Appealing reception school place, Redbridge, London

[JaneG79]

I’d be very grateful for some advice. We moved house after the admissions deadline so made an ‘in year’ application for reception school places. We didn’t expect to get a reception school place for our 4.5 year old daughter straight away (we made arrangements for her to stay at her preschool as a back-up), but based on the information published on the local school’s website we thought we were well within the distance offered and that she would be near the top of the waiting list.

What was not clear on the school website and we had missed on the small print of Redbridge borough’s admissions guidance was that some footpaths are excluded from ‘shortest walking distance’ measurements due to safety criteria (i.e., not lit). This means that based on their measurements the walking distance is a lot further than is actually the case and so we are too far down the waiting list to get a place. We are also too far down the waiting list of the next nearest schools and we are not near getting a place at any of our six nearest schools. Effectively our postcode is no longer served by a primary school.

We have spent the past month writing to MPs, councillors, etc. pointing out that the admissions criteria are in complete contradiction to sustainable travel to school, as it favours driving routes over walking routes. It is also not clear what data the safety criteria are based on as I cannot imagine there is anything to support that walking or cycling a small child along a footpath or park is more dangerous than along multiple lane A-roads.

As admissions have been pushing us to put our daughter on waiting lists of schools which are far away and would require travelling along extremely busy A-roads (5-6 lane, fast, dense traffic), we submitted exceptional medical grounds along with her application, as she was premature and has a history of respiratory problems, placing her at risk of asthma and we submitted relevant medical reports.

I don’t drive and was planning walking/cycling with my children to school.

We have found out today that she has been offered a school which is 5km walk away (1 hr 15 mins) this would involve walking along extremely busy roads as mentioned above. Alternatively, it would be two buses, taking upwards of an hour and require waiting at bus stops on the side of 5-lane A-roads (further challenged by having my toddler in a buggy). I’ve asked about transport given it is over 2 miles and they have said only children with SEN qualify and suggested calling the school we’ve been offered to find out what other parents did. When I called, unsurprisingly they do not have children from our area because we live so far and agreed it would be really difficult for me to get her there. We do not particularly want transport as our daughter is extremely anxious and I cannot imagine that she would go to school in a taxi if one was provided.

We are continuing to write to councillors etc to get them to change the admissions criteria, but realise this will not be quick as even if we were successful, it would require consultation.

We are planning on appealing now that she has been offered place, but from what we understand of appeals it will be hard to prove that they did not follow the process (they probably did). We also understand that we have to argue why she should have that particular school (we’ll apply to our nearest) and cannot focus on the negatives of the current school offered. It is not so much that she needs a particular school, just that we want her to eventually be able to get a place at one of her local schools. The strongest point of our case is that it would be dangerous for her to walk on a daily basis along multiple lane traffic on a 5km walk. However, I’m not even sure this would be relevant to the appeals process, as I understand we cannot focus on the negatives of the school offered.

Any help gratefully received!

These are fairly normal admission criteria. You may be able to get them changed but I would consider that a long shot.

As it is over 2 miles to the allocated school by the shortest safe walking route and the LA has not offered a place at a closer school they must provide free transport for your daughter once she reaches compulsory school age (i.e. from the start of term following her fifth birthday). Note that the free transport is for your daughter only. They don't have to provide transport for you to accompany her.

If an appeal is heard under infant class size rules you can only win if you can show that a mistake has been made which cost your daughter a place (very unlikely for an in year admission) or that the decision not to admit was unreasonable. The bar for a decision to be unreasonable is very high - in essence it has to be irrational.

Whilst transport issues don't normally win appeals, you may be able to win that way in this case. Some children can be excepted, which means they don't count towards the infant class size limit. One of the grounds under which a child can be excepted is that they have moved into the area outside the normal admissions round and there are no schools with places within a reasonable distance from home. For this age, a reasonable distance is up to 45 minutes travel each way. Given that the journey on foot and by public transport is longer than this you have an argument that they should have treated your child as excepted. If the panel agrees, that means the decision to refuse admission was unreasonable so your appeal can succeed.

