual wine etc to you all..

That question is not relevant. The only things the panel should be looking at is the school you are appealing for and the allocated school. Where you are on the waiting list for other schools and whether or not you are appealing for them has no bearing whatsoever.

I'm afraid you can't take body language to the LGO! However, the panel is supposed to ensure that it is clear to you that they are independent. You came away with the impression that they were not. That is, of course, a difficult one to take to the LGO unless you have hard facts about the way the appeal was conducted to back it up.

I can see no valid reason for asking about your other choice. If you are going to the LGO, I would raise that point and say that it suggests that the panel took into consideration factors which should not have formed part of the appeal.

Just to add to what I said last night...

Are there any other questions you felt were inappropriate? Did the LA's representative come into the room with you and leave with you? Did any of the panel say anything which sounded like they had prejudged the case? Did the panel question the LA's representative properly?

The answers should be no, yes, no, yes. If they aren't, that indicates the panel hasn't done its job properly, which you should definitely bring up with the LGO.

I am particularly interested in your comment that the panel seemed to bend over backwards to agree with the LA. If you can substantiate that it is a major failing in the way the appeal has been conducted. The panel should be bending over backwards to appear independent of the LA.

I also find it strange that the panel decided that admitting your child would cause prejudice in 2010 when, from what you say, that wasn't the LA's case and the LA stated that there is space in Reception.

As I've said previously I'm not sure the LGO would get involved on the basis that the panel's decision was irrational but it is worth a try. If you can show that the decision is directly contrary to the LA's evidence (i.e. that they have stated there would be prejudice immediately when the LA stated there would be no prejudice until 2013) and that the panel behaved in ways which question their independence, it becomes a much stronger case to take to the LGO.

I would partially disagree with PRH about the validity of questions about other schools.
As a panel member I would always want to know what the parents have done in terms of visiting the school appealed for and also other schools. Part of that knowledge base has got to be what other schools in the area have places available and how far are they away - the LA should supply that information.
Last week at an appeal on asking these questions it became apparent that there was an alternate school but that the parents could not for various reasons possibly send their child to that school. So it became in my opinion a stronger case for prejudice against the child because they had no viable alternate school to go to. That information was not in the parents written submission as they did not think it was relevant.
Having said that knowledge of where the parents are on the waiting list is definitely not required as is whether they have appealed to that school. There is a fine balance to be struck between necessary information and unnecessary and potentially misleading information.
I would talk to the LGO on the basis as indicated by PRH but not expect too much from it.

Thanks PRH, still mulling through it all & will have a closer look at my notes that I made during the appeal over the weekend.

Just a point on waiting lists - if a place is offered and declined, do these people then 'lose' their slot on the waiting list? Or if they changed their mind and decided they did want to be on it in the future, would the usual admission criteria apply?

Also we are considering moving to a bigger house - not for school purposes! which happens to be slightly (400 yds) closer to the school - would this change our position?

Thanks and have a good weekend!

Admission is, of course, right that there is a fine line regarding questioning. My concern was that they asked you where you where on the waiting list and whether you had appealed. These may have been entirely innocent questions which didn't form any part of their considerations - appeal panels are, after all, human and have natural human curiosity. But they have to be careful not to give the impression that they are taking irrelevant information into account.

My biggest worry, to be honest, is that it sounds like the LA admitted there would be no prejudice until 2013 and yet the panel seem to have decided that there will be prejudice in 2010. Indeed, from what you've said about the LA's case, it sounds like they did not argue that there would be prejudice in 2010. I may be wrong on this as I am not aware of any similar cases going to the LGO but I don't think the panel should be finding that prejudice exists in a situation where the LA has not argued that it does.

If a place is offered and declined the child is naturally removed from the waiting list. If the parents then change their minds the child will be returned to the waiting list using the usual admission criteria to determine their position. They wouldn't get the place that had been offered as that would have gone to someone else but they would probably be at or near the head of the list.

If you move closer to the school it will be taken into account and will probably move you up the waiting list. You may, of course, have to convince the LA that this is a genuine permanent move and not a ruse to get into the school.

If they reject a place they would have to reapply and would then be placed on the waiting list again at the relevant point according to the admissions criteria. Of course when they reject the place it would then be offered to the person at the top of the waiting list at that time, so unless there was only a very small amount ot time (probably hours) between rejecting and reapplying then the admissions authority would have already offered the place to someone else, and shouldn't go back on that.

If you move you need to let the admissions authority know your new address (some will take it as soon as you have exchanged contracts/signed rental contract, others want you to have physically moved in). You will then be placed on the waiting list according to the new address, so yes it could move you up the list by one or more places, or not at all of course, depending on the circumstances of the people above you & the admissions criteria.

x-post with PRH again, I really need to learn to type faster