Secondary school place refused on prejudice grounds, now PAN has been increased

[Ada23]

Hello,

preparing for the appeal hearing next week and would welcome some input: the school we applied to had an advertised PAN of 240 (for year 7 entry). We have been refused a place on the grounds that the places have all been filled. Confirmed with the school that PAN was unchanged and 8 classes at 30 each were planned two weeks ago. So imagine my surprise receiving the school's case justifying refusal today with an increased AN of 290 (apparently again all filled) - is it just me or is it wrong that they say they are full on the 1st March (according to my understanding meaning that admitting even one student more would prejudice the efficient provision of education) and then on the 1st May magic up 50 more spaces?

Apart from the moral outrage any ideas on how to use this for our appeal? Any thoughts appreciated.

Not an expert.

So they had a PAN of 240 which they filled.

However they were so over subscribed they decided to open up two more classes for the year and have filled them, presumably from the waiting list.
Maybe some building work has finished early, or the LA said they were so short of places please could schools see if they could take an extra class.

If anything I would think this would go against you as they are now 'more full' than they were. Except that if they usually have classes of 30, this maybe implies they would have room for 10 more in the year without going above 30 class size limit?

Were you on the waiting list?

No class size limit from key stage 2 upwards. If this isn't a typo (happens!), they may be aiming for 7 x 32, 2 x 33, so only one extra tutor group.

IME where the school has acceded to a request from the LA to take a 'bulge' intake, they make this plain in their appeals paperwork.

If it is a school-initiated increase, possibly on a 'see how it goes this year, might make it permanent' basis, then if the school has actually planned resources and staffing for the higher figure of students (and it is a lot of extra bodies suddenly to be finding you can cope with, if it wasn't under pressure from the LA), then the argument would be that prejudice still starts at PAN+1, that is, 291 not 240.

Thanks for the replies.
Yes, we were (and remain) on the waiting list - just a very long waiting list.

I agree with the 'more full' logic, though it does seem that we are all the sudden appealing a completely different case: originally the school was supposed to be full, but hey, they have 50 places up their sleeves, so now they are full, so they have another 10 in their socks? Originally it was easy to see how to argue prejudice not given (because apparently that was not the case), but now they have changed the conditions and I have a week to adjust the case. Again, I do feel lied to, simple as that.

Thanks for the thoughts on class sizes, the appeals case argues that they want to keep them around 26/27 ideally, so if they are willing to go up to 33 on say two classes that could be extended to another class and an extra student will not prejudice efficient provision of education.
MarchinFrogs, what would be in the appeals paperwork that would indicate they acceded to taking the 'bulge' this year? The only thing that acknowledges a change is a "240+50 (as agreed with LA)" - is that all that is needed? Nothing else from what I can see.

Again, any thoughts greatly appreciated.

"240+50 (as agreed with LA)" - is that all that is needed? Nothing else from what I can see.

Yes, that's it - although if it's that precise wording, I would say it is still open to interpretation - that is, do they mean, that the LA asked them to take an extra 50 and they (possibly reluctantly) agreed? Or as in, we decided that actually we had capacity for 290, put this to the LA and they agreed (because there were indeed quite a lot of applicants the LA was having difficulty placing in your area)? You say that the school is nominally an eight form entry, so the '26 - 27' number must be teaching groups, implying that they have found or been given the resources for at least one, possibly two, in some if not all subjects.

Fifty is a lot for one school to be asked to take; normally (again IME) it's one tutor group's worth, unless there has been a huge increase in the local population for some reason and it's the only secondary school for miles around?

Well, I spoke to the deputy head at the open day, and the KS3 head in preparation for the appeal, and both said they would consider simply creating a new class, but were not allowed to by the Regional Schools Commissioner. They gave the impression the school was ready to expand (hence my optimism at the original refusal due to prejudice) if given half the chance.

