Any appeal help- no special circumstances or solid evidence

[allcrossednow]

Please could anyone advise what help/evidence I can request from our current school (& anyone else you.can think of!) to support my appeal application? I was thinking of asking my son's teacher if they could provide an impact statement highlighting why 'in their professinal opinion' they support our choice for the chosen school & believe it to be better suited to him & his learning styles & current academic level etc over the one allocated.

None of our 3 choices or catchment given- was allocated a dismally, very publicly failing school with an outstanding petition from its current 6 form students to remove it's academy status for failing them with little funding & lack of basic resources.

Does anyone know if a school/teacher would be happy/allowed to do that? I don't want to ask if it's not the done thing! Especially as I rarely see her other than parents eve because my DS walks in & out of school himself. I do know her well enough though she has had him a previous year too & only has high praise for him so would think she would be ok to ask.

We basically fall in to the 'other' category of criteria for all schools with no extenuating circumstances. I can demonstrate why the chosen school is the right choice based on my child's interests & academic ability. The school's own ethos is very academic driven with high achieving across the board being their focus. So I hope that basing most of my case around that will be ok. (I am in no way a tiger mum or wish to come across like my child is brilliant because I say so)! That is not us I just wish to make a solid case with little to no professional backing & do the best for my child as who really would set their kids up to fail from the off when there may be the slimmest of hopes. He will drastically full behind at the allocated school within weeks if he isn't given good role models or working to the current standard he is used to.

Would also like to say we are mainstream not private. Very hard to get across on paper that he is not a little genius who I am pining over. He's just an average child who enjoys to learn & does well at his expected level & slightly above but is highly thought of by all teachers, peers.

He has a recognised certificate from Trinity London College achieved last year in musical theatre along with an in depth report from the principle of the academy of arts he has attended for 5 years. I am hoping that would be a solid piece of eveidence- detailing west end work & local theatre experience? As the chosen school has a great department for music/drama. Along with many supporting extra curricular clubs which he would thrive in. He has a keen interest in several of the other clubs too. Some of which are not available at the allocated school.
(Also not sure if it would be relevant but the arts academy he attends actually uses the school site on weekends, so my son is familiar with part of the school & the travel route).

I have no help to draft my case & just feel at my wits end that in reality we get very little choice on where our kids are given if we have nothing other than "this is the best fit for us".

Any help appreciated. Apologies for the length wanted to give as much info as we have. Thank you for reading if you got this far!

Does anyone know how I find the prior year's admissions breakdown? So stating excatly how many of each category were accepted. Also how far out of catchment they accepted last year?

allcrossednow I know it's frustrating to hear that what seems like common sense to you isn't a good idea for an appeal, but please do understand that you are being given good advice.

Every parent wants the best education for their child and every child deserves the best education. Any argument you make about a bright child needing a stimulating environment to continue their good progress could be countered by an argument that instead, it is a child making poor progress who needs that place, in order to boost their educational opportunities. So general arguments about needing a 'good' school are not useful. They also put panels in difficult situations, because awarding places on that basis implies that another school wasn't 'good enough' for a child.

So, you need to give reasons that the panel can go with, that won't apply to every child. Look at everything. Resources, facilities, clubs, subjects offered, GCSE choices, sporting opportunities, pastoral care, tutor group arrangements, etc.

@Lougle thank you yes, I certainly am very grateful for the help & advice I have been given. I don't think I have shown otherwise, have I? I am using this as a back & forth as I have no one else in rl to help.
It really is the only thing keeping me going.

I am way out of my depth & cannot help but feel that is why the system is designed like this to make many parents give up & settle.

I agree they could use those arguments against me & I think I have stated previously, that how it may be reading is not necessarily the angle I would like to lead with. I am trying to take in alot of information from different sites & threads & keep seeing the onus is on us to prove their arguemnt wrong & prove without doubt why that school is the right fit.

So I'm doing as you say comparing department by department & was initially trying to mirror their language & use supporting characteristics/qualities that my son has to prove our choice was based on lots of valid reasons for wanting their school over another. Not just bad school vs good which truly is not the only case but is a big factor when the location is also further & it cannot meet all the child's needs/interests.

