Help! Re school reception place appeal

[mlmx]

Hi, I am new to this site; i came across it whilst searching for guidance regarding my appeal for a reception place for my daughter.
I applied for a place at my local catholic school, however, the application wasn't successful.
I didn't put any other schools as a preference as I really thought she'd get a place there - in hindsight I can see that I have been naive. I only have 1 child and have never had to do this before and I'm very unfamiliar with the whole process.
My application for a place at the school wasn't late, however, I was late bringing the documents into school (i.e proof of address/baptism). This was because we were away at the time, by the time we returned home and I'd opened our mail it was already 1 day past the deadline. I took the documents into school the next day. I was told my application would be considered as late. I did check the school's admission policy before we went to check if there were any dates advised on there but there wasn't.
My daughter wasn't baptized at the time of the application so the baptism certificate was also given in late. We were practicing Catholics prior to the baptism, however, due to family circumstances my daughter wasn't baptized until after the deadline for documentation.
I am hoping for any advice anybody can with with regards to what to base my appeal on.
Will any of the circumstances I've noted below be of any interest to the appeal panel?

1. The school my daughter has been offered isn't Catholic (or Christian).
2. We live in the catchment area for the school I wanted
3. I think it is unfair my application was considered late
4. The school we were offered is 1.8 miles away (35 minute walk for a healthy adult, more like a 50 minute walk for a child who will of only turned 4 in August). It is along a very busy main road. It is the total opposite direction to my place of work. As i work full time, it would be impossible for me to make the journey and I would struggle with childcare. I would have to give up my job.
5. My daughter now fits the criteria for a place there.
6. After speaking to the school receptionist, there planned admission number was 45, although they have accepted 50. There must be room for extra places?

I have already submitted the appeal and I'm waiting for a hearing place.
Does anybody have any advice on what's best to focus on the appeal? Or what could help me? I have already spoken to the Father where we attend mass to ask he writes a letter of support, however, as he is a Governor on another school he doesn't want to look as though he is
"poking his nose in" another Father's business.

Any help would be appreciated as I'm really stressed and upset about this.

Thanks xx

Hi all (smile)
Just thought I'd update you with the outcome of the appeal, unfortunately, it was unsuccessful.
It turned out it was an infant class size appeal. During the appeal it was confirmed that 50 places were offered for reception places that year and that 49 were accepted.
The letter I received confirming the decision stated "45 is the maximum number of pupils that can be accommodated in the year group. Further compliance with parental preference would prejudice the provision of efficient education and the efficient use if resources".
The basis of refusing the appeal was if an additional child was admitted, it would breach the ICS legislation.
There was no reference to the fact that 50 places were offered and only 49 accepted in the letter whatsoever,
In the information I received from the admissions dept at the council, it stated schools under this council were asked to be flexible this year due to high demand for places this year and the governors of the school studied the capacity and agrees to admit 50 pupils. The evidence really contradicts itself too, the school said the classes were split as 30 in one and 20 in another yet the arrangement for classes last year in reception were 26/24 (again 50 places).
I wrote back to the clerk attending the appeal panel to express my concern re the basis of the decision being due to ICS however it doesn't appear to be the case.
I received a letter back yesterday to confirm she agreed it contained reference to information (I presume the ICS legislation) which was not of relevance to my appeal and if a further child was admitted it would not have appeared to breach any legislation.
Iv been offered a fresh appeal, to a new panel. Iv agreed to this and I'm willing to give this another try, this time super confident when I challenge their evidence as now I know they are not always right.
Anyone ever heard of an appeal being heard again??
Thank u

Yes appeals can be heard again when it is obvious that there was a mistake made in the process. This is a mess.
The school is going to have a major problem in September 2014 if it has 49 in the year 1 group and there are 45 in year 2, they cannot just have 3 classes of 30 across year 1 and 2 as they will be breaching in the infant class size regs, unless the year group drops in numbers from 49 to 45. Not sure what the school will do, either they have 4 classes across the year groups or they have one class with 34 in and have two teachers.
With this problem already in existence the panel should have been asking the question what does the school intend to do in September 2014 to right this issue and what do they intend the reception year group in September 2014 to be. Only then could they establish whether this is an infant class size case or not. In my opinion I cannot see any situation where the infant class size regs can be satisfied in September 2014 with present and expected numbers, without taking action as above.
There is a massive difference between what could be future infant class regs prejudice and when there is already a situation where it is obvious a breach will occur.
How the panel came to the conclusion it was infant class size regs is beyond me.
What did the presenting officer say in their presentation, did they argue that it was infant class size regs or not?