The area around here is funnily set up: 4 secondary schools (all the LA's) within a few miles of each other, but because we are right on the border with another LA they have arrangements (led by the school we want into) of disregarding catchment and in some cases giving priority to children from the other LA (feeder schools over catchment, and the feeder primaries cater for the other LA's children - we are in the catchment but not feeder school, if that makes sense?). All 4 secondaries are oversubscribed, I know another one agreed to take 10 additional children, not sure about the remaining two. Not sure whether there is a population spike for that year, or more city kids want out and into the county - I suspect the latter as the inner city secondaries seem to have spare capacity. As mentioned, funny set up.

"No class size limit from key stage 2 upwards."

MarchingFrog, do you have a reference to some official government guidelines on this? Looking for evidence for the appeal.

It's mainly the other way round, so to speak - that regulations made under Section 1 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 limit the numbers to 30 per teacher the number of children in any one class where the majority will reach the age of 5, 6 or 7 during that academic year. (Except in very limited circumstances).

This doesn't apply to older age groups, but schools (or, for that matter, appeals panels) would not usually land an individual teacher with more than say 33 or 34 pupils. The teaching unions would be (justifiably) unhappy about it, for a start.

Have a read of the School Admissions Code and the School Admission Appeals Code.

www.gov.uk/government/publications/school-admissions-code--2

There isn't a class size limit as such, but class sizes will be limited based on size of classroom, workload of teacher, behaviour management, time per pupil.

So if the school have gone from 30 to 33 per class, asking for an extra could be a big deal. Whereas if they have put in 2 extra classes it might be easier to squeeze in an extra.

30->33 means 10% marking increase for the teacher.

Food for thought there... note to self, will need to find out whether they intend to increase class size or number of classes.

There is nothing to stop any secondary school, whether they are maintained or an academy from allocating places above the published admission number. A maintained school increase has to be with the agreement of the LA.
So the school allocated the 240 places but there has obviously been discussion in the interim and a decision made to admit another 50. The only question is whether they allocated those places in the correct manner, which should have been in admission criteria order.
If they have done that correctly then you do not have any case to offer around this increase in numbers. What it does do, which you will not like, is put more weight at any appeal on the school's case because they have clearly tried to admit the maximum number of pupils. So parents will have to have a really strong case for admission to have any chance of the appeal panel allowing an appeal.

No, I do get that: two days ago it seemed I had a good case against prejudice (I have been poring over their numbers on roll etc. and spotted the capacity), yesterday - and may I add 5 working days prior to the appeal hearing, potentially breach of rules here - they suddenly announce that they have increased PAN and my argument unravelled; I have to start building a new case, and the fact that their original decision (the one I thought I was appealing) was wrong - the fact that they lied through their teeth - does not seem to count for anything.

On that note, any ideas how to find out whether those places have been allocated in the correct manner? I keep asking the admission office (FOI etc.) and they keep telling me what the criteria are and that I would have to believe them that the have been applied correctly.

What matters for appeal is whether you should have got one of those places. If you were in the first 50 on the waiting list and you didn't get a place you would have a clear argument that you should have been offered one. However, if you weren't in the first 50 it doesn't matter whether or not they allocated the places correctly. Even if they have got it wrong, you still wouldn't have got a place so it doesn't help you at appeal.

I understand that you feel lied to but I don't think they have lied to you nor do I think any rules have been broken. They initially admitted 240 as per their PAN. Some time in the 2 months since then they have agreed to admit another 50. This may have been voluntary but they may have been pressured into it by the LA. Their evidence to the appeal correctly reflects the current situation. Yes, it is annoying and makes it harder for you to win your appeal but I don't see anything wrong in what they have done.

There is no easy way of establishing the information before the appeal. You should have received some information after the initial allocations which said you were not successful and this was because the last place of the 240 was allocated at a distance of 2.6Km or whatever it was and you were at 3.6Km distance. Whilst they would not have been able to tell you immediately where you were on the waiting list you should have been able to get that information from the school or LA admission office.
With the extra places allocated, in the appeal documents it should have said these were all allocated on distance or whatever the criteria was, with the last distance being 3.0Km. In that situation you are still outside the admission criteria distance and so everything has been done correctly. If however that information is not available or is not correct then you need to ask questions at the appeal to establish whether you have or have not been disadvantaged by the decision to allocate more pupils a place.