The problem I am having is freedom of choice alone is clearly not a reason to want a school so wording a powerful case & trying to avoid the pitfuls everyone has kindly been pointing out is not very easy. So I do apologise if I have come across unhappy with the guidance because that couldn't be further from the truth.

No, no, please don't think I'm being critical. It's just so easy to be in the centre of the situation and for it to seem so clear cut when its your own child, and having sat on panels, I've seen parents coming with what they think are slam dunk arguments about their child's need for the very best school, and they lose because they haven't demonstrated what makes the school necessary for their child, they've focused on how much they want the school, or how bright/special/useful/interesting their child is and how they'll be an asset to the school, etc.

It is backwards to be expected to argue for something without directly arguing against or criticising something else. It's hard. But it can be done.

@Lougle Oh phew, no that's fine. I appreciate all & every piece of advice I can get. Thank you. The critical advice is perfect to help me be more prepared (hopefully) on what kind of things they do not care to hear & how they may counter my points. It has also made me realise that highlighting any of my son's weaknesses also & why they could benefit him being there would be a good idea.

I will write my speech out afew times & try to edit as much out & really refine it to the hard facts. Won't be easy as you say but at the moment we have nothing to lose only to gain so worth all the hard work until it's right.

I would call the LEA for any stats, I have always found our LEA extremely helpful for suitable pathways and strategies.

Just to go back to one of the original questions of the OP about getting a letter of a teacher, I can only say what happens in the 4 LAs where I sit on panels but all the LAs actively discourage teachers and especially headteachers from making any statement for an appeal. There are two main reasons. The first is that in any maintained school appeal you have somebody from the LA responsible for making the case not to admit and to then have somebody else (ie the teacher) who works for the same LA making statements that are counter to that of the LA is not deemed correct. The second is that by writing for one appeal you create an unfair situation if there are other pupils from the same primary school appealing. Legally you are then on dangerous ground as to whether there is a conflict of interest.
As such panel members are always told to always accept the information offered but then given no weight in the final decision.
I know that sounds wrong if you are the parent appealing but it is all about trying to ensure fairness for all.

"I will write my speech out afew times & try to edit as much out & really refine it to the hard facts."

Normally, you need to make your points in your written submission. Your 'speech' is really just to highlight key points, then you get to ask questions of the LA rep.

@Smotheroffive thanks I will email them tomorrow & at least I will have it in writing.

@admission thank you, that is why I asked. Wasn't sure if they even would be allowed or feel ok with it themselves. Our's has said she will. But I will only present it if I feel it's the tone I am wishing to set. Very difficult to know until I read what she has written because I only asked if she could offer written support in any way she thinks suitable.

I do see how it could be deemed conflict of interest I suppose. I am surprised if it's that frowned upon however that it isn't a clear no from the LA to all teacher's/school's. I don't think though that you can really blame one parent for considering to ask if another hasn't done or thought too. That's not really unfair on the teacher's behalf either. They would only be aware of these things if someone speaks to them & I'm sure the ones who have done so would do the same for all students if asked otherwise they would say no for that very reason, surely.

@Lougle see that is where I am unsure of the whole hearing process. That helps. I knew we had to write our reasons for appeal in our written submission but I thought we had to re-read, expand on those at the hearing. Didn't realise it was more question based, so thank you.

May make things slightly simpler actually.

It's a mixture, but on panels I used to sit on, the Chairperson would normally say something like "Thank you for the information you submitted to the panel. It's there anything else that you would like to say in addition to the information you have already supplied us, which we have read thoroughly ?"

The idea of that was to dissuade the parent from simply reading out their written statement to the panel. Because we'd already read it, talked it over, worked out:
-which bits we agreed with,
-which bits were irrelevant (e.g. Johnny is a very good boy so wouldn't need much attention. Or I'd be very happy to help out and could contribute to fundraisers. We hate the offered school.), and

• which bits we wanted to have more information about (hmm... They've mentioned keen musician - what instrument does she play and how often? Does she have lessons, or does she play in an orchestra? Interesting, they say he finds walking hard.... How does he get to school now, what difference will it make between the two schools? She was badly bullied by children involving the police last year... Those children are now at the offered school....ok, we need to discuss that).

