To move or appeal?

[Dadof22]

I know appeals have a low probability of success but...

We've been offered (and accepted) a school for our son we really do not want him going to.

It is not one of our preferences which were simply the nearest schools to us. We are a little out of town and not in catchment. As no siblings and distance wise we are very likely low on waiting lists.

Option 1:

I know others will state you appeal for the school you want etc but the Admissions code and LA guidance state you have the right to appeal against a decision and that criteria for appeal cannot be limited.

I think our appeal would be based on social need. This is because both code & LA state a duty to keep communities together. The school my child has been offered will perhaps have one other from his infant class of thirty and is not CofE.
Preferred school is where the majority of class are going and he knows many others there. I know others may be more hard nosed but I want his friendships to be maintained not so much chasing a great school, it's not the best in area.

Option 2
Move. Actually have use house in another LA where all the local schools are "Good" or better and recommended. May ask to go on those waiting lists now as well but I think we may have to reapply through our LA? Need to ask.

If we'd wanted to "game the system" we could have moved end of last year. If we have to break up his social group (very minor SEN issues) might as well go to a nice house.
Also timing unfortunate as contract reviewed in a few weeks so by the time waiting lists clear I need to decide if I stay another year.

Worse problems in the world to have but feeling stumped having followed the rules and seem to have worst outcome for child in my opinion.

You mention his current infants class, so is this a junior school application? If so, it's much easier to win an appeal than at infants school as there is no class size limit.

My DC went through an infants/separate juniors school system and I know several parents who did win appeals at junior school, mainly on the basis of their DC having attended a feeder infants school. Obviously this is anecdotal (and probably not your school) but perhaps gives your some hope!

If this is an appeal for a place in Y3 or later it will not be an infant class size case. That makes it easier to win. You need to show that the disadvantage to your son from not going to the appeal school outweighs the problems the school will face from having to cope with an additional pupil.

I'm not sure where the Admissions Code places any duty on admission authorities to keep communities together. I am not aware of any such provision. However, simply arguing that your son needs to stay with his current friends is not a strong case unless you have expert evidence to show that he has a much stronger need for stability than other children of his age. Your desire for a faith school is also unlikely to sway the panel.

You need to strengthen your case by looking at what the appeal school provides that is missing from the allocated school. Find things that are particularly relevant to your son and build your case around that.

Thank you for the responses.

There are a few things that seem not quite right about the admissions criteria set in out initially by the school.

1)The first choice school had historically taken all applicants from my sons school. So going by LA guidance that's ideally want they want you to put.
2) I don't think officially a feeder school. But in the past there seems to have been an agreement in place to do this. Until the applications went in there were X many places listed as available on the schools admissions materials stating this.
3) There was a sheet in the prospectus restating it. Got to find it!
4) In the past number x seems to have been exceeded.
5) The School Head was asked in a parents meeting what would happen if the number of applicants exceed. Obviously didn't want to make any promises (can't) but dropped very heavy hints that it would be okay. Would have been better to say nothing or refer over subscription.
6) Obviously key is finding original wording in print. But I don't recall how children would be prioritized against these spaces. Likely defaults to standard entry criteria process, but this may be an assumption and if not actually stated may be able to challenge admissions policy?
7) If the above was a deviation from published policy surely there should have been a consultation?

Yes I am probably wanting to see only what advantages my child.

Bugger typing came out a bit dense.

Sorry prh47bridge I miss quoted. Easy when reading at 0400!

I should have said it's in the Local Education duties 2017 v2. I'm being some what facetious as it comes under The Prevent duty.

Do you think if a (hypothetical parent or child) felt compelled to join ISIS due to being isolated from their local community they'd get a school place?

Basically I saying the LA has a duty (is reason relevant?) to foster community integration. Forcing someone to relocate for significant periods does not seem to be the way to do that.

The older code go into more details on social inclusion, I need to find reference. I think it gives clearer intent than what's in now.

Other areas I'm considering are:

i) what the definitions of Religion and Belief are. Two different terms used so must mean different things? Effect on social inclusion?

ii) age discrimination, after all a child has the right to object/appeal themselves in some cases.

iii) I have safeguarding concerns about the offered place among other things. If as a parent I knowingly allow a child to go to a substandard placement am I guilty of neglect?

iv) If there not enough spaces due to the assumption that a % will go independent and it doesn't happen then the planning phase was wrong.

iiv) Living standards and wages for most have dropped in past few years. Independent fees have risen. Foreseeable squeeze on places.

iiiv) Local birthrate bulge a few years ago. Data available. Duty to plan for it?

Local Authorities have way more data available to them than a private citizen. Failing to use it effectively is a problem.

Ranty mode engaged

I'm kind of a "my responsibility" person rather than "I'm entitled to it".
So when things are published saying our duty is to do XYZ, but actual doesn't happen, I'd do something about it rather than shrug.

