general appeals question

[HotCrossMocha]

I’m curious about appeals for secondary, where it’s not class size prejudice but balance of prejudice.

I was wondering if panel members here have any feeling for what proportion of argument that parents present in the appeals are actually the reasons that they want those schools? I know that those are the sorts of arguments that win appeals, that parents are told to find the things the desired school offers that the allocated one doesn’t, and why that would suit their child. But realistically, a fair number of parents want the desired school because it’s academically better or ofsted rated higher, or it’s closer/more convenient, or friends are going there, or has better behaviour, etc. - but they know they can't say that or base an appeal on that. Finding out what things it offers and trying to search around to find reasons that their child particularly needs Spanish or drama or whatever can feel a little bit artificial (and seems sometimes to have a lot to do with luck!). Sometimes, those are absolutely the real reasons the family wants the school, but other times, not so much. Obviously nobody can actually monitor whether that child takes Spanish or joins the orchestra in the end, and no way of proving any of it, but I wondered if there is any feeling on whether most appeals are really about what they end up arguing they are about, if you see what I mean.

I am sometimes asked to write letters in support of appeals. I know also that supporting letters are supposed to say that the expert considers that this is the best school for the child for various reasons, rather than saying that the parents feel that it would be the best school. Is it still helpful if the letter outlines the provisions that would be helpful for the child, but without naming the specific school, and instead leaving it up to parents to prove that their chosen school offers those things? I would be happy, for example, to mention that a child would benefit from handwriting club or yoga sessions (or whatever is relevant in a particular case). I would be much less happy saying that they ought to go to XYZ school because they are the only ones that offer it, because I don’t know that for sure. I haven’t compared provision at various schools; I might be aware of some differences between them but things change all the time, and it is not really in my remit to research all that. I might also know that although I do think the child would benefit from the specific support that is mentioned, the chances of them actually taking up that support at the school are low. I am aware that it might be (a small) part of an argument to help them get into the school that they want for other reasons. As long as I am factual in anything I say, it’s nothing really to do with me how the appeal is decided, but I am vaguely curious about how it all works.

I appealed (and failed) for my DD's first choice school, when I raised points that the panel were not familiar with they did ask further questions. While my DD has carried on with the subjects I raised at appeal, one of them has a very small number of students taking it on to GCSE and I think the first choice would have been much better for it.

Part of my appeal was also based on the support that the first choice school could give in general and I mentioned a specific series of events that the school had planned before the new pupils started there. Their response was that they were already supporting a high number of pupils and that mine might miss out due to the numbers involved. If you've got a school with a reputation for good pastoral support, even they have their limits with the support they can give.

So yes, I do see your point that parents appealing may simply be looking for any kind of justification to get their child into that school. But the points I raised were genuine - and the before-you-start events have been copied by other local schools since then as it was such a good idea! I did find the whole process pretty stressful, the panel were absolutely lovely though.

oh I am sure there are many cases where the reasons are genuine. I'm just curious about what proportion of the arguments are a bit spurious, just 'found' for the purpose of appeal, as I think that sometimes happens too! Of course it's very possible that a child does change interests over the years, too, so they wouldn't necessarily apply through the whole of their time there, and there is obviously no way of ever determining what arguments are actually the real reasons for appeal, and which are just helpful pairings of things that it turns out the desired school alone offers and the child happens to have an aptitude in.

As ChicCroissant says, panels will ask questions, to get behind the parent’s arguments in favour of the preferred school. So, if a parent says that it’s vital that the child attends this school because it’s the only one that offers bassoon lessons, we will want to know which musical instruments they’re learning now. As far as they can, panels will try to work out whether this is a genuine interest and need.

Undoubtedly, parents’ preferences may be influenced by things like academic performance or Ofsted ratings (which panels can’t take into account), but these are often arguments against the allocated school (which again panels can’t take into account). Panels will listen to everything that parents say, but won’t be able to give weight to arguments along the line of the preferred school being “better” than the allocated school; the key to a successful appeal is identifying reasons why the preferred school is better for that child.

Panels do look carefully at the wording of letters of support from professionals. Each appeal is decided on its own facts, but (generally) the difference between a letter saying that, in the professional’s opinion, the child should attend a school offering whatever and a letter saying the child should attend the preferred school can be significant; the second letter is much more likely to be persuasive.

