Secondary School Third Choice Allocated - can we appeal?

[kdandml]

Hello, I hope someone can help.

We recently learned our daughter has been allocated her third choice school. This school is close to us but has a bad name, which is why we put it as third choice rather than first or second.

All her current school friends are going to her first choice, and our child is distraught. We had reasons for choosing the first choice as we did and we feel there is a grounds to appeal on those bases, however I am not sure that the distance rule has been applied correctly in any case.

Her friends do all live closer to <FIRST CHOICE> than us, but it seems that crucially, they don't live too close to <THIRD CHOICE>. We emailed the admissions team at the council to say we weren't happy with the offer and below is an extract from the reply, with the schools redacted. It appears that we have been penalised for living too close to a bad school, which is bizarre, Is this right?

Thanks in advance.

Extract from the reply:
<FIRST CHOICE SCHOOL> was oversubscribed and we had to apply the oversubscription criteria in order to allocate places. The last person offered a place at this school lived 2.56 miles in the nearest school criterion and you live 1.55 miles from the school in the distance criterion. <THIRD CHOICE SCHOOL> is your closest school, therefore your application was refused on distance. <SECOND CHOICE SCHOOL> was also over subscribed and the last person offered lived 1.82 miles in the distance criterion. You live 3.41 miles from this school and this application was also refused on distance.

Normally it is a 'displaced sibling rule' which states that if a sibling was allocated an out of catchment school place due to oversubscription at their catchment school, then future siblings would be treated as 'in catchment' at the 'out of catchment' school, to ensure that they aren't discriminated against because their sibling wasn't given a place at their catchment school. It only lasts as long as the first sibling remains at the school, so normally until the sibling is in year 5 (because if they were in year 6 at the time of the admissions round they will have left for secondary school by the time the sibling is admitted).

yes, that 'displaced sibling' rule makes a lot of practical sense. But in this case, it's the over-subscription criteria for people making their first application to schools and doesn't mention anything about siblings in that rule (in fact, the rule just before that one is "Children living outside the catchment area who have a sibling at the school at the time of admission", which should account for those cases). I suspect in reality, the rule giving priority to those who applied for catchment but didn't get it wouldn't end up being used very often, and it's probably there primarily to remind people that they should put the catchment school somewhere on the list. But it still seems somewhat dubious to me.

What it does mean, is that the existence of the third choice school has prevented her getting in though, which I find crazy.
We live in an area with two schools close by, one half a mile closer than the other, but the one that little bit further away is by far the best suited to DD - yet she’s not going to be allowed to walk the 1.5 miles to it because the nearest school rule means that children as far away as 2.9 miles walking route are accepted. Rather than 1.5m near for her.
As if they’re going to be walking that, as well. Madness.

2.9 miles is under the statutory walking distance and as explained further up the thread, the existence of these categories are to prevent some children being left without a local school at all. If your first choice school is 3 miles away from child A and that's their nearest school, it would be unfair (in the eyes of your LA) to let children who live closer to the school but have other even closer options take the place, forcing child A to travel even further than that.

can you explain what this means and how it works? Sorry to be a pain. Thanks

@kdandml when a school is failingbecause of strategic problems, ie. weak management, then it can be forced to become an academy.

If an academy has been rated as ‘Inadequate’ by Ofsted or less than ‘Good’ in two consecutive inspections, a Regional Director who acts as a representative for the Department for Education in their local area, can decide to transfer the school to a different MAT.

In practice it means that the Board of Trustees changes. The idea is to turn the academy around with strong leadership.

Have you put your child's name on the waiting list for your preferred schools in the meantime?

I have a friend whose daughter was 16th on the wait list for the school she wanted (primary feeder school but lived well out of catchment) and she still got in - granted only got the offer literally the last day of term.

No other advice as I haven't been through it myself but don't lose hope yet!

Hi, no we havent because this is what it said on the email: (valid point though, i will call tomorrow and arrange it in case the info is incorrect)

If you were not offered a place at one of your higher preference schools, it was because a place could not be offered at that school(s) as it/they received more applications than there were places available and other applicants had a greater right to places when the oversubscription criteria were applied. Your child's name will be placed on a waiting list for a place at that school(s). If you do not want your child's name to be on a waiting list(s) for a school place, please email ....

In our LA, you are automatically placed on a waiting list for schools you didn't qualify for.

Ok so I sent an email to the deputy of the school and was asked to contact the LA.
the LA clearly have a strategy of stone walling and I expect it will work for some people, who will lose their determination to seek the fair outcome. I don’t fall into that category, not for me and certainly not when my child has been cheated.

The LA kept quoting the policy they used which is essentially different to all the suggestions above… they say the tiebreakers no longer exist, and distance and nearest school are actually the same thing. Wow, I thought. I asked for that in writing. That won’t happen.

So I asked for a copy of what was being quoted to me and was told it’s on the LA website, to which i said the LA website says that the school applies its own criteria.