The chair isn't always as helpful as Lougle describes but I always tell people to remember that the panel have already read their written submission, so reading it out is pointless. You can expand on what you have written during the hearing, or you can simply say that your written case covers everything you want to say.

Surely its pretty major to highline that there has been no offer of any school in your catchment and what going out of the catchment is going to entail in terms of ability to actually get DC to school on time regularly and place a lot of additional stress and costs in your lifelife, and your DC.

It also has to be something the DC want to buy into. Schools will tell you over and over how important that it's the DC decisions, and how they are key in the school selection process and what subjects etc.

The subjects offered is also key, as that will have a massive impact on the success of their placement.

Just throwing some thoughts out there.

What if a dp can't actually get to school out of catchment; i.e. What is acceptable, and complies with the counties travel policies, get funding for transport and so on.

Being forced into a school that they absolutely don't want to go to and then to have to travel further and have longer day are designed to help students fail in their scholastic endeavours.

You might be able to get support to seek a better school out of area as a result of lack of availability in your own?

Loads of luck for your meeting.

Surely its pretty major to highline that there has been no offer of any school in your catchment and what going out of the catchment is going to entail in terms of ability to actually get DC to school on time regularly and place a lot of additional stress and costs in your lifelife, and your DC

No it isn't. Unless the journey is unreasonable (which, at secondary school, means over 75 minutes each way unless the child has mobility issues) it is not relevant. An appeal panel will simply ignore it.

It also has to be something the DC want to buy into

However desirable that may be, it as again not something an appeal panel will consider.

What if a dp can't actually get to school out of catchment; i.e. What is acceptable, and complies with the counties travel policies, get funding for transport and so on

If the allocated school is over 3 miles from home by the shortest safe walking route the entitlement to free transport kicks in. That is the law. But ultimately, regardless of whether or not free transport is available, the rule is that it is up to parents to make sure their child gets to and from whatever school is allocated. That may seem harsh but it is how appeal panels operate.

@Smotheroffive the trouble is that a lot of people think about school offers being 'unreasonable' in layman's terms, which translates to inconvenient, undesirable, or plain 'not what I wanted'. But in terms of admissions appeals, 'unreasonable' has a legal meaning, which is:

"So unreasonable that no reasonable person acting reasonably could have made it."

This sets the bar very, very high for any 'unreasonable' arguments.

So, transport has been deemed 'reasonable' up to 75 minutes. It's not ideal, we'd all love to have a school on our door step, but unless the journey is over 75 minutes, the panel can't consider it unreasonable.

As the law says that 3 miles is a reasonable distance for a Secondary School child to independently travel to school, then free transport must be provided for distances over 3 miles, any argument about distance to school is unlikely to be accepted. The only exception may be done related, but Councils often have discretionary travel for disabled students, and if they did, then that would counter the argument.

Stress is not a factor - parents all over the Country have 3 children at 3 schools. Children 5 miles in the opposite direction to their workplace. The list goes on.

Appeals panels are there to consider whether a child needs a place at a particular school, usually despite it being full, or whether a mistake has been made that denied them a place. They aren't there to make the lives of parents easier.

Thanks for the feedback,which rather makes a complete mockery of 'choosing schools' based on all those criteria.
If one DC s school is 75 mins away, that means other DC don't get to go to school.

It's farsical frankly.

There is something wrong at the core of the process if a DC can't get into any of their schools in catchment and the process needs a review and investigation on that basis. Hence, write to MP to flag this up. It goes against all other policies just because they don't have space for the DC in their area, which they are surely 'charged' with?

If a school is 75 minutes away the LA will have to provide free transport unless the parents have chosen the school. And at secondary school age pupils should be able to get themselves to and from school.

You aren't 'choosing schools', you are 'expressing preferences', which is a very different thing.

