How big does a classroom need to be?

[MiraNova]

in order to hold 25 pupils? And how/where would I find information on exactly how big it is, and whether it could accommodate an additional child without prejudice to the others attending? The school we are appealing for is Victorian, and I imagine the smaller PAN is because of the classroom size.

Is this something I need to ask the school (the LA are the admission authority) or will it be on the internet somewhere?

It depends on the age of the child

Just what I was going to say, having had a reception visit to Y6 recently. They were diddy.
You also have to consider that the child will be progressing through the school, so it's not just one classroom and one age to consider.

2 year olds: 2.5 m2 per child. - children aged 3 to 5 years: 2.3 m2 per child ...2.61 square metres is required for each pupil under nine and 2.89 sq m for each pupil from nine to 11.

not sure that you will be able to find this online tbh.
have you had an appeal date yet?
i could be wrong but usually all these stats are sent out with the appeal hearing date.
i really feel for you
there are a few mn'ers with specific expertise who will advise you, hopefully they'll see this thread.
all the best

My DD's class has 25 pupils in it and the classroom is about 18 square metres

thanks mrz - what is the source for that information, in case I need to quote it? We are looking at Reception / Year 1 / Year 2.

I've not had any sort of letter from the LA, just an email, and a notification on the pan london admissions system, even though their email said there would be a letter. So no information about why we haven't got a place, and no mention at all about an appeal, other than what's up on their website.

I do know the closing date is 29 April, so am going to be getting it done over the weekend - but I don't know how I obtain the information I need - for example I want to know the admissions numbers for each criteria for the 2 schools for the last 6-10 years. Am madly busy at work, and have a seriously ill close relative, so struggling with making time to look at this properly - but have been getting great help on here, so thanks all.

If you are appealing for reception it will be

nationalstrategies.standards.dcsf.gov.uk/node/83976

In registered provision, providers must meet the following space requirements:

children under two years: 3.5 m2 per child;
two year olds: 2.5 m2 per child;
children aged three to five years: 2.3 m2 per child.

Usually, the bundle of papers for the appeal will include a floor plan of the school with dimensions of each classroom and/or a list of rooms and their dimensions. If you want that information now, contact the school.

I may have missed your other thread. Why do you want the admissions numbers for each criterion for the last 10 years? That seems excessive. What argument are you seeking to make here?

great, thanks very much.

I realise that Building Bulletin 99 is for 30 children, but here's a link just in case it's useful:

here

I'm seeking to make a point about the requirements in the Admission Code for parents to make "an informed decision over the schools they might realistically include on their preference form".

This was mentioned recently in a determination by the Schools Adjudicator in a similar situation to our own:

"The Code refers in paragraphs 1.9 to 1.13 to the duties enshrined in primary legislation placed on local authorities to increase parental choice, respond to parental representations, and improve community cohesion. I am not persuaded that the LA has given proper consideration to the effect on rural communities of its admission arrangements for community schools alone or alongside those of other schools that are their own admission authority. The arrangements as presented do not seem to me to meet the requirements of paragraph 1.71 to enable parents to make an informed decision over the schools they might realistically include on their preference form."

But you're right - I don't need 10 years, 5 years would be enough, but the point I'm trying to make is that based on the last x number of years, the school we are appealing for (community) has been undersubscribed, and the school that the LA is saying is our nearest (Voluntary Aided) has been oversubscribed. As we are in the last admission criteria for the oversubscribed (VA) school, it shouldn't have been considered our 'nearest school', and we should have been admitted to the community school. Our problem is that we haven't been given priority at any school, and therefore we cannot realistically anticipate where we might be offered a school, as we just get a choice of what's left after everyone else has exercised their preferences. Because we are rural (ish) we lose out on the distance criteria compared to those on the other side of the school, in the town, and have no other choice, whereas they have lots.

Am I missing the point, can I argue this point?