Thanks for your input. It sounds like I ought to do more research on which schools offer what, then, if I am asked again to write a letter, so that I can be more specific, rather than just saying what the child would benefit from. It's asking significantly more from professionals to identify a school, rather than provision, given how much provision can change at various schools. I'd be less likely to want to put my name to something stating that xx school is the only one that can meet needs because it alone offers this support, unless I was totally sure, whereas saying 'xx child would benefit from this type of support' requires less of me.

I understand that academic performance and ofsted can't be taken into account by panels, and that's why parents have to find other reasons to appeal - even when the academic side or rating are actually the main reasons they want the school. I know that sometimes if I am saying that a child would benefit from some particular provision, it is an argument that has been identified after the fact, when parents have been actively looking to identify specific things about the chosen school that aren't otherwise available.

I am sure parents wouldn't be actively misleading in terms of the arguments - and absolutely, taking music lessons already might well support the need for the only school where bassoon is offered - but I don't know if in asll cases, that is particularly the reason the parents want the school, or even if it ends up being something the child takes up if they actually go there. Sometimes they might be lucky to be able to identify a suitable club or activity that is only offered at the desired school, and where they can show their child has a talent/interest, even when really it's not their actual reason for wanting the school at all. I was just curious about that side of it, wondering how much of an issue it is that parents end up arguing appeals based on those sorts of issues - which everyone knows they have to, in order to win - when really they just liked the school better for various other reasons. How many budding bassoonists do actually end up in the orchestra, for example.

But i'm glad to hear that panels really do challenge these arguments to find out how genuine the need is. And I guess as these activities are probably part of a whole package of arguments about why the school might suit the child, it doesn't necessarily matter whether individual activities/provision etc is actually taken up in the end. I do sometimes feel a bit odd about writing that a child would benefit from some provision, when it is not something the parents applied to that school for, but it is still a factual statement that I'm writing, so it's not really anything more to do with me.

I think the bottom line here is that every case is different and you’ll be using your professional judgment about what it’s appropriate to say.

The issue around saying (in terms) “this child needs a certain type of provision” is that if the statement doesn’t go on to say “which only the preferred school can provide”, the LEA may well say (according to the circumstances of the case) that the provision is available in the allocated school or others, which can be difficult to overturn. In other cases, saying the child needs a certain type of provision will be enough, if it’s evident that this is indeed the only school with that provision.

The bassoon is an obviously fictitious example, but my point was that, in looking for features about the preferred school to mention at appeal (because they can’t mention academic performance or Ofsted ratings), parents may sometimes say that it’s the only school for miles around that teaches the bassoon and so they want their child to attend. How persuasive the panel finds such an argument is likely to depend on the background - the panel is likely to probe, to establish whether the child really is interested in music and keen to learn an instrument, or this is simply something the parents have latched onto. The child’s needs are the key thing here.

OP, out of curiosity, in what capacity are you being asked to write the letters?

I'm the presenting officer for a secondary school, meaning that I present the school's case at appeal. I also chair our schools admissions committee for exceptional medical/social circumstances applications. In my experience, it is rare for professionals to name our school explicitly in letters supporting an application or appeal. Unless you know for sure that the required school is the only one that provides x,y,z it's best to write generically.

You can't be expected to know all the ins and outs of local education provision, and if you make bold claims about what schools do/don't provide you will be undermining yourself professionally. We do sometimes get parents saying such and such professional told them verbally that they would recommend our school as the best/only for something or other, but they don't put it in writing.

You also may not know all the relevant facts. For example, we get a lots of letters saying Junior would beneft from "a small school" because our PAN is 1FE lower than School X nearby. However, as School X is historically undersubscribed, it actually has far fewer students than ours.

Yes. it is (I have always assumed) because professionals don’t want to be drawn on whether a certain school really is the only one suitable for a child that panels see so many letters saying “the child’s parents tell me that this is the best school for their child”. That will not convince the panel.

I’ve been a panellist and chair for a
number of years. In my experience, it is unusual for parents to articulate WHY they want a particular school other than vague reasons such as it is ‘better’ or ‘all their friends are going there’. Often the appeal is effectively against the school allocated.

The panel always try to draw out why that particular school would be more suitable but often there is no real answer.

We often see letters from doctors etc saying that Mrs/Mr x think this school will be best for their child. Very few from professionals actually saying why.

OP, out of curiosity, in what capacity are you being asked to write the letters?

I work in a private capacity with children with specific learning difficulties.

I have never so far recommended a specific school, only recommended provision that I believe would be beneficial, and leave it up to parents to present that in whatever way they see fit, precisely for the reasons you describe.