You also need to build a case as to why your daughter will be disadvantaged if she doesn't go to the appeal school. You don't have to show it is the only school for her, just that it is better for her than the allocated school. Look for things this school offers that are missing from the allocated school and that are particularly relevant to your daughter. This can include extracurricular activities.

@prh47bridge this is so helpful and very much appreciated.

I haven’t heard about children being excepted before, I will look into this.

Whilst we applied outside of the normal admissions round, even if we had applied on time we live too far from any of our nearby schools for her to have got a place, given what you’ve said above does this make a difference?

Based on Redbridge criteria they define reasonable distances as - 1.5 miles walking, but 1.5 to 3 miles by 1 or 2 tube or bus journeys. Our journey by public transport would be two buses or one tube journey both plus walking so I would need the buggy for my 2 year old. The tube stations aren’t step free (I have tried taking both children on the tube escalator by myself, but it feels v unsafe and last time we had an incident so I no longer do it) and it is difficult to get a space on buses during rush hour, let alone with a buggy.

When I spoke with transport they said unlike other boroughs they have strict criteria and do not provide transport for children without SEN.

For the appeal I thought we had to focus on the positives of the school rather than why we don’t want the allocated school. The positives of a local school (it’s nearby, kids can walk/cycle to school without risk to their respiratory health, being part of our local community) seem much weaker than negatives of allocated school (travel along highly polluted highways for our children who already have a history of respiratory difficulties, stressful and long journey for our daughter who is highly anxious about attending school and at risk of school refusal, for our 2 year old the impact on her development of spending more than a third of her waking day on the school commute (either along polluted highways or on public transport). Any advice on how to balance this?

Also, we submitted evidence of exceptional psychological and medical grounds a month ago and still have not had any response to this - would there be any processes they should have followed around this? (Nb. She wouldn’t meet criteria for an EHCP)

Thanks again!

Whilst we applied outside of the normal admissions round, even if we had applied on time we live too far from any of our nearby schools for her to have got a place, given what you’ve said above does this make a difference

If you had applied on time your daughter would not have been treated as an excepted child, so an appeal would have been even less likely to succeed. An appeal will look at the actual situation, not some hypothetical about what would have happened if you had been able to apply on time.

Based on Redbridge criteria they define reasonable distances as - 1.5 miles walking, but 1.5 to 3 miles by 1 or 2 tube or bus journeys

Government guidance is that a journey of up to 45 minutes is reasonable for a primary school child. The appeal panel should be aware of this. Government guidance should trump Redbridge's criteria. And, if the journey by bus takes over an hour, surely it is more than 3 miles measured along the bus route? Or is there a very long weight between buses? Note, however, that the appeal panel is unlikely to be interested in problems you have with using a buggy for your 2-year old. That isn't something they can take into account.

When I spoke with transport they said unlike other boroughs they have strict criteria and do not provide transport for children without SEN

Whilst your child is below compulsory school age they can do whatever they want. Once she reaches compulsory school age they must provide free transport. However, that could take the form of a free bus pass. They don't have to provide a taxi. If they do go down that route, which seems likely given that they are in London, that helps you in that they aren't providing anything that would get the journey below 45 minutes each way.

For the appeal I thought we had to focus on the positives of the school rather than why we don’t want the allocated school

You do. Arguing that the LA should have admitted your child to a local school as an excepted child is not about why you don't want the allocated school. It is about the LA acting unreasonably.

The positives of a local school (it’s nearby, kids can walk/cycle to school without risk to their respiratory health, being part of our local community) seem much weaker than negatives of allocated school

Those aren't the kind of things the appeal panel is looking for. Nothing you have said in that paragraph is likely to carry any weight with the appeal panel. You are looking for things the school offers. For example, if the appeal school has lots of extra-curricular musical activities, the allocated school doesn't and your daughter is showing signs of being musically talented that is the kind of thing the appeal panel wants to hear.

we submitted evidence of exceptional psychological and medical grounds a month ago and still have not had any response to this

Simply having medical/psychological needs is not enough to affect the admissions process. You need to show that her needs mean that she will be disadvantaged if she is not admitted to a particular school. If you can and the LA accept this, she will move up the waiting list for that school. The LA (or the school if it is an academy or VC school) will get a panel to assess your evidence and decide whether or not it justifies giving your daughter priority. I would hope that you eventually get a letter telling you the outcome of their considerations but some LAs seem to be very poor at keeping parents informed about such things.

