Secondary appeal - not offered place from feeder school

[JimJamJim]

Trying to work out if we have the basis for an appeal.

Child attends a primary on the same site as secondary.
Primary school has been designated as a feeder school for the secondary - in practice this means children from the primary are a priority group within the oversubscription criteria (after SEN and siblings).

The published rationale for having feeder school status is talks about things like facilitating curriculum alignment between the schools and primary school children "knowing they can join [secondary] in Y7". At various points we have received written communication from the primary saying things like children will have an "automatic" place at the secondary.

Easing the adjustment between primary and secondary was a key reason we chose the primary, child has always assumed they would go there.

We haven't been offered a place! Currently no reason to believe the admissions criteria haven't been applied correctly (though we are looking into it).

There's various other secondary reasons that the school particularly suits the child in terms of ethos, curriculum etc. But would the simple fact of it being a feeder we were encouraged to assume was a guarantee, and both us and the school preparing the child for that transition, be a case we could argue?

They won't be sent anything more, but they can look things up themselves and may already know the school if they live locally or have dealt with its appeals in the past.

Are you in South London, years ago my DN was in the top band and my DSIS felt it was a disadvantage and was much harder for her to find a place in some of the sort after schools becauses their were less places for top bands.

Yes - and I think it's fair to say the brighter kids are disadvantaged by this system, but the idea is to try to provide an advantage to kids who are disadvantaged in other ways. Some win, some lose!

Another local school puts a minimum quota on children eligible for FSM which I personally think is a better way of trying to counteract the problem that banding is trying to address.

But it is what it is!

Fewer than 1 in 25 places at the school go to the top band but nearly 1 in 4 children applying scored in the top band

Wow, that's tricky!

As panelists, We aren't supposed to do any of our own research beforehand. So if we don't happen to know the school, then no, we won't know anything extra. We aren't supposed to go digging, Or indeed bring in any of our other knowledge about the school other than what is presented on the day

we can ask, of course, whatever we like on the day.

A bit like being on a jury in that case - you just take what you hear in the courtroom?

In that case I was rather surprised how little basic information seemed to be supplied in the school's case (or asked for by the panel) - like stuff I'd have assumed to be fairly fundamental about the capacity of the school or the numbers on-roll etc.

Do you mean you're not permitted to, or not required to?

I've attended many appeals representing an admissions authority and it's not unusual for a panellist to ask a question that implies they've read something online and want to verify it, and occasionally they've mentioned seeing something on the school website.

It sort of ends up being the inverse of a grammar school where they're actively selecting-out the top quartile children.

I was always instructed that we should read the bundle provided and no more. The role of the panel is to balance the arguments of the admitting authority and the appellant, with reference to the terms of the admissions code. It's unfair if panellists start privately digging for information that isn't available to both parties.

Imagine if there was some core detail that, had you been aware of it, might have formed part of your case? How unfair would it feel if the panel said 'because of this information we find for the admitting authority', when (had you known about it) you would have used it to argue a completely different point? Or imagine a panellist says 'Ah well, you say you want your child to go to this school because they do drama but I know that the drama teacher is moving to a different school in September and they haven't been able to recruit a replacement.'

Panellists sometimes can't help knowing information that isn't in the bundle, but they shouldn't be actively looking for it, or basing their decisions on it.

we're absolutely not supposed to. Obviously, it's impossible to stop people doing so, But we are not supposed to. We are supposed to have access to the same information that both sides in the room do, No more or less.

of course overtime if you sit in the same area, you do get to know all the schools quite well so it's entirely possible that a panellist did know something, perhaps from a previous appeal. They are definitely not supposed to be looking schools up on the website though.

I can only assume that the panel members at our hearing asked the questions they felt to be relevant but I was quite surprised by how much it fell to parents to probe on statements made by the school. For example the school case said the have an "above average" number of children with SEN but it wasn't quantified and it fell to parents to challenge this (the data didn't actually suggest numbers were above average).

