Admissions experts - is this correct?

[fatfloosie]

This is from the LA's statement for our appeal on Tuesday:

'All admission authorities must determine their admission arrangements by 15 April that will apply for admission applications for the following academic year. Therefore, the admission arrangements for the 2012/13 school year were determined on the 15 April 2011.'

I think the first sentence is incorrect (or at the very least ambiguous - I can see if you said 'during' instead of 'for' it could possibly be correct) and would welcome opinions on it.

There are a few other inconsistencies in the LA's statement and I thought I would ask about these as a way of settling my nerves before asking the more important questions (some of which are to do with the clarity of the admission arrangements - hence pulling them up on the above wouldn't be completely random). Is this a bad idea? Will I just look like I'm being nit-picking and petty?

Double check that statement against the admissions code, but it sounds right to me.

By all means go to town on the clarity of the admissions arrangements, but if this is an infant class size case it won't achieve much (or anything) unless you can convince the panel that the arrangements are so unclear that they produce decisions that are so unreasonable that no rational LEA would make them.

Tiggytape - I think what OP is querying is whether the arrangements determined in April 2011 apply to children starting school in Septembet 2012 (as the LEA says, which, without checking, I think is right) or whether they apply to applications made during 2012/13, do for September 2013 starters.

I agree though that nitpicking is pointless. OP needs to identify serious mistakes that denied her child a place or throw the whole process into doubt.

Sept 13 joiners are surely a red herring. Those applications will not have yet been made, let alone decided with appeals underway.

I don't see a problem with the LEA statement and, unless you are claiming it was not properly drawn up or was not published when they said it was (eg two versions concurrently available on official website with differences that may have affected outcome in this case), then this does not look like a strong argument.

The statement is correct. The admission arrangements would have been agreed by April 2011, so that the admission information was available to parents in September 2011. They could then decide on preferences through to January 2012 closure date for entry to school in September 2012 for school year 2012/13.
What are the other questions you have, as you do not have much time before Tuesday to firm up your best case for admission

What is the basis of your appeal, OP?

If, as I (possibly wrongly) surmise it's that some change which has taken place for Sept 2012 joiners - and which you don't like or accept - should have come into effect for Sept 2013 ( or not at all) it seems unlikely to get you very far. What other points are you planning to raise?

Thanks for replies. My reading of the extract is that when it says 'for the following academic year' in the first sentence that would mean the 2011/12 school year for 15 April 2011 and not the 2012/13 school year. So the second sentence, which is correct, contradicts the first sentence, which is why I thought it was incorrect.

If it makes sense to everyone else then clearly it isn't incorrect, just difficult for anyone who isn't an expert on admissions to understand!

One of my main issues is that the admissions booklet published at 1 Sept directed you to use more detailed information on the LA website that was changed on 24 November (ie the day before online applications opened). Using the information on the website from 1 Sept - 23 Nov my daughter would have got a place.

The LA statement says that the online information was changed but doesn't give a date. So, taking the advice above, I think I will start by asking them to confirm the date of the publication of the admissions booklet and the date of the update of the website.

That would be a very good starting point to get that information.
The whole point of having such a long lead in time as already discussed is that all the admission criteria and procedures are in place well in advance. The only way that anything should be changed after April 2011 is if this has been agreed with the Schools Adjudicator. If it has not been formally agreed with the school adjudicator then you have a reasonable case that this should not have been altered.
However I am not sure how you know that your daughter would have been got a place.
If you want to PM me with the school and LA and why you believe that you would have got a place I can look up whether I can find any change that the School Adjudicator has approved.

I hope the OP doesn't mind me filling in a little bit of detail.

This LA uses formal catchment areas. They changed them for this year's admissions (although there is some dispute as to whether or not the admissions team should have done this as the conditions set by the elected councillors for the change had not been met at the time the admission arrangements were determined or at the time applications for places closed. Indeed, it is unclear from the minutes of the relevant meeting whether the councillors intended the new catchments to take effect for this year's admissions or next year's). Their admissions booklet refers parents to the interactive map on their website to find out which is their catchment school.

There are, in fact, two interactive maps on the council's website. The admissions booklet does not specify which is the correct map. One of these maps (probably the one the admissions booklet expects parents to consult) was updated the day before online applications opened. Following the update, parents wanting to use this map are faced with a page asking them to enter their address or postcode and select 2011/12 or 2012/13. The small print says, "Choose which application year you are applying for" but does not give any further help as to which is the correct choice. The 2011/12 option is selected by default. However, the 2012/13 catchments were the ones used for this year's admissions. Prior to the update any parent consulting this map would have been told their catchment school using the old catchment areas. Following the update parents will only get the correct information if they understand that they need to select 2012/13 before clicking the Search button.

The other interactive map had not been updated in mid-May. It was still using the old catchment areas. I haven't checked it more recently - it may still be using the old catchment areas. As well as telling you your catchment school, this map lists the five closest schools. I know of at least one case where this map names the old catchment school and fails to name the new catchment school as one of the five nearest schools.

Any parent in the areas affected who consulted either map prior to 24th November would have been given incorrect information and may, therefore, have failed to name their catchment school as a preference. Even after that date, to get the correct information parents would need to have known which interactive map they were meant to consult and to have understood that the 2012/13 catchments were the ones they needed.

By the way, the admission arrangements determined in April 2011 do show that the new catchments would be used, so from that point of view there was no change needing the approval of the Adjudicator. However, they have clearly failed to give parents clear, correct information.

The website is somewhat bizarre with the 2011-12 booklets still being prominent on the site, immediately below the 2012-13 information, which suggests the website has not been changed for a long time.
The interactive website for catchment is also totally open to parents mis-understanding. AS PRH says it has two buttons one for 2011-12 and one for 2012-13, so which is right? Is it based on the date you look, the date you want your child to start in school or the academic year? This is really not clear and open to interpretation.
It might also be interesting to note that having read through the procedure for admission appeals, part of the information is completely wrong as to how admission appeals will now be carried out and which has been in force since February 2012. It says that if a panel decide that a certain number of pupils can be admitted then those who are highest on the admission criteria order will be admitted - sorry that it is completely wrong, it is which of those appealing have the best case for admission, nothing to do with the admission criteria order.