No advice, but that sounds really shit. Unlucky timing to move house

Thank you for all the advice, this is extremely helpful and much appreciated

I do not know Redbridge LA at all but based on what you have said they appear to be being a bit heavy handed over things. PRH is absolutely correct in saying that the LA have to provided transport for over 5s if it is more than 2 miles away by the safest walking route. Their version is clearly being more difficult.
As the offered school is more than 3 miles away the LA cannot assume that you can find your own way to school, they have to provide transport. More importantly it immediately brings into play the issue that PRH indicated as to why the LA have not considered your child as an excepted pupil. This particular interpretation of the regulations is not that old (3 years I think) so I wonder whether the LA is just hoping that people are unaware of it.
I would appeal for your nearest 3 schools on the basis that your child has been denied a place at a local school as the LA have not considered your child as an excepted pupil and therefore have been unreasonable. Hopefully by appealing for 3 schools the LA will accept that you are not going to go away and do something to find you a school place much closer to your home.
You should also have a good look at the reasons for excluding footpaths from being used for measuring distances. Whilst these cases are not easy to win you should look carefully at the footpaths and check whether there are any lights etc - it would not be the first time I have sat on appeal panels and the parents have bought photographic evidence of lights on a path - one part of the LA not taking to another.

Thank you, this is so helpful. We’d be happy to appeal to our three nearest schools – as we would be happy with any local school, but this makes it hard to then appeal to the positives of the school we’re appealing to as they have different characteristics. Do we need to find characteristics that these three schools share and the allocated one doesn’t? This is quite hard. Would the following type of arguments be ok - the positive impact of a much easier, shorter and less polluted journey on her medical health and psychological wellbeing/ as a very shy and anxious child having peers at the school that she already knows/ being able to be fully included in school events that link with the local surrounding community?

Based on your advice and our research we are considering appealing on the following basis:

1. That the decision not to admit was unreasonable as she should have been treated as an excepted child.
2. That an error was made in not paying attention to the medical evidence supplied (history of respiratory difficulties in the context that the allocated school ‘shortest walking route’ is along multiple lane high roads).

However, if I’m interpreting things correctly, point 1 is covered under Redbridge’s ‘Fair Admissions Protocol’. In this protocol they outline ‘reasonable distances’ and they can argue that they did consider her under the ‘fair access protocol’ as based on the criteria in this document the school is within a reasonable distance. It can be accessed by two buses or one tube journey (It is not clear however how this is combined with walking and journey times. For example, the one tube journey also requires a 1.4 mile walk. If you use TFL journey planner, this latter journey takes 1 hr 7 mins, if you select walking speed as slow - seems reasonable to say a small child walks slow). Given this information, is it still ok to say she wasn’t treated as an excepted child? Or is it that we should be arguing that the distances in the fair admissions protocol aren’t reasonable if compared to government guidance of 45 mins for primary aged child?

The footpath is definitely not lit (but we could produce lots of data to show how the walking route to our allocated school is much more dangerous than the walking route across the park to our local school, but I’m realising that this is not necessarily relevant where appeals are concerned). We are looking into whether the criteria have been applied consistently, it seems there may be a similar footpath that has been allowed in the past. Also, it seems that the footpath across the park may have been allowed for secondary school admissions criteria but not primary school admissions criteria – still gathering evidence on this, is this a helpful route to go down?

Thank you again - your advice has been invaluable

Do we need to find characteristics that these three schools share and the allocated one doesn’t

No. You can put in a different case for each appeal. In your circumstances, this is the less important part of the appeal. Your main push is on the LA acting unreasonably by not treating your daughter as excepted.

