Need help with Infant Class size Appeal please - In year appeal

[lovebeingamother]

Firstly hello to all and thanks to the posters on this wonderful forum! I have been lurking around a lot but posting for the first time. I am appealing for my dd who is on the CI list for the school but has been denied place on the basis of Infant class size prejudice. I will appreciate some help in understanding the complex science of school appeals and rules. I have done some digging after some research on this forum and google in general. These are the facts about the school. It has a PAN of 38 children. The 4 classes across this age range are Class R with 30 children, Class 1-R with 26 children, Class 1-2 with 28 children and Class 2 with 30 children. Now, am I right in thinking that there is no case of Class size prejudice here? I am confused and am thinking I am missing something obvious here as the LA would not otherwise quote this reason in the letter sent to me. Any help or comments will be much appreciated.

Thank you very much, admission, Sent you the docs now...

admission, Thank you for looking at the net capacity figures. I am posting this reply on the forum as others in similar situation can/will benefit from the reply you make. I noticed that the figures (acual total net sq m) changed little over the years and were 1105 sq m in 2010. I am going to ask them for 2011 figures and see what we find there. I know for certain from the newsletter dated 04/2011 I found on the school website that the work was underway to convert the music room (48 sq m) to a support teaching room and a peripatetic music room. It further stated that more work will be done over the Easter break including incorporating the workroom into the reception classroom and the increasing the size of the reception playground. This was all in preparation for single term entry. Would this qualify as a major change?

Definitely the reception playground has nothing to do with net capacity, other than confirming that the school is well set up for the foundation scheme of work, which does entail "learning while play" outside.
From the original documents the music room (which at some stage was probably a classroom) is included in part of the net capacity calculation. Converting it into two rooms alters the individual room sizes but not the effective total area. The same applies to the workroom, it should be within the net capacity and therefore simply bringing it into the reception classroom makes that bigger but not substantially altering the overall floor area. The reception classroom will still be designated for 30 places no matter what the size as this is the theoretical maximum due to the infant class size regs
I think a major change would be if the music room at 48 sq m was being used as a class base rather than a music room. That would in effect be another classroom, rather than a room(s) for small group work.
There is some leeway in the net capacity calculations as to what is included and not included and to some extent it is what the head teacher, who has to sign the net capacity document agreeing it, has had removed from the calculation. In this particular case they appear to have included all the rooms in the school and therefore I do not believe that there is any great mileage in trying to show there is more space in the school than the net capacity indicates.

Thank you for the explanation, admission. I am not going to pursue this point at the appeal. It is best not to mention anything.

Hi admission and prh47bridge, I have just had the great news! We have won the appeal!! Thank you so much for all the advice and help. Actually, 'Thank you' does not even touch what I feel about all the invaluable help I have had from both of you. I could not have done it without you both. Many Many Thanks.