Secondary school appeals: balancing the arguments and prejudice

[SausageDogFace]

Since the prejudice to the school can depend on the level of a child's needs, can an appeal for a child with a "better" case for admission ever be less likely to succeed?

We are appealing on behalf of our child for a Year 7 place. Our child's situation has changed slightly since we submitted our appeal case in March. Luckily we are still able to provide additional evidence.

The secondary we are appealing for is wildly popular. Our appeal will be held as part of a multiple block appeal. History suggests some but not all of these appeals will be successful. The appeals panel will therefore need to balance arguments. According to the Schools Appeal Code, assuming there are "more cases which outweigh prejudice than the school can admit", the panel must then "compare the cases".

In our view, the additional information we might supply, which turns on reasonable adjustments currently being made by our child's primary, makes our child's case for admission unequivocally stronger. This is in terms of "what the school can offer the child that the allocated or other schools cannot" (the secondary we are appealing for has particular expertise in the area of our child's need).

However, the school presenting offer might be able to argue back, somewhat reasonably, that the "prejudice to the school" of admitting our child is larger than that of admitting another child. The text in the Appeals Code talks of how the panel must "uphold [appeals] with the strongest case for admissions", phrasing this in terms of "a certain number of children could be admitted without causing prejudice" as if that that number is fixed. But surely it isn't. Isn't it possible for the impact of an additional admission to depend on the needs of the child to be admitted?

It is possible to imagine a case where child A has a stronger case than child B, but equally requires more support from the school, and so the balance tips in favour of child B.

In such a situation could it ever be disadvantageous to provide additional evidence?

I am a panelist and chair. It doesn't work like that. It would normally be the child with the greatest need to attend the school that would be successful.

What are your compelling reasons? They might not be as watertight as you imagine.

And another one here! Appeals where parents claim their child has needs but don't provide good evidence are less likely to succeed.

The additional reasons relate to documented referrals to outside agencies. These have happened since we submitted our original case at the end of March, which itself was fully documented.

The problem is, the reasonable adjustments currently being made by the primary, which we planned to describe in this additional submission, and which we feel the desired secondary would be better placed to cater for, necessarily involve significant input and time from school staff.

We wondered whether this could be vulnerable to a counter-argument from the school's representative at the Appeal Panel, along the lines of "taking this child would cause more prejudice because they have needs which are more difficult to cater for than the average". @Dynamicsloth, can I confirm you are saying this does not happen (you say "normally")

When I say ‘normally’ I cannot predict every situation without knowing the exact details.

I would be as honest as possible about your child’s needs and submit documentary evidence from experts naming the desired school. This is crucial.

I can only think of one instance where a head said a school could not meet a child’s needs. In the panel’s view that was so
unreasonable, and the head so ridiculous that the child’s appeal succeeded.

In general you get the School or admissions authority being sympathetic to the family but saying they cannot admit another child because it would prejudice the effective education of those already there.

I cannot imagine a school saying they could admit one more child with lesser needs over a child with greater needs because then they would be saying that their own prejudice argument is a load of crap.

In any event the panel are able to make up
their own minds based on the fact
as presented. I would not try to second guess what the panel are thinking or hide facts from them.

Are you saying you are worried that although your child has greater need, because they would put more demand on the school the 'prejudice' to the school would be greater than for another child?

I'm not an expert, but I've got the idea that stage 1 decides the school can accept say 6 extra pupils, and that stage 2 decides which 6 are 'most worthy'. In which case you'd be OK. However I could be talking rubbish.

That's the stage one bit @TeenPlusCat, in this case I think the OP is assuming the school has made the case for prejudice and the panel are looking at the balancing arguments at stage two.

While saying that, if several appeals succeed each year, maybe the school consistently fails to make the case for prejudice at stage one. In that case what you describe (more or less) applies.

Thank you @Dynamicsloth and @TeenPlusCat, that's helpful.

@Dynamicsloth, I was indeed assuming that, since I think the school in question must routinely fail to make the case for prejudice every year. The 25 or so extra pupils in every year above its PAN suggest that. I suspect, though, that 25 is a much lower number than the total number of appellants per year; it certainly is this year.

What's unclear, though, is how deciding something like "the school can fit X extra" based on information from stage one could ever be consistent with the talk in the Appeal Code about balancing prejudice (since the number admitted would then depend on the strength of cases). So when you say "more or less", could you explain a little more how it works, precisely?

About documentary evidence: while we have a letter from a highly relevant professional, unfortunately it does not explicitly name the desired school. Just how significant is that? You say "crucial".

Does a case in which the evidence paints a compelling, documented picture that the appellant would very much benefit from a strength of the desired school, but no one - apart from the appellants - has set pen to paper to explicitly say that, have little chance of success then?

And thank you both for your help; it is much appreciated.

In my area we hear Stage 1 and Stage 2 together with a separate hearing for each appellant.