The minimum size of classroom for 30 primary age pupils is now 56 sq metres. A standard classroom should be between 56 and 63 sq metres but there is an expectation that there will be some more specialist practical space elsewhere.
However being realistic that provision is relatively new, so most classes will have a size equivalent to the old standard which was 48 sq metres per 30 pupils.
A PAN of 25 would be expected to show small classrooms and you can make a reasonable guess at what that might be - probably around the 40 sq metre mark. However it does not necessarily mean that it could mean that actually you only have 5 or 6 classrooms in the school not the expected 7 or it could be 5 reasonable size classrooms and 2 small ones. You really need to find out the actual room sizes to understand why the PAN is 25. It is not unknown for LAs to agree that 1 class be taken out of use, to use as a library, music room, staff room or individual tution room and to then set a PAN of 25. So I would always look at the website to see how many classes there are and how many teachers there are.
It is also quite possible that there is a historic reason for the PAN of 25 and that actually the school has had some building work and the net capacity and PAN calculation have not caught up with the changes. So it is definitely worth chasing up the reasons. Also remember to ask at the appeal what the two figures are for the net capacity. One is the actual net capacity measured and the other is 90% of it. The school can agree a net capacity anywhere between the two figures that is sensible, so if 25 represented the 90% figure the net capacity figures would be 175 and 194.
All this information should be given to you in the formal appeal papers but you can ask the LA for them before hand if you want more time to think about them.

admission - thanks that's really helpful. It is a small school - 1 class of 25 pupils per year - and only Reception, Yr 1 and Yr 2 in the school. There is the headteacher, plus one teacher for each year.

The PAN was 25 when my DDs started there in 2000 - so I know it has been that for a while. In addition they have, in the last year or so, added an additional small wooden room in the playground that they use for the library and reading, but I doubt it could be considered a classroom.

In addition to the 3 classrooms, the cloakroom and toilets, the only other room in the school is the main hall - used for PE/lunch etc, and the Heads office and admin office, and a small kitchen (food not cooked on site though).

I'm hopeful that we'll win the appeal on other grounds, but also wanted to have prepared good reasons why the admission of DS wouldn't cause any prejudice, just in case we need it.

So I get the formal appeal papers once I've sent in my appeal form? Isn't that a bit late to formulate my appeal, or should I have had something already? The confirmation email said I would receive a letter, but haven't had anything, so I'm a bit confused about what happens when, other than I know that I have to send the form back by 29th April.

Hmm. I've seen your other thread now.

I think the gist of the advice you were given there is that there is a discrepancy between what the LEA said it would do (not treat any VA school as a child's nearest school) and and what it actually did (treat the VA school as your nearest school). That certainly seems to be a point worth arguing; if you can show the LEA made an error which deprived your child of a place, you ought to win the appeal.

To be frank, I am less certain of the argument about enabling parents to make informed decisions. What you seem to be arguing here is that the admission procedures ought to be different, but (as I understand it, after an admittedly speedy read-though) the problem isn't so much with the policy as with the faulty implementation of it. The appeal panel may be reluctant to get into arguments about whether or not the LEA's admission arrangements comply with the Code. Besides, there is still a difference between making an informed decision and being able to predict with certainty where one will get a school place - no system is ever likely to be able to deliver the latter. I wonder therefore whether it might be better to focus on the argument that there has been an error, which admitting your child to the school would put right.

Before the appeal, you will get a bundle of papers including your own statement and the LEA's statement (and accompanying information about classroom sizes etc). This doesn't prevent you from adding to or developing your statement at the hearing, but you should try not to bring substantial new material in at the hearing itself, as the panel may then have to adjourn to consider it. So it may be helpful to use your statement to give them a rough idea of what you'll be saying at appeal, even if you can't provide every detail.

I agree with Panelmember. Whilst appeal panels should consider whether the admission arrangements comply with the Admissions Code they are likely to be reluctant to conclude that they don't unless there is an obvious breach. What you have here is not, in my view, an obvious breach if, indeed, it is a breach at all. The discrepancy between what the LA said they would do and what they actually did, however, is an obvious problem.

I would also be concerned that adding this point may muddy the waters. You want the panel to be clear that you believe a mistake has been made and clear as to the nature of that mistake. I would therefore think long and hard before introducing other matters. I expect most appeal panels have come across the parent who throws in every argument they can think of, making it hard for the panel to understand the case. So personally I would skip the stuff about ensuring parents can make informed decisions.

ok thanks, that's useful to know. I supposed I'm just concerned that the LA will find some way of convincing the panel that the criteria has been applied correctly, which would leave us without a case - after all, they are not admitting to me that they have made a mistake, so presumably they think they are correct. They are just insisting that STJ does admit local children, and is therefore is considered our local school.

