Appeals based on denomination?

[MDM]

Has anyone ever won one because places had been given to applications that hadn't 'ticked the church box' when you had?

I'm not quite sure what you mean. An appeal can be won on the basis that a mistake has been made and your child should have been given a place. This may include your child not being placed in the correct admissions category. However, if the admission criteria for the school have been followed correctly you will not have a case. For example, imagine a school with the following admission criteria:

1. Looked after children
2. Siblings
3. Families attending church and living within the parish
4. Other families within the parish
5. Families attending church and living outside the parish
6. Other families outside the parish

You may succeed with an appeal if you fell into category 3 and children who were not looked after, did not have siblings already at the school and did not attend church were admitted ahead of your child. However, since categories 1 and 2 do not require church attendance it would be perfectly valid for children in these categories to be admitted ahead of your child even if they don't attend church.

If that doesn't fit your situation please provide more information and I will try to advise.

Hello there! The criteria in this case are

1. Kids in care / sen
2. "denomination"
3. Siblings
4. Distance

This suggests that all 30 admitted needed to have 'ticked the church box' on the application form in order for their place to be valid ahead of someone like us who also ticked the church box (and attend regularly).

Eg. If there I'd a child accepted who got their place because of siblings and didn't quote denomination as important, would that mean that people who tucked the church box should have been put ahead? Seems crazy, but that's the order that the admissions criteria are stated.

Could you please help me I have an appeal on
Monday for a year 3 appeal. The school is a c of e
School and we didn't get place because of the
Distance. I have made a draft but any advice
Would be very appreciated. I am very nervous.
Thank you

That is an unusually short set of criteria for a church school. But it means that looked after children and SEN children will get in ahead of those who meet the church attendance requirement.

The question is not whether someone "quotes denomination as important". That is irrelevant. What matters is whether the church attendance requirement has been met. If it has then the child is in category 2. If it has not the child is in category 3 or 4.

Ok, they have never asked for confirmation of church attendance, would they only do that when offering a place?

Just checked the criteria again. I missed one out for number 4 : health/ special access. 5 is distance. So it's:

1. Kids in care
2. Denomination (we had to tick a box on the form to say whether we were applying to that particular school due to 'religion'.

1. Siblings

1. Health / access reasons

1. Distance

It could be that everyone who has been offered a place ticked the 'religion' box. Indeed when we looked round, the head firmly recommended that we do so regardless. I'm wondering whether it's worth appealing in case there have been any errors on this?

An error being that although denomination features second on the school admission criteria, that KCC actually does not take it into account? In my eyes that would be quite misleading / confusing?

MDM,

If the only proof required to be considered Category 2 is to tick a box on a form, and that the head tells everyone to do this, then I should imagine that everyone has ticked the box.

It seems very likely that there has been no mistake - just that the level of proof required for one of the criteria is so low that it has become meaningless.

Is there a statement about what happens if one of the criteria is over-full (ie if 100 people have ticked the box to prove denomination and there are only 30 places)? Distance is usually used as a 'tie breaker' under these circumstances, but given the remainder of the criteria, it may be siblings as first tie breaker, then distance as a second?

You're right teacher, my frustration is that the second category has become meaningless. It has meant that genuine church-goers (like ourselves) end up being nudged out by those who 'say' they have a faith by ticking a box. What's the point if it's not validated??

I guess it's one of those government exercises in PC? Can anyone shed any other light?

The line actually reads 'denomination preference', which prob gets them out of having to ask for proof. How can you prove a 'preference'? At the same time, it's ticks one of the PC boxes by showing they've provided a 'choice' and not excluded anyone. So frustrating.

However, on the application form, the box you had to tick was called 'religion', suggesting you'd need to show that you were baptized potentially. It very confusing and misleading, bug you're right, not exactly an 'error'.

This seems very strange. Could you PM me with the school and LA involved so that I can take a look?

Just done bridge.

I am also a little confused by this, normally if you are applying for a church school you have to fill in a supplemental form that gives details of your church attendance etc.
This form would not be online or come in the admissions pack from the LEA (if you got one) but would have to be picked up from the school then filled in and normally then signed by the prest/vicar, this forms the 'proof' for applying under faith criteria. I can't help by have this niggling feeling that you maybe didn't know, weren't informed, didn't notice the need for this form, I would find that quite hard to believe though as I know with our school it says on the online and paper application form that if you are applying under faith criteria that you need to fill in the supplemental form.
If this school does not have such a form and there is no check on the validity of people 'ticking the box' on the form then I would bring this up at appeal, I am not sure you could win on this though, to go back, ask people for 'proof' and to re look at the offers would be impossible at this stage, I think it would depend on if the panel thought the way the school are doing things was non compliant with the regulations or if it made the decisions unreasonable enough to be perverse. I am not sure but it could spark a review for future admissions process to the school.

I would very much like to hear prh's view with the extra information of the school and LEA involved.

Without giving too much away, this LA has a box on its application form allowing parents to say they have chosen a particular school because it is a church school. The LA apparently gets all schools, including community and VC schools, to put applicants into rank order (dubious - the LA should be doing this themselves as they are the admission authority). VC schools within this LA have given priority to parents who ticked this box.

This is a clear breach of the Admissions Code. Faith schools can give priority to children where the child or parents are members of the faith or practise the faith. They cannot give priority simply because someone says they want a faith school. Furthermore, the LA's admissions booklet fails to mention that VC schools give priority to children of parents who have ticked this box although at least one school states this on their own website. It is therefore unclear whether or not parents are actually getting priority by ticking this box.

If someone had lost out on a place through not ticking the box they would have clear grounds for appeal.

I understand the LA concerned has realised the error of its ways and is removing this box from the form for future years.

Thank you prh for clarifying that for me. It seems very muddied indeed and must lead to upheld appeals all over the place, possibly leading to so many people 'winning' appeals for some schools that it is impossible to accommodate all the children who have lost out so even though they have cause to 'win' at appeal they still don't have a place at the school they would like, nightmare for all! I bet the panels are sighing in relief about the changes for future years!

Hello roadkill, the story doesn't end there. Today I emailed both the school and the LA to ask whether or not the 'church box' had been taken into account. The LA said no, but the school effectively said yes!

How am I supposed to stand a chance if preparing an appeal under these conditions! Bridge, I've sent you the replies, see what you think?

roadkillbunny - If an appeal is upheld the school MUST admit the child. It has no choice. One of the things the appeal panel has to consider in this kind of situation is whether the school can actually accommodate all the children who have been disadvantaged. If they decide it cannot they are left with the thankless task of deciding which children will actually be admitted. The rest will lose their appeals.

There has to be a line somewhere though right? I've heard the actual limit is 32?

MDM there is no limit which you will find written down anywhere, it is completely up to the panel.
It is my personal opinion that I would never want to admit more than 3 to a class of 30 and preferably only two. 33 children age 4 and 5 is definitely too much for one teacher, no matter how good they are. But if I had to decide between admitting 2 or 3 who should have had a place then I think that I would choose 3 as I frankly do not know how I would differentiate between the three if they all should have got places and were disadvantaged.

Understood admission. Thankyou!

Does anyone know whether, if a place becomes available between allocation/acceptance and the appeals process, is the school allowed to hold back the place just in case one of the appeals wins? Or do they have to offer to the waiting list regardless of appeals pending?

Any place that becomes available must be offered immediately. They cannot hold places back in case of successful appeals.

Thanks bridge. Local sources tell me that someone is about to pull out, and two weeks ago we were first on the waiting list, so fingers crossed that no-one has leap-frogged us since then....