Eventually, the LA said that the LA applied the correct criteria as per the schools instruction but said to contact the school because it’s the schools mistake and it’s their problem because it’s their published information.

i have emailed the head and await a reply.

Are you still sure you want the DC to go there?

I think the council and school are in an awkward position. If they admit they messed up, they could potentially have to admit quite a few extra. So ve forcing you to appeal, the decision taken put of their hands.

Yes that's how it would work in our area. You are closest to school 3 and therefore have been offered that school.

Yes there will be people who live further away from school 1 but that is still their closest school so they are priority.

In the area I'm in you can be 1/2 a mile from school 1 (everyone's first choice) and still not get in because you are closer to school 2. Others live 3 miles in the other direction from school 1 and get in because it's their closest school.

Thanks but different places work differently and while your location may work the same as what has been applied here, it doesn’t change the fact that the published process that the school committed to has not been followed. Plus - to be clear, the LA themselves state that the school have thwir own criteria.

Honestly, yes. I can get over this mess and I'm trying to shield DD from it although it is difficult because having always been honest with her, we're currently unable to tell her the truth about what has happened.
The bottom line is that this school suits our child perfectly for her interests and extra activities in particular, she is a top grade child and the school performs well in her key subjects. She is a great fit.
I am determined to continue to treat this admissions shambles quite seperately from the teachers and the structure within the school itself. I think that is fair.

I agree with you here @kdandml

You want your DC to go there bc the teaching is of a high standard, the students work hard, the clubs on offer are suitable, the head teacher impressed you, the GCSE offer fits your DC. Or similar reasons.

None of those things has anything to do with the admissions policy or any mess-ups relating to it (apart from the head perhaps, but even then it's not indicative of a terrible head, just a terrible error) - teachers IME know little about admissions and certainly have no involvement.

@prh47bridge I’d be really grateful for some advice on the appeals process. Do I need to summit my reasons why plus letters of support to log an appeal with an academy as they are asking for my statement and any evidence. I think we are going to have to go down the prejudice route.

@Grizwold09 you would be better to start your own thread, then you can get advice. But yes, you'll need to submit your case for appeal - any reason that you think a mistake has been made, and/or any challenge to the school's claim that it is full, and/or and why you think your child needs the place despite the school being full (unless you think it isn't).

@Lougle thanks so much for getting back to me so promptly. Not sure how to do a new thread as new on here.

Click 'top of thread', then click 'start new thread'.

If you're on a mobile phone using the website, once you get to the top of the thread, click on the little drop down arrow and you'll see lots of options. At the top on the right hand side, you'll see 'start a new thread.'

Well that's been eventful.
The school accept that they have not put the policy which has been applied on their website, I have asked the LA for a copy of the policy they applied and they have yet to supply it, repeatedly trying to direct me to the school, the head has called and apologised (he actually comes across as a nice guy, i could detail this conversation further but i wont), I am pretty certain that the policy they applied doesnt even exist, there is zero evidence of it being supplied to the LA and I have asked both parties, and the upshot of it is that I have been told the only way forward is to appeal.

The only evidence i have is a copy of emails between the LA and the school discussing the nearest school policy, and the school's desire to apply it. It is dated 2021 and was supplied by the LA.

Thoughts anyone? I could say a lot more but I am reluctant to say more tahn that when fundamentally I am trying to forge a relationship with the school I want my child to go to.

There's an interesting news article from 2021 which talks about the LA wide changes to admissions criteria, and that the school you applied to would not be affected by the change. You should be able to Google it quite easily.

Your preferred school has also taken down the 2023/24 admissions policy they had on their website, too.

You ask for thoughts. My first thought is that this is an even bigger mess than I thought. However, the important thing is that the Admissions Code requires the school to use the oversubscription criteria in their published admission arrangements. The LA ignored the Admissions Code and did not publish the oversubscription criteria for this school. The school also ignored the Admissions Code and did not publish their oversubscription criteria for 2024/25 on their website. The only published oversubscription criteria therefore were those on the school website in their 2023/24 admissions policy. They may have intended to introduce a different policy with different oversubscription criteria, but that's hard luck. This policy contained the only published oversubscription criteria, so those are the ones they had to follow.

Yes @prh47bridge having looked into this via google, there was a consultation to change the criteria for 2022/23 in 2021. But I can't find the admissions policies online for that year, or the previous one.

The various other documents I can find online make it very clear that they changed their policy in 2022/23 from “priority will be given to those who would otherwise have to travel the furthest distance to the next nearest school” to “priority will be given to those living closest to the nearest school measured by the shortest walking route”.

However, as you say, they published a 2023/24 policy that omitted this criteria and only gave reference to distance from school, and didn't publish the 2024/25 policy at all.

In this situation, when it is raised at appeal, do they have to consider all applicants affected, or only those who took it to appeal?