Refused Place at Preferred School

[Pippa5000]

Hello,

My son is currently in reception and we're moving to a new schools district so we're an in-year application. We filled in the application form but our first choice of school has been declined and we've been offered another school.

The facts are:

The preferred school we want is around 1 mile away and we're well within catchment.
The preferred school had a roll of 60 for 2011/12 but they have allowed a further 7 pupils in so now have 67 in reception in 3 classes.
The preferred school is planning to have 3 classes in Year 1 for 2012/13.
The offered school is over 4 miles away and would be a real pain to get to.

We are going to appeal and I'm thinking that because there is clearly space for my son at our preferred school and that we are in the catchment area then our appeal should succeed. In fact I really can't see how they would refuse our appeal as aren't they legally obliged to give us our first preference if they have space?

Am I missing something here?

Any advice much appreciated.

Thanks,

Pip

AFAIK they will have to provide transport for your child if the place they have offered is 4 miles away. You can go on the waiting list for your preferred school in the meantime.

It sounds like they planned to admitted 60 but have had to accept 7 extras. These are counted as 'excepted' for the rest of this academic year so it doesn't mean there is space, it just means they have 2 classes which are totally full up but next term they will have ok class sizes, ie under 30. Sounds like he will be able to move to that school for Y1 if they have an extra class then though

An expert will probably be along to correct me

Can you home ed until September?

I'd have thought that if you apply for a space starting September 2012 then you wouldn't have to appeal...

How many children do they have in each year (and are they multiples of 15?)

I was wondering if the larger year1 for 12/13 could be a bulge class the school was compelled to provide, for if so it doesn't provide a precedent for being able to cope with year groups of that size throughout the school.

Ignore most of my last, OP, I didn't read your post careful enough!

My guess is that the extra 7 children are excepted children and they are having to plan for three classes in Y1 in order to comply with infant class size regulations. Unfortunately that doesn't create an additional 23 spaces. Under the regulations they can't admit any more children until the number in the year drops below 60 and any appeal will be under infant class size regulations. That means you are unlikely to win unless you can show there has been a mistake and your son should have got a place, which is unlikely for an in year application.

If the additional 7 children are not excepted we are in a different ball game but it still doesn't necessarily mean they have space.

You should give the appeal your best shot and explain why this is the right school for your son but if, as I suspect, it is infant class size you should be realistic about your chances of success.

As MoaningMinnieRisesAgain says, if the allocated school is over 2 miles away by the shortest walking route they are obliged to provide free transport for your child.

Thanks for all your comments.

I'm a bit confused as for the current 2011/12 reception class the limit was 60 but they let in these 7 extra students. But these are in 3 classes not 2. They've created a bulge class for reception and they plan to continue that into year 1 next year.

I spoke with the school admissions today and they said the appeal was not subject to infant class size prejudice.

It doesn't matter if we have to wait until September. But I'm not sure why they wouldn't accept him now?

Thanks,

Pip

Just reading up on "Excepted" pupils. The regulations say:

"If at any time it becomes possible for an excepted pupil to be provided with education at the school in an infant class in which the limit is not exceeded (for example because a non-excepted child leaves the class, an additional infant class is created, or an additional teacher is appointed), that child ceases to be an excepted pupil (regulation 5(2))."

In my case here they've added an extra infant class to deal with the extra 7 students they accepted in reception. Rather than having the two full classes of 30 they decided to have 3 classes of 22/23.

This means the 7 extra students are no longer "excepted" by the looks of it.

Don't they effectively have 23 spare places?

Pip

If it is not an infant class size appeal, which it sounds like it is not with 3 classes (the three classes are now, not from Sept?) then that improves your chances greatly at appeal I believe you need to show that the benefit of attending this school to your son is greater than the 'prejudice' for school in letting him in.