I sit for several schools in the area and normally they make the case for prejudice.
There was one exception which was when the a new head at a new school admitted they could fit in 5 or 6 more children. So we discussed all the appellants and selected the 6 or so most in need. That was a
good day!

In response to your query about evidence, in our area any school should be able to support kids with common issues like dyslexia or diabetes for example.

If a child has needs that can only be supported or are best supported at a particular school I would expect to see some sort of evidence. Normally from a professional saying in their view X school would be most suitable. I would tend to disregard a letter saying ‘Mrs Y thinks X school is best for her child’ without saying why.

You have to make the connection between the need and the school. What does it offer that other schools don’t?

Thanks; at least for this school, Stage 1 and 2 are separate events. They are on separate days, and Stage 1 is in a group, whereas Stage 2 is private for each appellant. I think this is to avoid asking the school's presenting officer to make precisely the same case 50+ times.

Is it then, then, that in this type of situation decisions are made by the panel at the very end by way of a ranked list (and with knowledge that after each decision to admit each extra child, the school's case for prejudice gets very slightly better, and so the bar to cross in terms of strength of case gets very slightly higher)? So something like the "we can fit 6 extra children" situation you described, but where the threshold depends in some way on the strength of the cases?

We won an appeal for a child with additional needs. There were a fair number of appeals over several days so we were up against competition.
We had letters from professionals detailing why specific things about the school were important. Things that couldn't be provided elsewhere.
I had worked with the professionals to ensure the letters were specific enough to address the requirements in a useful way. I don't believe we would have won without them.

The desired school has an integrated unit providing additional specialist support for a particular need. I think all schools will probably have some children with this need. However the crux of our argument is that the desired school is much better placed to cater for children with this need, even children who do not have an EHCP naming the school.

@Dynamicsloth, our case falls between your examples. We do not have anything from a professional saying school X would be most suitable. But equally while we are "Mrs Y" in your second scenario, in our case we are very much saying why (and providing evidence from professionals it applies here). How might this play out?

@PastMyBestBeforeDate thank you. How can you judge your last statement? Do you think if you had said the same things that were in the letters, but without professional support, then the panel would not have listened?

It sounds like there is something else going on here if the school routinely exceeds the pan.

I would expect the panel to hear all the appeals at stage 2 before coming to a decision and discuss the likely ones in more depth at the end of all the appeals.

Yes, everything depends on the strength of the cases. The child with the better case to attend a particular school would be more
likely to win their appeal. I would never expect a scenario where for example 2 children with lesser needs win an appeal as opposed to 1 child with greater needs. But you must match the need to what this school can offer.

@SausageDogFace

I think you need to be careful here. We have a school with (for example) a specialist autism unit in the local area. It is not a given at all that a child with autism will win their appeal. All schools should be able to accommodate those with autism. The autism unit is to accommodate children with an EHCP naming the school.

If (again hypothetical) the letter says Mrs Y’s child would benefit from a school with a specialist autism unit because of …. and the school is the only one for miles that provides this, then yes it would make your case stronger. It would be better though if you could persuade the professional to name the school or at least use it as
an example of the type of school that is suitable.

I would add that many of the successful appeals I have seen over the years, have looked fairly weak on paper but the parent (usually mum) presents really well by making strong verbal arguments about why that school is the only school that will possibly do for their child. This could take into account social reasons depending on the child's interests and personality, the subjects taught at the school, activities provided and logistics as well as the specialist unit you mention in your post.

@SausageDogFace one of the points in one of the letters was used as a reason for allowing the appeal and the sender was also specifically named. The panel had questioned the LA rep on this and the rep had to admit our concerns were realistic.

@SausageDogFace sorry I didn't address your second question. I don't know if we'd have carried that point just on our raising of it. Possibly. But the professional explanation of the problem gave it independent weight as a problem. It wasn't just our say so that this was difficult.

Thanks to you both (again). The scenario where "2 children with lesser needs win an appeal as opposed to 1 child with greater needs" was precisely what we were considering. But it sounds like that is a non-issue.

And so we should try to be as persuasive as we can with the written case and the panel, while acknowledging that others with letters written by professionals backing-up why the school in question is absolutely the only possible option for their child are always going to be in a stronger position.

@Dynamicsloth about the PAN and "sounds like there is something else going on here"; what type of thing do you have in mind? At least from the outside looking in, this seems to be what is happening here.

@SausageDogFace

There is a school local to me which has gone over PAN consistently in the last couple of years because of the lack of places locally (I’m in London). It is unsustainable though.

I am going to appeal in order to get my child into a local secondary school, we have just moved to the area. Unfortunately the school is full and they are stating it would have prejudice of education and resources if another child was admitted, the school in question provides excellent mental health services and support which she is having at her school at present which is 40 miles away from our new address. The school that the council have encouraged us to apply for as there are spaces does not provide any mental health support at all.
how can I get passed the prejudice of the resources and education ?

@WaryBiscuit , you should start your own thread. This is an old one.

However, the short answer is that you present your case and the panel decide whether it is strong enough to outweigh the school's case.