Appeal for secondary admission - Understanding the process

[ZD1]

I have learnt an incredible amount about the appeals process for parents unhappy with their allocation of secondary school through this forum and am very grateful.

I wanted to see if anyone might shed some light on something which has me confused. All the discussions on here, as well as the schools appeal code confirm that an appeal must be upheld in the case where 'the panel considers that the appellant’s case outweighs the prejudice to the school'.

However, in the case of the LA where I live, the document that tells us the outcome of previous years appeals (annual statistical report) gives 2 scenarios where appeals are upheld:

Upheld 1 is where "The case was NOT proved that to admit more children would “prejudice efficient education or the efficient use of resources” at the school".

but there is also a category Upheld 2 where "The circumstances of the parental case were so exceptional as to outweigh the “prejudice” to the school".

And it seems in previous years, more cases were upheld for the second reason than the first.

I'm just wondering if the experts here i) have any experience of knowledge of the distinction between these, and ii) have any idea of what circumstances they might look at beyond those which have been regularly discussed (which in my mind fall in the first category).

thanking you in advance.

1. The school is 'full' because the Published Admission Number has been reached. However, on appeal, the admitting authority doesn't give enough evidence to suggest that it would cause prejudice to the school to admit further students.

Examples could be: they have previously admitted an extra 5 pupils in two or three of the last 5 years without problem. Or the year groups further up the school are under filled, so the halls and corridors will not be too crowded (a common argument put forward by schools). Or the school would actually be quite happy to put a bulge class in, so doesn't offer any defence.

1. The admitting authority argues that it's full, but the argument is weaker than the case of the parents.

In addition to what Lougie said ...

As it is more common to win on the second grounds than the first in your area, that shows that the schools are putting up a solid case for being full. However, if you could identify which schools were losing appeals on those grounds, then they would be a soft target for a successful appeal. Either they have some newly built capacity that isn't full, or they are inexperienced at defending appeals, or (more likely) they are deliberately putting up a weak defence because their financial position means they want to increase their intake and the LA hasn't allowed them to.