I do believe that if that is the case that we have a number of different grounds under the admission policy being unfair, primarily due to the way that rural communities are treated under the policy. The schools adjudicator very recently criticised the LA in this respect in a determination in respect of Ripley and George Abbot School - www.schoolsadjudicator.gov.uk/.../ADA1268%20George%20Abbot.doc

There are elements about "community", fair access, travel to school, clarity of the admissions process, parents making predictable decisions, which I believe would all stand a reasonable chance in the event that we are not successful on our main point. So whilst I don't want to over-complicate things, I don't want to exclude something that might turn out to have been essential in winning. I was planning to have multiple points, to keep them as concise as possible, and be prepared to discuss them if appropriate.

Also, presumably I need to prepare something about it not being prejudicial to the school to admit my son in the event that we're not successful on the other grounds - do I submit that, or just prepare something to say at the appeal? I'm conscious that it's not good form to add stuff at the hearing, but without knowing what I may need, then it seems I have to cover all the bases.

In the light of this year's situation, our Parish will be looking at the admission policy for 2012, and if it remains the same we will be submitting objections to the schools adjudicator (although I know this won't help me). I had similar discussions with the LA and our MP last year, over discrimination against rural communities with respect to admissions for 6th form, and our local 6th form has now changed its policy to give priority to local students, so together with the determination at Ripley above, I believe there is a growing awareness that the policy is unfair for rural communities here.

I do believe that there is more than one problem - the main one, is the implementation of the policy, but also that even had we lived in the Parish of STJ, then the admission policy would still be unfair.

I know of 3 people who live on the outskirts of the Parish of STJ, who all put STM as their preference, because based on previous years' oversubscription of STJ didn't feel that they had a reasonable chance of gaining a place. One of those didn't put STJ in any of their 3 preferences - instead going for other infant schools in nearby villages, as they felt that was their best chance. They didn't get any of them, and have been given a school in the town, which is a good 25 minute drive in the morning traffic. Children living adjacent to that school have a 15min drive (coming the other way) to STM, and all have priority to STM even though STM is only a 3min drive from us. Children in the town have 8 schools within 2 miles to choose from, children in our village and the Parishes served by STJ only have 2 schools within 2 miles.

A friend with a place at STM lives in the town, has 2 nearer schools (both Good/Outstanding) at which she has priority and would have got a place this year. She still have priority over us at 6 local schools, including STM. Those that she doesn't have priority over us at, are all VA schools which effectively only give places to children living or attending churches in their parish, and sometimes not all of those - which excludes us.

The situation is highly unfair.

oh and for the friend above with a place at STM, STM is her 7th nearest school.

We are bouncing ideas around here. Of course the decision about what to say and how to say it is yours.

I still believe, though, that you have to be wary of saying (in terms) that "if the LEA's admission arrangements were different, my child would have got a place". Self-evidently, that's true, but it doesn't really help you. As prh47bridge says, there's very little here to substantiate an argument that the admission arrangements are in breach of the Code, so you are left arguing "it's unfair and I don't like it". The panel can't devote its attention to speculative discussion of how other admission arrangements would work. Far better to stick to the more solid ground of pointing to the discrepancy between published policy and what the LEA actually did.

I see that there is an issue about the difference between towns and rural areas, in that people in towns probably have more schools in easy distance from which to choose. But this is (to a large degree) a fact of rural life - there isn't the population density to support the same number of schools. By all means argue that people from the town should not have access to the village school, but be aware that (a) this confounds the principle of parental preference which is enshrined in the Code (b) the LEA will argue that the criterion about 'nearest school' gives that protection to rural dwellers and (c) it may come across as NIMBYism rather than reasoned argument.

I agree you need to have something persuasive to say about the balance of prejudice.

Beware of that George Abbot judgement. It has recently been overturned as the adjudicator only listened to Ripley parents and not Guildford ones. I'm not sure quite what is happening now.

mummytime - I didn't know that, that's interesting, I do know it was controversial.

Panelmember - yes it's the bouncing of ideas that is really useful, and I'm trying to get a feel for how best to represent our case, and I definitely have too much information, and need to focus on a few key points.