Interesting.
With a PAN of 60, if for some reason 7 pupils had been admitted as excepted pupils (that is there had been some kind of mistake) then normally the school would still run with 2 classes and have 34 in one and 33 in the other and they would not need an extra teacher. Under the regulations they would then in year 1 have to ensure that the classes did meet the ICS Regs.
What however you have here is a situation that there are 67 in reception and the school / LA have taken the decision to put in an extra class and teacher and that they are going to do when they become year 1. If you then combine that with the fact that the admission office is saying it is not ICS then I think the answer must be that the school / LA took a decision to admit over PAN and they are not excepted pupils. As such they have had to have three classes to overcome the ICS regs and are doing the same in year 1.
The regs clearly say that any panel cannot assume that just because the school has excepted pupils that they can add extra pupils, but if I am right there are no excepted pupils. So my take on this is that you have a "normal" admission appeal on the basis that the school is over its PAN of 60 and therefore no other pupils should be admitted. In theory the year group is full as they have the 60 pupils required by the PAN but they have three classes. However what you are talking about is three classes of 22,22 and 23 in presumably classrooms designed for 30. Not sure how any LA is going to defend that situation at appeal, but one thing you need to check is the actual class sizes. It could be that they actually have one very small room that they are using as a classroom, which might alter he dynamics a bit.

Being in the ' catchment' does not mean anything at appeal.

This sounds very odd, if they are running 3 undersize classes and plan to do so next year, why wouldn't they want to fill them - they get funding per student.

Sounds to me like they had 7 additional students through exceptional circumstances (which seems odd in iteself). Maybe they are hoping next year to run 2 classes, with a few dropouts and an extra TA to share between the classes.

I'd be checking school website or calling the school to firstly check the 3 class thing (make sure none are combined year classes or something). Then I'd be asking admissions why my child couldn't have a place in those undersize classes.

I don't think they are giving you the full picture.

The 2010 regs are clear that once the PAN has been reached that no more pupils should be admitted unless both the LA and the school agree and it does not conflict with other schools in the area. I believe that the LA as the admission authority are applying the letter of the law, they have reached and exceeded the PAN, therefore the parent has to appeal for a place. That might seem silly because as Jenny70 says extra pupils = more funding but the LA has to consider the area as a whole not just the one school.
Come next year the new 2012 admission code will be relevant and the onus is then that schools can exceed their PAN far more easily then at present.

Hi Jenny70, I just rang the school and they said they are definitely running 3 year 1 classes in September as they have 3 reception classes now.

As "admission" notes I think they are applying the letter of the law here.

Still the school office seemed to think other people have moved to the area and not managed to get in so I'm a little on the puzzled side.

admission,

You note that the 2012 admission code becomes relevant next year. Is this correct? Don't the parts regarding Excepted pupils come into force immediately. One of which appears to say that if a school creates a new class or hires a new teacher and the Excepted pupils can be taught in a class of 30 or less, than those pupils are no longer Excepted.

Think I need a lawyer!

Its complicated.
The new admission code and admission appeal code came into law in February 2012. As such any appeal after that date has to be to the new admission appeal code.
However the new admission code refers to entry to September 2013 entry. The cycle for entry in 2013 however begins in early 2012 with Local Authorities having to consult on any changes to admission arrangements such as admission criteria and PAN changes. That has now been completed and leads onto the formal publication of the admission books etc in sept 2012 to allow people to register and put down their preferences etc.
So it is the 2010 admission code that is relevant for entry in september 2012.
Excepted pupils have been around for quite a while, the difference is that currently an excepted pupil is only excepted for the academic year in which the child starts at the school, whereas from next year they are an excepted pupil for all the time they are in an infant class in reception, year1 and year2 until as such time as the number in the class returns till 30 or less. The whole point of the word excepted is that they stand above and outside of the PAN.
So in your case with a PAN of 60 and 67 in the year group. If they are excepted pupils then they will cease to be such in september 2012 and the school has to meet the ICS Regs. Until the year group gets down to 59, that is 8 leave the school, there will be no additions to the year group under the admission code other than by agreement or by a decision of an appeal panel.
The LA seems to have decide that they will simply leave it to appeal panels to make decisions. The LA cannot argue now that in september these pupils are excepted they are not, they are simply extra to the PAN. If we were not talking about an ICS regs case but about say junior pupils, the panel decision would be dictated by how the school were handling the extra pupils. If they were in two classes of 33 and 34 then most panels would not admit extra pupils but as soon as the school says we are running and will continue to run three small classes of 22,22 and 23 that is an entirely different ball game.
The curious thing for me is that nobody else has appealed and won a case this year, surely it must be obvious to other parents that the school has three small classes.

Thanks Admission for your lengthy response.

It is indeed very confusing.

You note "The LA cannot argue now that in september these pupils are excepted they are not, they are simply extra to the PAN.".