Unfortunately I've encountered too many cases of "yes but policy ABC that we didn't mention before says such and such so we can't actually do anything about it".

Why as a lay person should you have to study this bureaucratic garbage?

Ranty mode off.

Why as a lay person should you have to study this bureaucratic garbage?

Er - you don't, to make a school appeal. (I sit on appeals panels).

Your appeal needs to show that the detriment to the child of not attending is greater than the detriment to the school of taking another child in his year. None of what you have written in your last post addresses that. Talking about whether the local LA should have planned better/some will go to independent schools etc is irrelevant I'm afraid (we quite often hear it, but it remains irrelevant!)

As a panelist, we must be looking for concrete reasons why your child needs this school. If you want to push the social exclusion point, you will need evidence that he requires extra support in this area.

Your previous post raises some interesting questions about the criteria though. You do need a copy of the criteria they used - they should be on the school or LA website? If they suggested the infants was a feeder but it isn't, that is worth raising. Changes in criteria do indeed need to be publicised, well ahead of the change.

PS - If you want to PM me the name of the school I can see if I can find the criteria if you like.

I have safeguarding concerns about the offered place among other things. If as a parent I knowingly allow a child to go to a substandard placement am I guilty of neglect?

Christ on a bike.

What are your religion and belief and age discrimination points? (For what it’s worth, under the Equality Act a protected belief has to be genuinely held, more than an opinion, cogent and serious and apply to an important part of human life or behaviour - basically, it’s got to be as important to your life as a religion is to its believers. It’s also got to be worthy of respect and not affect others’ fundamental rights (ie, it doesn’t matter how committed a racist you are, it’s not covered). I’m really not sure where you’re going with these.

You ask about religion and I think you are implying that the school you didn't get a place at is CofE. Were there religious categories too which you didn't meet the criteria for? I don't think that you will get far if you start trying to divide belief and religion, however some church schools (maybe other religious schools too) can have complicated criteria and don't always produce guidelines which are clearly measurable and quantifiable. So they might say 'actively involved' when they should say 'attends three times a month'. It is possible that something like this might cast doubt on the fairness of the admission criteria.

You need to start forensically examining the criteria and looking for details about clubs, SEN needs - would his current teacher/SENCO/Headteacher write to support your view that he will be particularly disadvantaged by being split from his friends? Remember too that although familiar sometimes dynamics in classes can be negative and they might think he would do better in a different school.

It is really hard when it is your child not to be massively emotionally invested, but you need to go with clear facts and evidence which shows how disadvantaged your child will be compared to the issue of having to have 31 text books rather than 30.

You need to start forensically examining the criteria and looking for details about clubs, SEN needs - would his current teacher/SENCO/Headteacher write to support your view that he will be particularly disadvantaged by being split from his friends?

I agree that this is likely to be the best way to proceed, although school staff should not be writing to support (or not) the appeal. That sort of evidence ought to come from health care professionals.

I really cannot see how an allegation of age disrimination can be substantiated, given that the education system inevitably separates children into age cohorts but there's nothing in the admissions criteria that gives or doesn't give additional priority (say) to the oldest or youngest in the school year. Can you explain what you're saying here?

Re: Age discrimination, reaching really but apparently a child can appeal on their own behalf.

I'm sure this is more intended for older children and I don't want my child to do so.

But is possible so is the policy accessible to a youngster? No, it's hard for a "grown ups" to understand, therefore what help is around?

Some of my statements cross the boundary of admissions appeals and appeals to the adjudicator about the policy itself. In our area last year several of the later were upheld or partly so. My apologies for not clarifying what is what.

PatriciaHolm

I've found the written criteria and electronic version it by another parent. They have "slightly" different wording, seem to me then they were written at different times and this may be source of confusion.
It's something I have put into appeal paperwork with originals.

Thank you.

TittyGolightly

I believe more likely on a Donkey.

Exposing a child to verbal or physical abuse is considered not a good thing. Why would let any child go to a place were this happens just outside the school gates?

Thundercracker; shouldwestayorshouldwego;

Yes CofE were preference. Don't attend Church every week though, due to work commitments. So to some we don't meet it the religious enough level. Child wants to go though just can't always get there. This is one area where the admission criteria seem to be inconsistent.

PanelChair

You sum up how I intend to proceed.

Additionally along with the "version 2" admissions criteria I was given hearsay that other children who did get places from further. Were out due to circumstances not in line with the admissions criteria. Quite frankly I'm not interested in "but they got in Wah!" nor even trying to substantiate it. I one case I'm fairly convinced, but good luck to them.