However, if I’m interpreting things correctly, point 1 is covered under Redbridge’s ‘Fair Admissions Protocol'

They can try that argument if they like. You simply point out that government guidance (which you can find at assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/575323/Home_to_school_travel_and_transport_guidance.pdf) is that a journey of more than 45 minutes is unreasonable for a child of this age (paragraph 34). If Redbridge's approach regards journeys much longer than that as reasonable their approach is wrong. As you point out, under their approach can lead to a much longer journey than 45 minutes. They are therefore ignoring statutory guidance from the government. There is no problem with them regarding a journey shorter than 45 minutes as unreasonable but there is a problem with them regarding a longer journey as reasonable.

it seems that the footpath across the park may have been allowed for secondary school admissions criteria but not primary school admissions criteria – still gathering evidence on this, is this a helpful route to go down?

It depends whether they have been consistent. If they have allowed unlit paths for secondary school criteria but not for primary schools that is fine. If they have allowed some unlit paths for primary schools but not others that is a problem. I doubt inconsistency between the primary and secondary criteria will get you anywhere but inconsistency within primary criteria might.

I have looked at the Fair Access Provision policy for Redbridge and within this policy is another policy which is the over-allocation policy, which exists because Redbridge say there is frequently no available places in the LA. Reading what the policy says this is in effect the suggested way forward which PRH and I have mentioned of being considered as an excepted pupil. What it is saying is that in such circumstances a place will be allocated at the nearest least oversubscribed school. As such I think you need to ask Redbridge whether the place offered is under the normal in-year admission rules, under the FAP or under their over-allocation policy. You should be being offered a place under the over-allocation policy at a school within 45 minutes walking distance if they are following their own rules.
In terms of shortest walking distance in the official admission arrangements footpaths have to be paved or tarmac surface, lit, well maintained and accessible at all times. There is no difference between primary and secondary pupils based on this document. If the path is through an official park of the LA then you need to be asking why such a path is not included.

Thank you both, you’ve been amazing, I’m am so grateful for this advice.

I’ve seen your post on the local fb page. The path you’re referring to (presume to get to A) isn’t paved or lit. It’s just a track through the forest so that’s why they won’t include it. From memory the forest is maintained/part of CoL land and so is not even part of the local council, sadly.

Ps hopefully you’ll get some movement in school places now that private schools have started back.

Sorry about your difficult situation but I don't think the appeal is going to get anywhere.

You certainly will not get them to change the criteria. Criteria need to be consulted upon and approved about 18 months before the start of the relevant academic year. They cannot be changed retrospectively. If they were then there would probably be half a dozen other children who would equally qualify for the places in the schools you want.

The free transport thing is irrelevant for you anyway - the free transport is only for the child, not for the accompanying adult, and kids go free on all TfL services anyway.

Tbh I think your best bet is to either keep her in preschool until a place comes up at a closer school (which could be years) or move house again asap to somewhere within easy walking distance of the school you have a place at.

I don't think the appeal is going to get anywhere

I disagree. On the information posted here the OP has a good case that the LA has acted unreasonably by not treating her child as excepted. If the appeal panel agrees that should be a straightforward win.

You certainly will not get them to change the criteria

It is not possible to challenge the admission criteria in general. It is, however, possible to challenge the LA's decision as to which footpaths are permitted within a walking route. It is not uncommon for parents to turn up to appeal with evidence that shows a footpath the LA excluded meets their criteria so should have been included and the appeal panel agreeing. As Admission says, if this path is through a park maintained by the LA, it is hard to see why it is not included.

The free transport thing is irrelevant for you anyway

In this case it is highly relevant. The LA's refusal to provide free transport means that the only option is public transport. If the LA provided free transport it may well make the journey reasonable (i.e. less than 45 minutes each way). As they won't and public transport takes 75 minutes each way, that gives the OP a strong argument that the LA has acted unreasonably in failing to treat her child as excepted.

hi,

i'm currently having issues with Redbridge too! who is dealing with this from the LA? have you made a complaint yet?

Once she reaches compulsory school age they must provide free transport. However, that could take the form of a free bus pass. They don't have to provide a taxi. If they do go down that route, which seems likely given that they are in London, that helps you in that they aren't providing anything that would get the journey below 45 minutes each way.

It’s a small point @prh47bridge but children travel free in London anyway, so a bus pass wouldn’t be needed. That’s probably why they state their policy as they do.

Which school are you looking at?