Secondary Faith School Appeal - Admission Criteria not Followed

[TwinMum67]

Does anybody have experience with a Faith School not correctly applying their own criteria.

We believe we are on Criteria 4, which is 3 years of 24 weekly church attendances.

I phoned the school to find out where we are on the waiting list and I was told that we are not on any criteria as the Governors have amended the supplementary form and decided we have only completed 2.5 years of church attendance. Therefore, we are in the random pool on the waiting list with 160 above us.

We dispute this point as outlined below:

1. Our supplementary form has been signed by the Vicar showing we are on Criteria 4.

Wording on the supplementary form clearly demonstrates that the clergy form and signature is taken as proof of Criteria.
Given that our Vicar has signed us at Criteria 4 we see no reason why the Governors should amend this.

2. On our supplementary form we put church attendance as between Jan 16 and Aug 18 – with over 24 weeks in each year.
3. We have attended church sufficiently to qualify for the Admission Criteria 4.
a. Year one we attended church 26 weeks
b. Year two we attended church 24 weeks
c. Year three we attended church 25 weeks
4. It is not stated anywhere at what point in the year the church attendance needs to start.
5. Additionally, it not stated anywhere how the church attendance should be distributed throughout the year.
6. Further, whilst it does state fortnightly. “Fortnightly” is very usefully defined on the supplementary form as:
A worship attendance of not less than fortnightly over the period of three years (between 1st September 2015 and 31st August, 2018). “Fortnightly” means attendance of at least 24 weekly services per year.
7. The Admission criteria downloaded from the school website states:
4) a worship attendance of not less than fortnightly over a period of three years as of 31st August 2018. “Fortnightly” means attendance of at least 24 weekly services per year.

Our argument is that we have qualified in criteria 4 and should not have been'downgraded'.

The school has informed us that, based on criteria 4, my twin boys would be in place 7 and 8 on the waiting list.

Therefore, they have not been denied a place per se, however, i feel they have been denied a reasonable chance of a place from the waiting list.

Anybody know how an appeal panel is likely to view this?

Or the best way to tackle this?

Strictly speaking you have only completed 2yrs and 7mths of attendance.

supplementary form we put church attendance as between Jan 16 and Aug 18

Why did you not put sept15-aug 18?
I think this is why they have amended it.

They've defined the three years as from 1 Sep 2015 - you don't qualify.

but the criteria is 24 weeks within the year - that is what we have done. It doesnt state when the first attendance needs to be.

they define three years as BETWEEN 1 Sept 2015 and 31st august 2018 and that is what we have done. It doesn't state anywhere in all the documentation that you need to attend on 1Sept. If we started on 7th Sept would that be ok? What about 1st Oct - ok? at the very least is it ambiguous but actually the church attendance we did is BETWEEN the dates given

So you go for six or seven months then not at all for the rest of the year? That's pretty clearly gaming the system. Why not just go fortnightly?

I don't think an appeal is going to help you here.

An appeals panel will look at whether the admissions criteria were applied correctly in your children's case, but even if they decided they weren't, would only give a place based on this if the child had been incorrectly refused one.

It would appear that is not what has happened here, it is their place on the waiting list that has been affected. An appeals panel can not affect the waiting list, not can they direct an admissions authority to change the category a child is considered under. All they can do is admit a child, or not. Even if they agreed with your interpretation of the criteria (which I agree are not as clear as they should be but I can see why they have made their decision) your children have not, as yet, been denied a place because of it.

Winning an appeal at secondary is about showing that the detriment to your child of not attending is greater than the detriment to the school of admitting another child.

Why did you put Jan 16 not Sept 15 on your form? Did you go to a different church before that? Live somewhere else? Or did you only go to church when you realised you could fit 24 services in after Jan?

Unfortunately you have lisyed yiur attendance dates as between a30 month period rather than 36 period which although equatea to the same thing ie. You have the qualifying attendance your mistake is that you described it as the 30 month period.

Can.you appeal on the basis that the period is in fact from 1 Sept prior to the January and you have met the criteria if only to bump you up the list?

You are playing the system and trying to take a place from genuine applicants.
It is right you are not category four.