I think historically what has happened is that the school was in effect a feeder school. This created a certain expectation, now policy has been applied more stringently or tweeked and caught people out.
I also think that (rather foolishly) the LA made certain statements to parents which fed into this.
Uptake caught everyone out. This is why I thing the planning is problematic. Don't promises you can't keep.

Anyway I think with the advice here I have been able to assemble a reasonable case to go forward.

Where did they promise they would take your child? Who promised it? Do you have it in writing? Or was an assumption made?

Just remember, even if you move and go on the waiting list you still may not get in and still have to go to your allocated school, so you may still end up with the same school but further away x

Your point about age discrimination is so far-fetched that I can't really make sense of it. I don't have time to go and check the precise wording in the appeals code, but there is a facility that pupils can (not must) present their own appeal. This is sometimes used by sixth formers to present their own case but there's absolutely no expectation that four or seven year olds will represent themselves.

You really can't take something from the Prevent programme and use it in support of school admissions.

You're being disingenuous about church attendance. It's not about being "religious enough" or not being religious enough "to some". Criteria about church attendance have to be clearly defined, so that they are as objective as possible and applicants know where they stand. It isn't a subjective measure of how "religious" you are - how could it be? - and it's not about "some", it's about whether you fulfil the published criteria.

If you think there have been errors in other children's admissions, you can certainly probe how the criteria have been applied. If there have been errors, you can use that to cast doubt on the refusal of your application.

Snowysky20009
No promise made to us individually. But the question was put directly to the schools SLT with most of the parents present. It may have been a foolish slip but the remarks made "strongly suggested" acceptance. Based on the historical uptake would not have been out of line. Unfortunately SLT seem also have not been able to count and now have half a dozen appeals citing this amongst other things.

PanelChair

Indeed pupils CAN appeal themselves. Wouldn't want my child to do so. What I trying to get at is there is no obvious delineation specified, therefore the process should be set up equally for all. Otherwise you have unconscious bias and descrimination.

On religious note. I was really going into comments on other threads (not worried enough to dig them out) about the great variance in how religious criteria is worded and applied in generally not specifically in our case.

I'm breaking this up as I'I typing on a phone with small screen and mental spell checker.

The reason I mention the prevent duty is:

Admissions Policy, LA and National Education guidelines include it.

Wording also says the scope of any appeal cannot be limited? Not sure how that works in practice if XYZ are simply given as irrelevant.

All areas are supposed to be integral to each other?

Policy wording says you have the right to appeal against a decision. That would imply you can say "No I don't want that & this is why"

Which is Different to appealing for another school place, i.e. "I should be allowed to attend your school because I am a special snowflake"

As teachers and parents were told to (and bear a duty too) encourage our children to develop real relationships and develop a sound social network.

Why: to keep them safe; be good people; learn to respect others wishes etc.

So if a policy decision harms those social ties it seriously undermines the above. People cut off from their social group are significatlly at risk from falling in to crime and perhaps extremism. If this is happening to an individual or group because they happen to be a certain age......

We live in an age when criminals have been paid compensation because they got injured committing those acts. Who knows what a court would decide until it's asked.

So no, some of my points may be facitious. But they aren't disingenuous. Laws and opinions change.

I have digressed a lot. Much of it is more related to legal challenges, policy appeals etc rather than a School admission appeal so moot.

Thanks again for replies.

You will get nowhere with your age discrimination point. There is a very clear and obvious delineation specified in paragraph 8 of the Admission Appeals Code - the child can appeal for admission to a sixth form or once they are no longer of compulsory school age. However, even if there was no delineation specified your argument still would not fly.

I'm not clear from your latest post what you intend to argue about religious criteria but if your point is around variation in how they are worded and applied, that will also not fly. What matters is the admission arrangements for this school. The fact that other faith schools may do something different is irrelevant.

Your safeguarding point is another which won't fly. If it did, parents would be able to insist on places at schools rated outstanding. They can't. It is not neglect to send a child to a school with a poor rating.

Your points about planning also won't get you anywhere. The LA is not under any duty to make sure that all parents get places at their first preference, or even that they all get one of their preferences. If your child had not been offered a place at all due to a lack of places locally you might have a point, although it still wouldn't be particularly relevant for appeal. But you have been offered a place. It just isn't a place you want.

You're clearly passionate in doing the best for your child, but your current approach is doing them a great disservice. Honestly, you need to start all over again.

Look at the admissions criteria. Does anything stand out as potentially unlawful? Nothing you've told us so far suggests it is.

Was your son placed in the correct band and was the criteria applied correctly? This is key, and you've not even addressed it.

Next, you need to demonstrate that the detriment to your son of not attending the school is greater than the detriment of taking another child in his year. What can that school provide that no other school can? What will happen if he does not go there?

It is as simple as that. Stop looking for complexities that you don't understand and that don't even directly relate to your case. It distracts from any legitimate points you may have.

That sums it up perfectly, Bombardier.