Your point about "a) this confounds the principle of parental preference which is enshrined in the Code (b) the LEA will argue that the criterion about 'nearest school' gives that protection to rural dwellers and (c) it may come across as NIMBYism rather than reasoned argument." is what I think I need to bring out.

The problem is that we don't have priority at any school in the county (we come under the last criteria for every single one , so have no preference - which is a breach of the code surely? I checked a variety of addresses and everyone else seems to have priority at least 1 if not 2 schools, and more if they are of a faith or have siblings. We don't have access to our nearest school because we do not worship or live in the 2 parishes that it primarily serves. Because the LA have decided that STM which is our next Nearest School is not our nearest school, we don't have access to that either and the whole point of "nearest school" giving protection to rural dwellers falls down.

This now means that children in this parish are offered places on a random basis at any of the 10 or so schools in the (large) area, wherever there are places left - ie at whichever school has places left after they have allocated according to their priority, and is nearest by distance, or if they're lucky, a place via the waiting list in one of the village schools eventually. The parish is a small hamlet - no more than 70 homes, is part of the same church parish as the adjacent village in which STM resides. A few residents in this parish also don't get any preference for the same reasons, but we are talking about a max of 2-3 children a year affected, and this has not ever been a problem before, because STM has always been undersubscribed.

The A3 runs between STM and the town, which means that although the town are closer as the crow flies, by every other measurement (by road/time), they are much further as have to get to the relevant junction to get across. Our journey is pretty much as the crow flies, and takes 3 minutes.

Our situation is not the same as at Ripley, but the adjudicator comments about rural communities competing with urban communities are very relevant.

So how would I concisely make that point in a single sentence?

mummytime - just googled the Ripley/George Abbot situation, and the judgement has not been overturned. However it seems that George Abbot will become an Academy for 2012, in which case it can set its own admission criteria, and if so, is unlikely to include Ripley children as a priority.

Well I have heard from the campaign organisers that the decision has been overturned. As an academy George abbot from what they have said will not be changing the admission criteria, and from what I hear the LEA will still be able to enforce fair admission criteria on them. However the issues is that GA is not the closest school to Ripley (I believe there are 4 closer), one of which is under subscribed at least. The Ripley argument is based on transport to school (similar to ones used for Howard of Effingham).
The other issue is that if villages get preference for town schools based on historical preference, it could affect all schools in Guildford, leading to children being bussed into a town where pupils in that town were being bussed out.

The ripley / george abbott situation is a can of worms and is not likely to be of help to you in my opinion. Yes it does talk about rural / urban communities but the reality is that the LA set a series of admission criteria, none of which can be said to be fatally flawed and all of which as far as I can see meet the admission code. Yes I would agree with you that it seems wrong and unfair to be in the situation that you are in, but I cannot see an appeal panel deciding that the admission code has been broken by the admission arrangements as they stand. That is actually a situation that has to be resolved at a local authority level in terms of making the admission criteria more appropriate for the local community.
There does however seem to be a much more realistic chance of convincing a panel that the admission arrangements were not adhered to by the LA and that the school admitting local pupils is not correct.
As far as the size of the rooms is concerned, it seems a little strange to me why the classrooms are only sized for 25, when it is an infant school and I would definitely find out how big they really are.

I see what you mean, so yes I will appeal on the main point only. I managed to speak to the Admissions Officer at the council this afternoon, who was very helpful, and has agreed to refer our case higher up for a review.

She said that STJ was considered our nearest school because it had taken a few children from criteria 8 last year. I found out today though, that the year before it had over 30 sibling applicants from within the parish, meaning that it was oversubscribed at criteria 3 (I need to check this with the school).

She has also advised me (verbally) that a place has just become available from the waiting list for our 2nd preference school, which hopefully will be confirmed by email tomorrow. This school is a bit further away, and was a long shot in terms of getting a place, and we would still have some challenges re childcare, but it is more feasible than STJ (where there is no childcare at all), and DS will have some friends from pre-school and childminder going there - so I am feeling much calmer about it all now.

Also according to another parent at STM the reason the PAN is low is because the Year1 classroom is small, although the current Year 1 now has 26 in, due to people moving mid-year I think - but I think that might be an exception due to special circumstances.

Thank you so much for all your advice, it's been a stressful week, but I am starting to see light at the end of the tunnel.