The school appears to have operated 8 x 30 per class admission until this year, but how many children were actually on roll - for the last 5 years? Was it more than 30 per class? If they normally run 30 per clsss, or more, why are only 50 more being admitted and not 60? How are the 50 being allocated to classes? 2 per existing class (16) and one class of 34? Two new classes of 25? I would want clarification of y7 organisation and want to know that the allocation process followed the agreed admission procedure for the school. It appears attendance at feeder schools trumps catchment. So what distance of catchment did they take?

Hello, it is actually a fairly complicated story: this one school (out of the 4 within a 5 miles radius) ranks their criteria as 1) SEN, 2)Local feeder primaries for at least 2 years, 3) Additional feeder primaries (this is where we fit), 4) Siblings, 5) catchment (us again, this is our catchment school, and the only catchment school), 6) Staff, 7) Distance.
I.E. if you were in a tier 1 primary (and they cater for children from a different LA) catchment, distance, etc. does not matter, you get a place - the last allocated lives 4.025 miles away, we are 3 miles away, but 'only' in a tier 2 feeder primary. So as you can see it is not a straightforward as moving along away from the school: there were rumours of children living outside the catchment and in a different LA being offered places while 'local' children missed out, on investigation it turned out they attended one of the tier 1 feeders.
This is why I have been questioning how the criteria were applied (e.g. was the need for attending the feeder for at least 2 years prior checked) but was only ever told to trust the LA. Kept an eye on the waiting list, but the LA always stressed that in the second round of applications/ appeals/ etc. we could move up or down, so that was of little use.

Are those the admissions / oversubscription criteria as they appear on the school's and the LA's website? Looked after / previously Looked After children should be in there, above any of the feeder school /catchment / distance criteria.

Yes, they are, I grouped them with SEN etc., the group which forms criterion 1 everywhere (at least around here)

Is this a maintained school or an academy? The reason I ask is that given there is this slightly peculiar admission criteria you need to understand the process of arranging the admission order. If it is a maintained local authority school then the LA have to do all the arranging of the order of pupils according to the admission criteria. However if it is an academy, then the LA will send the academy a very long list of pupils asking for the school and whilst the LA may do some checking and ordering of the pupils, it is for the appropriate governing body committee to actually arrange and confirm the order. That to me might not have been done correctly with this interesting tier 1 feeder school concept, especially if they have to beat the school two years. Personally I would question the validity of that as an admission criteria.
As for saying trust the LA! Never in anything to do with admissions would I trust anybody, the next two words are "prove it"

As for saying trust the LA! Never in anything to do with admissions would I trust anybody, the next two words are "prove it"
You're my kind of person!

It is an Academy, but they outsourced admissions to the LA, and both sides told me that the LA is the 'Admission Authority': whenever I try to talk to someone at the school they tell me they have nothing to do with admissions, when I try to talk to the LA they tell me they only apply the criteria (correctly, of course).

Can I question the validity of the two tier feeder criterion at the appeal? Would I have to question the school (who as an academy sets their own criteria), or the LA has they must have approved that as valid at some point?

If it is an academy then the academy is the admission authority and they are responsible for ensuring that everything is carried out correctly. There is nothing wrong and actually a lot to be said for contracting out to the LA to do all the work, but it is the academy who has to be sure that everything was done correctly.
You cannot question the actual admission criteria at the appeal hearing and expect to gain anything for it, that is a complaint to the schools adjudicator, who is the legal body who will decide whether the admission criteria is legal. In actual fact though the school will probably have told the LA what their criteria is, they hardly ever check to see if it is legal - they just assume.
What you do need to question is the process by which the pupil priority list was drawn up. So for instance can the academy confirm that a committee of either the local governing board or the trust board oversaw the process and that they carried out the sift to ensure that the pupils were in the correct order - it is starting to sound a bit as though there is room for potential mistakes to have been made. Also did they absolutely confirm that every pupil in the tier 1 primary schools had been at the school for 2 years.
If you PM the school and the LA, I will look at the detail of their admission criteria to see if anything else pops up as being questionable.

Thanks ever so much for your kind offer, much appreciated!
PMed as requested.