Question for appeals panellists

[dynamaya]

Hi. I know there are a few appeal panel members on these threads. Would it ever be reasonable to appeal for a year 7 place on the grounds that the school's sixth form is very under capacity, therefore they have space for more children in year 7?

Not an expert. But no.
It might help with them claiming over crowding is corridors, but won't help with class size issues day to day.

So you need to find much better grounds such as extra curriculars offered, or subjects at GCSE for which you can show your child has a particular interest.

No, I'm afraid not. Spaces in other years are not relevant, other than in a very light way as Teen says if they try to make a case saying the school is overfull at lunch etc. But even then 6th form is rarely relevant as they usually have a seperate space in the school with their own classrooms, canteen etc, so it's not relevant to that argument either.

Thanks @PatriciaHolm. If a panel upheld a decision on those grounds, and a school wanted to challenge it, would it cost the school a lot of money to take the case to a judicial review?

As others have said, it is highly unlikely an appeal panel would uphold a decision on those grounds.

I have never heard of a school taking an appeal panel decision to judicial review. Whilst they could, in theory, do so, they would only have a case if the appeal panel had failed to follow the Admission Appeals Code and this had affected the decision, or the appeal panel's decision was Wednesbury unreasonable, i.e. so unreasonable that no sensible person could possibly have made that decision.

As prh says, I've never seen it happen, and I really can't imagine a scenario in which it would. Schools have far more to do and worry about that fighting against the admittance of a pupil from what they perceive as a weak appeal.

And it’s a no from me, too.

Are you channeling Simon Cowell?

Ha, no! I’m one of those old fogeys who barely knows who he is, but was trying to be succinct and not repeat what previous posters had said, to the effect that vacant places in the sixth form won’t really address the almost inevitable arguments from the school that admitting additional pupils to Y7 will cause overcrowding in classrooms etc.

Unless you were proposing to put your 11 year in the same classes and curriculum as the 19 year olds, being under PAN for 6th form is irrelevant to year 7 capacity.

There are only so many chairs that can fit into a classroom, only so many computers, only so many desks. Schools try to take as many as they can because it means more funding - if they can't fit more in, they can't fit.

As others have said, it is highly unlikely an appeal panel would uphold a decision on those grounds.

@prh47bridge unfortunately I know of one which did, last year. School didn't try to overturn it, for all the reasons you said, but I'm just wondering how likely it is to happen again.

But thanks all, for confirming my own feeling that it is wholly unreasonable. But it seems not all appeal panels are created equal.

No, they definitely aren't. Most do a good job but unfortunately some don't.

If the only reason the appeal was allowed is that the sixth form was under capacity, that is a very odd decision unless the school's case was all about what would happen if the school was overcrowded rather than what would happen if Y7 had too many pupils. If, for example, the school's case was about overcrowding in the corridors, problems with serving all the pupils at lunchtime, etc., an appeal panel could reasonably look at that and think that it doesn't apply because the school is under capacity. However, if the school's case also talked about insufficient equipment, classrooms overcrowded in Y7, etc., the school being under capacity should not be enough to overturn this.

The same panel upheld 3 cases on this basis. So the school was temporarily at PAN +3 offers. In practical terms, all it meant was that the next 3 places that came up on the waiting list weren't offered by the LA, so the school ended up back at PAN by September. This seems to me to be an odd process, which just helps people to queue jump rather than creating additional places. The appeal panel seemed well aware of this too, so did not seem to seriously consider how (theoretically) being over PAN would impact the school longer term, as the cohort moved up the school.

I think it is sometimes the case that a school is not actively opposing the appeal. If they are technically full up to PAN, then they have to say no, but if their PAN is such that actually they could easily take a few over, then they just let them go to appeal without really fighting it.
I used to hear our school receptionist saying on the phone "I'm afraid we're full in that year group, the number for the appeals office is..." and then the child would appear a little later. I think our PAN at the time was quite a bit below 30 x number of forms, so there wasn't a great problem going above it, and it was the only school in town, so the LA didn't really want to have to provide transport elsewhere.

That's how it's supposed to work. Appeals aren't to create extra places, they're to admit specific kids who have a need to go to that specific school.

Every panel should make their decisions based on what is said in the appeal hearing and what is in the appeal papers. So sometimes it is the case that something gets said in the appeal that colours the panel's judgement more towards allowing an appeal. I can remember a case where the presenting officer did make the comment that going a few over the PAN would not cause the school that much problem. Of course the school got their extra few pupils because the panel found it quite difficult to prove the school's case after that remark.

Then why do schools have to prove to appeals panels that they're full and can't possibly admit one more student, without prejudicing the education for the rest? And why does the Appeals Code explicitly say that panels should consider the impact on the school for all years that the additional child(ren) will be there? It seems to me that the implied intention of the process is to increase the number admitted over the PAN.