Normally you have to go to the LGO to get a second hearing. It is good to see that this LA recognises that there are serious problems here and is doing something about it.

As the governors have agreed to admit 50 pupils and 49 have accepted I can't see how this is an ICS case. I think you should ask the questions Admission says the panel should have asked - what does the school intend to do in September 2014 and how many do they intend to admit to Reception.

If the written evidence from the admission authority did not refer to "class size prejudice" or "infant class size" it is difficult to see how the panel could conclude that ICS regulations apply.

Based on what you have said I wonder if the panel thought the additional children in Reception were excepted, in which case it would be an ICS case. But given the way they were admitted they are definitely not excepted.

The classes (2012/2013) are split like this
Reception 50 (26/24 per class)
Year 1 48 (24/24)
Year 2 45 (23/22)
Year 3 54 (33 and 21 mixed in year 4 classes)
Year 4 55 (33/34 and 9 mixed in year 5 class)
Year 5 48 (34 and 23 mixed in year 6 classes)
Year 6 45 (34/34 mixed year 5's)
The maximum capacity for the school is 355
The total last year was 345
If another place was awarded the total this year would be 350.
I didnt think I stood a chance on the last appeal TBH and was unaware that I could argue the point it wasn't an ICS appeal. I did think it didnt make sense why it was but I got confused over the law they were quoting and presumed I must have been wrong.
It wasn't until I read the letter and it didnt mention the 50 places offered and just 45 (PAN) I queried it with the clerk.
I think their argument now will be that they can't physically fit another child in the class but this is something I also can't understand.
The school head said during the appeal that, although there are 2 reception classes, one class can only fit 20 in... But last year (if the same class was used) it fitted either 26 or 24??
So what's changed this year... and considering 50 places were offered but only 49 accepted surely admitting another child won't breach any legislation?
Do I think it's a case of me now arguing that the prejudice my child will suffer exceeds the prejudice the school will if they admit her?
I did think this was going to be the case last time but I thought I must have been wrong.
Second time round.... I have to gear myself up again now! But it's definately worth another shot

With two classes per year there is absolutely no way this was an ICS case.

The normal arrangement with an admission number of 45 is to have two classes in Reception and then three mixed classes of 30 covering Y1/Y2. That would be an ICS case. But with 50 having been admitted to Reception and two classes for each year I really don't understand how anyone thought this was an ICS appeal.

This should, as you say, be an appeal decided on the balance of prejudice.

Agree with PRH , never in a million years was this ICS or could have been. However it is not a typical situation of a school with a PAN of 45. For a start they have 12 classrooms from the list above, not the usual 9 or 10. The net capacity is 355, which says that the indicative admission number is 50, not 45. So in previous years they have been operating with a PAN which is right at the bottom of the allowable range - 90% of 355, which is 319.
Based on the net capacity calculation I am not convinced that they have a small classroom only capable of taking 20, that would be a room of about 40sq metres.
There is also a significant amount of positives for you in the other year groups of 54 and 55. If they handle those, then they can handle a year group of 50, which is what the admission number should be. Looking at the six classrooms used for infant classes, it would be very interesting to get hold of the classroom sizes because my bet would be that they are all sized at a minimum of 48sq metres, which was the old standard for 30 pupils and probably bigger then that. It then becomes a very easy argument to say that if you have 6 infant classes that are sized for 30, then how can they possibly be full with no more than 25 in. The school's decision to not have mixed age classes in the infants is leading to the larger classes in juniors, not having more pupils than necessary.