As others have said, you've gambled and lost it would seem. Why is your church attendance at the minimum over three years if you are genuine churchgoers? I know of genuine churchgoers who can't attend each week but it's more like 1 in 4 they'll miss, not less than 50%. I don't think you're being honest with yourselves and certainly not the system.

@redstapler i had cancer and was going through very intensive treatment. the treatment went on for over 5 years because it was misdiagnosed. Pretty horrendous time for all the family and the final kicker being not getting in the school. We attend church regularly, we don't 'do church for school'. However, for a while we were absent, honestly i had lost my faith having had such a bad time for such a long time.

Three years is 36 months. There are 36 months between 1 Sep 15 and 31 Aug 18. It's quite clear what that means to me.

You cannot get three years between those dates any other way.

By your interpretation someone could attend for 24 weeks from 1 Jan 16, then another 24 weeks from 1 Aug 16, and the final 24 weeks from 1 Aug 17, finishing Jan 2018. There's 24 weeks in each of three academic years, but not three actual years worth of attendance - there's only 2 years of attendance.

Appealing on the grounds of your children needing support from a church and school community following your illness might be a way forward - ie a standard prejudice appeal.

@Celeriacacaca

I really didn't expect people to be so judgemental and didn't really want to get into my personal circumstances.

I thought this was a supportive forum.

I had reasons for not attending. I am now attending church weekly even though all the forms have gone in. I am not one who plays the systems.

I am a mum of twins who has fought cancer for 5 years.

I am a church goer and really just wanted advise on how we should approach the appeal

@titchy the criteria is 24 weeks attendance in each year. Without ever stipulating when the attendance needs to be. I truly believe we fit criteria 4 and have never heard of a vicar judgement being over ruled.

Our first appeal notes have gone in citing the illness and the need for our children to continue to be supported in a faith environment.

they have been through so much, acted as carers until dad came home each day for months on end.

However, we have only recently learned that our criteria was bumped from 4 to 15 because we attended for 2 and half years. Our attendance was min 24 weeks each year within the given between dates.

@PatriciaHolm thank you for your advice.

The government website states:

The appeals panel must decide if the school’s admission criteria were properly followed and comply with the school admissions code.

If the criteria were not properly followed or do not comply with the school admissions code your appeal must be upheld.

Does this not mean that if we can show the school did not apply their own criteria we have a chance of winning?

Ok but as Patricia says an appeal panel cannot make a ruling on that. They can only decide if your children should have a place or not based on their needs.

@MyDcAreMarvel thank you for your unhelpful advise. i am a church goer who has battled caner for 5 years. much of the time bed ridden.

I asked for advise not judgement but thank you for your time anyway

I might also add that the signed cards of attendance are not submitted to the school, the vicar reads and checks the cards and then signs the form in the appropriate place.

We could have put Sept 15 and nobody would know or check. the vicar would still have signed us a Criteria 4 as that is what he deems us to be.

We simply put the date that our attendance fell BETWEEN

That paragraph from the gov website is unfortunately only a poorly abbreviated version of the admission code, which makes it explicit that a place can only be given on the grounds of misapplication of criteria if that directly cost the child a place. Which it hasn't. If it didn't cost the child a place, there is nothing the panel can do, and has to consider the appeal based on the balance of prejudice.

I would direct your appeal much more along the lines of how the children need this school because of it supportive faith environment, specialisms, nurture groups (etc etc) rather than trying to play word games over the criteria, which isn't going to help. (I sit on appeals panels).

@titchy agreed but the .gov site clearly states that where an admission process is not correctly followed the appeal must be upheld.

It seems so rare that admission criteria is not followed that it is really hard to find any advice on

@PatriciaHolm thank you. That makes sense, definitely badly worded but i appreciate your advice immensely :-)

@TwinMum67 I apologise , as you did not mention your ill health so it very much came across as playing the system.
I hope you are doing better health wise

Does the admission policy use distance to decide where the cut off falls within categories?

Ours didn’t: it used random allocation, and this went in our favour when the school put my dd in the wrong category. She should have been in the category where a third of the children were allocated a place, and was mistakenly put in the category below. The appeal panel awarded her a place based on the mistake having denied her a chance in the random allocation.

None of this is relevant however, if the deciding factor within the categories is distance.