I found the whole thing quite intimidating even as someone who is fairly clued up, I felt for a lot of the parents who seemed a bit bewildered.

Did they give a percentage of children with EHCPs and a percentage of children in school SEN support plans? If so, you can compare them to averages for secondary schools given here: https://explore-education-statistics.service.gov.uk/data-tables/fast-track/d47b562a-edde-4620-71e1-08dc758d6095

I'd put all that data together myself and quoted it back to the school who then tried to explain that other schools had higher % because they had specialist SEN provision and they didn't (OK that may be, but that still doesn't make your % above average though?).

I guess I was expecting the panel to have that data at their disposal already - or at least query the absence of it, rather than the school being able to claim above average number of SEN children as part of their case without actually backing it up with numbers.

It probably makes no material difference to the outcome but it just surprised me.

I have those numbers in my school's template case, but only because we have been asked for them in the past. I tend to add to it every time I get a question I haven't been asked before.

Well we’re still waiting for the outcome letter to drop through the door! To be honest we’ve made our peace now with the school we have accepted as we know our chances are slim and really just want this out of the way.

One thing I’ve been thinking about - when the panel are deciding about disadvantage, is it purely relative to the other school offered or is it relative to what is normal/expected?

e.g. If the school you are appealing for is a 10/10 fit for the child compared to a 5/10 for the school offered, does that carry the same weight as appealing for a 5/10 school when the school offered is 1/10? Does that make sense?

It's not as scientific as that - the three panellists will weigh the arguments based on their human instincts rather than a formula.

So the panellists are unaware that perhaps the child being discussed is the only one from a primary school who will not have a place at a secondary school to which it is linked.

My understanding from the prior posts is that isn’t the case and others from the feeder appealed in the same cycle..?

There was more than one child not offered a place from the feeder school, also appealing. In previous years all from feeder got a place. Panel were fully aware of all this.

Sorry I don’t think I explained that very well - to try another way - are they looking at disadvantage against an idea of what is typical, or against the school that you are appealing for?

in this case, in my opinion we had a pretty good argument which centred on continuity and stability (and link to child’s needs) but I’m conscious most children (including those with similar needs) are expected to transfer to a secondary they have no existing connection to. So would a panel dismiss the argument on the basis were basically arguing for an advantage that most children dont get?

I know we don’t have much chance particularly in light of the school being over PAN, but I’m just curious about how panels decide.

The question is if your child will be disadvantaged by not attending the appeal school. Any comparisons will be with the allocated school. The fact that another school may be even better is irrelevant. However, arguments around stability, friendship groups and similar carry very little weight unless there is professional evidence to show that the child has a greater need for these things than the average child. This is because friendships tend to be very fluid at this age. It is not uncommon to find that children who have been inseparable through primary school drop each other in favour of new friends within a few weeks of starting secondary school.

Every panel will decide differently. I've seen strong cases that I thought would win and didn't, and weak cases that shouldn't have won but did Nobody here will be able to tell you how your particular panel will weigh up the arguments. You yourself are in the best place to predict the outcome because you will have seen the panellists' personalities, heard their questions, and got a feeling as to whether they appeared sympathetic to your case or not.

I really avoided making more than a passing reference to existing friendships in our written appeal as I thought it wouldn’t help us, though I was surprised this is something the panel asked questions about. They also asked about travel to school which I’d been led to believe generally wasn’t very relevant.

It generally isn't, but you do occasionally come across appeal panels that don't seem to follow the same rules as everyone else.

I think @prh47bridgehas answered what I was trying to ask (that it’s disadvantage vs school offered not an abstract “normal”).

I feel like the panel were v sympathetic though may inwardly have been thinking “no chance!”. But I definitely felt they “got it” in terms of the argument we were making.

Anyway I’m just trying to occupy my mind while we are waiting, hopefully it won’t be too much longer!