Does this make a difference to my current appeal? Because they are currently "Excepted" does this mean for now they can argue that they have not gone over the PAN as these are not counted? Is the argument different in September?

"The curious thing for me is that nobody else has appealed and won a case this year, surely it must be obvious to other parents that the school has three small classes." This is what the school office said although I am checking this point.

It seems to me that the only defense the authority has is that by admitting our son it will cause future prejudice to the school in that they would be required to run 3 classes in Year 2. But given that they are already running thee in Year 1 does this hold much water?

If I don't win this appeal I can apply again for Yr. 1 entry and appeal again if needed? Do you think there is a greater chance of being accepted/winning by going into Yr 1 from Sept?

Pip

As they say this will not be an infant class size appeal you don't need to worry about whether or not these pupils are excepted. That only matters if infant class size regulations apply. If the LA change their minds and argue ICS it becomes relevant but at the moment it doesn't matter.

The same applies to future prejudice. That is just another aspect of ICS. If they try to argue future prejudice it is something to address.

But, as Admission says, there is definitely something odd here. Small classrooms perhaps? Otherwise I can't see why there have been no successful appeals. And if these were all excepted pupils, why the extra class in Reception? It wouldn't be necessary until Y1.

The rules are that you can have one appeal per academic year unless there is a material change in the circumstances. You are appealing now for a place which could be offered for after half term if they got their skates on - will not happen in reality because of the number of appeals for reception in September. However it is still for entry now.

That means that in theory you can appeal again in September but nothing has effectively changed in either your circumstances or the schools. The only difference will be that it is likely to be a different panel.

Thanks so much for all your help. Just one last thing.

This future prejudice ics - if they did use this as a reason then is this the same as a normal ics appeal. That's to say that there is not usually much chance if winning an ics.

Pip

Yes correct, future prejudice just means that as the pupils move through into year 1 and year 2 they will be in classes of 30 and any extra pupils would take the classes over this limit, whereas in reception year they are in smaller classes.
The easiest way to think of it is that if the admission number is 60, then they have three classes of 20 in recpetion but in year 1 they have 2 classes of 30
I can see no reason why they could possibly claim future prejudice on the information you have given us, they have 67 in the year group and no possibility of claiming they are excepted pupils in september.

I suppose they could claim future prejudice for year 2, no?

No they could not. As the children are not excepted they will have to run 3 classes in Y2. They cannot make the extra children excepted again for Y2. The only way they can get down to 2 classes for Y2 is if at least 7 children leave but they can't argue an appeal case on that assumption.

Thanks prh47bridge.

So is it possible that earlier in the year if anyone else had been refused admission and appealed the authority could have argued future prejudice because they didn't know if they were running an extra Year 1 class? I know they were hoping for some wastage to get down to 2 classes in Year 1 but this didn't happen.

Having decided to run it though they have lost the use of this argument by the looks of it.

Pip

And there is no way they can argue that they are required to get back down to 60 as soon s they can even though they have the three year 1 classes. They cannot argue that by accepting my child now or in year 1 that by doing so it lessens the chances of getting back to 60 students at some point?

Pip

This sounds very familiar - the dc's school has 67 in current reception.

The history was that the borough offered an extra 7 places (for some reason - they were expecting some to be declined and there to be movement after offers that would result in 60 places, as has happened in previous years).

They are paying for an extra teacher for the duration of ks1 or until the roll in that year drops to 60. The expectation is that by the end of ks1 and infant class sizes, the roll will be at around 64ish, which is cope able with 2 ks2 classes of 32 as is the case currently in ks2.

The school doesn't have the capacity for class sizes of more than 32/33 in ks2 - classrooms would not be big enough. We have one spare classroom (sort of an extension to the existing 2 classroom set up, which if used for ks2 would mean one class of 32 as that's the most that can be fitted into one class area, and one of 35plus which wouldnt be practical for that single teacher with no TA) which will be used for the ks1 years. So reception are staying in their current classroom set up and will not move classrooms until ks2 (year3) when they will be split into 2 forms.

I suppose the reasoning is that if they continue to increase the roll in that particular year, there will be problems when it comes to practical arrangements for ks2. The lea will not be paying for an extra teacher after the end of year 2 and the consequences would be disastrous for the school financially if they were to increase the roll further. Also there just isn't the physical space within the ks2 classrooms for more than 32/33.