There has to be a distinction between what is the responsibility of the Local Authority and what is the responsibility of the parents.

The distinction has been set by law as a distance of 3 miles for Secondary School pupils, with a reasonable travel time of 75 minutes deemed reasonable.

The Local Authorities can't be expected to co-ordinate with every situation in mind. Most typical Secondary School pupils can travel independently to school.

Lobbying MPs isn't going to change anything, that I can see.

MPs absolutely do need to get involved in this. I don't know anyone that would consider it reasonable. The definition of reasonable itself seems unreasonable. If LAs are responsible for provision of education their base line should be higher than this, it might not be secondary schools and travelling 75 mins to a school you don't want to go to and will a complete stranger in is very very hard on any DC, and no-one seems to mind, apart from the DC and their anxious dp. The bar is very much too low and MP's should be involved in changing this. Further provisions for schools to increase their intake for those pupils in their catchment.

It's an horrific experience for some students.

It also seems that LA will pay for the travel to a bad school but not a good one (simply because its one that a student wants to go to), this removes the 'natural selection' process of wastage of schools that are bad, as they are filled with students regardless of the quality of provision.

It's the DC who will suffer. No-one should have to be forced to send a DC to a school with known and badly managed social issues like widespread bullying, drugs, etc.

You can only do so much at home at a dp to counter the powerful influence of the school social environment.
Yes, it seems the best way is to get mps involved in changing this broken process.

The difference between 'choosing schools' and 'expressing a preference' is so slight as to be silly to differentiate between. Pedantic even. I know a parent cannot select and have the final decision, but that's getting a bit silly really.

Smother,

It may SEEM like semantics, but in practice the difference is huge between 'choosing schools' and 'expressing a preference'.

In food terms:
' Choosing a school' = asking 'what shall we buy for dinner?' when standing in the supermarket with plenty of money in your purse. The answer could be pretty much anything.

'Expressing a preference' = asking 'what shall we have for dinner?' when standing in the kitchen midweek. The answer is 'well, I'd prefer pasta carbonara to chicken jalfrezi, if we have the ingredients for both in the fridge'.

So saying to parents 'choose a school' COULD mean 'choose any school you like' [and unfortunately, problems occur every year because people believe this is what they are being asked to do], whereas 'express your preferences' means 'if you are in a position where more than 1 school on your list COULD give you a place, because you meet the admission criteria well enough, which school should we give you?'

It really isn't semantics, or pedantic. It's accurate.

Like I say, silly. I don't need it spelling out to me what the difference. Shame you believed that was necessary. It wasn't.

The fact remains, the system is failing, badly, when DC are forced into failing schools because their own catchment has failed to provide.
So circling here back to those matters, as already cited. (Instead of playing silly semantics)

"DC are forced into failing schools because their own catchment has failed to provide."

What do you mean by 'catchment' here?

Say local school A has 250 11 year olds in its 'priority admissions area / catchment' this year, while school B has 150. Both have capacity for 200 pupils. Next year, due to changes in demographics, School B has 300 pupils iof the correct age in its 'catchment', while School A has 100.

Is your argument that an extra school, or additional classes, should be provided in School A's catchment this year, and an extra school, or additional classes, be provided in School b next year?

Or, sensibly, do both allocate 200 places, with some children travelling?

I agree that at a whole county or regional level, school places should be matched to demand - so a county or region with fewer school places than it has children should obviously either build more schools OR send pupils over borders if neighbouring counties have significant surplus capacity. It does not make sense to insist on schools expanding or contracting year on year in response to fluctuations in children within a small catchment area, while leaving school places free elserwhere.

Where political pressure IS needed is to ensure all schools learn from current best practice AND that demographics of catchments are equalised (as far as possible) and compensated for in school gradings (where equalisation by changing boundaries is not possible).

I'm still not clear, also - do you believe that parents should have school choice, or be able to express school preference should they meet the admissions criteria for more than one school?

I do not believe that any money should be spent expanding schools just so that parents have more choice, if school places are available elsewhere - it is inefficient and wasteful.