Agree with @titchy. Appeals are entirely about admitting children who missed out through mistakes in the admission process, or who have a need for the school that isn't covered in the school's oversubscription criteria. They do not create additional places. Pupils leaving will not normally be replaced until the year is back down to PAN.

Also, as @admission says, the appeal panel look only at the information in the appeal papers plus what is said in the hearing. If the school don't talk about long term impacts in their case, the appeal panel cannot consider any such impacts. It is not their job to speculate about what might happen in two or three years' time.

Then why do schools have to prove to appeals panels that they're full and can't possibly admit one more student, without prejudicing the education for the rest?

Because if they can't demonstrate they're full an appeal panel could direct them to admit everyone! There's also the possibility of their PAN being challenged if they say they're not full.

The appeal panel does accept that allowing in children at appeal WILL prejudice the others. But if they accept an appeal they are effectively saying that the prejudice to the other kids isn't as great as the prejudice to the kid not admitted. Hence why when someone leaves they don't get replaced - to try and reduce back the prejudice to the other kids.

Then it seems to me that the greatest prejudice is to the chance of other children higher in the waiting list being admitted, than to the efficient education of the children who already have offers. Yet they don't necessarily know it. If they did, they would be more likely to appeal too, rather than patiently waiting and hoping to reach the top of the list. Panels are explicitly told not to consider that there may be other children with higher priority in the oversubscription criteria.

If appeals had to stick to the waiting list and could not admit beyond PAN, there would be no point to appeals. No-one would ever win.

People further up the waiting list appealing wouldn't necessarily win. The whole point of appeals, apart from correcting mistakes, is to address situations that aren't covered by oversubscription criteria but mean the child really needs to be admitted to the school. It sounds like you think we shouldn't cater for that situation at all.

The thing with appeals is you get a range of cases. Some are children who really would benefit from that specific school. Others want the school for more general reasons i.e. it's a 'better' school, but actively look for reasons to build their case on.

As it is based on what is said on the day, you get situations where those with weaker reasons get lucky and those with stronger cases don't get a place. (For clarity sake I'm not talking about at the same appeal, but at different appeals with different strengths of cases from the schools). This can seem unfair on both fronts, with the caveat that unless you were there, you don't know exactly what was said. Whilst it is not a foolproof process, it is still an important process to have, to allow those with a strong case am opportunity to present it.

The whole point of appeals, apart from correcting mistakes, is to address situations that aren't covered by oversubscription criteria but mean the child really needs to be admitted to the school. It sounds like you think we shouldn't cater for that situation at all.

We need appeals to address mistakes, for sure. Most schools in our area have Exceptional Social/Medical Circumstances clauses to cover situations not addressed by the oversubscription criteria, so the reasons for parents to appeal tend to be cases that are too weak to be covered by that - from what I've seen, it's usually because the school is closer or considered 'better' than their currently offered school.

That is often the subtext to an appeal, but parents won't win just because they want a closer or better school. If the school puts up a reasonable case and there has been no mistake, the parents will have to show that the school offers something that is missing from the allocated school and is particularly relevant to their child. The panel will simply disregard any arguments that the child needs a closer school (unless there are medical factors at play) or that they need a better school.

Exceptional social/medical circumstances in the criteria helps, but is often operated too restrictively and does not cover all situations. A child is unlikely to qualify on the basis of being wheelchair bound, for example, as most schools should be able to cope with such pupils. However, if a wheelchair bound pupil ends up being allocated a place at a school that is not fully accessible, they will need an appeal to get them into an appropriate school. Similarly, a child that needs to avoid a particular school for safeguarding reasons would not qualify under this category, so may get allocated a place at the school they need to avoid. The admissions process simply does not have any way other than appeals of catering for children who need to avoid particular schools.

Then, of course, you get the child who is musically talented and who wants a school with lots of extra-curricular musical activities but gets allocated a school that doesn't have any. Or the gifted footballer allocated a place at a school that only plays rugby. Or the child who has a particular reason for wanting to study a particular subject but is allocated a place at a school that does not offer that subject.

I could go on. But the idea that having exceptional social/medical circumstances in the oversubscription criteria is enough to mean that all situations are addressed is simply wrong as anyone who has been on an appeal panel can tell you.

@dynamaya I am wondering if this is just general wondering on your part or whether you have had a bad experience with appeals or the system?

Most schools in our area have Exceptional Social/Medical Circumstances clauses to cover situations not addressed by the oversubscription criteria, so the reasons for parents to appeal tend to be cases that are too weak to be covered by that - from what I've seen
Have you ever applied for that category? I have and it is totally opaque. I didn't find out until allocation day whether we had been included in that category. I never had confirmation that my dc was being assessed or why they were refused.
Fortunately we were able to pursue and win an appeal.