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?

Okay so just to check I'm understanding this all correctly (steep learning curve here).

1. raising with OSA could result in a change to 2026 policy (so benefit current Y5s), whereas raising with school would only likely impact 2027 onwards, if at all.
2. some chance that raising with OSA, if they deem policy unfair, could help us if we lose appeal as would give us a rationale for second appeal (but has zero impact on a first appeal)

I'm up for raising it on the basis of (1) alone.

On what basis though, would we be arguing it's unfair? Obviously the outcome feels unfair to a layperson like me (esp as we're on the sharp end of it!).

However - the admissions code allows schools to use banding based on national distribution of attainment. It also allows them to name a feeder school. What specifically is it that is unfair in terms that the OSA would consider?

Just to add: I'm SO grateful to everyone who is continuing to engage with this thread. We've been so blindsided and overwhelmed with this whole thing (I can't believe it's just over a week ago I was obvious to all of this) and the advice here has been invaluable.

I can't imagine "you'll probably get a place in our secondary unless you're particularly bright in which case you're on your own" is messaging they'd particular want to deliver though!

@JimJamJim I am not an appeals expert.

But I think the OSA case linked (really interesting!) was quite unusual in that there was a remedy (one class increase to PAN for a limited period) that was doable without material negative impact on other pupils and that the trust itself was willing to do this and had only not done it because of negative consultation previously. The parents involved were also lucky in having time to argue the case ahead of their own applications for secondary because of it being a new school.

They wouldn't need to say that. Just be clear that there are certain types of priority and if a band is already full with siblings, that it would be possible feeder school never came into play.

Parents talk though - whether they say it or not, it'll become known that this is how the system works.

OK - but that's better, because then it won't come as a last minute shock that the feeder status isn't a guarantee (and if they choose to attempt to game the system, that's up to them!)

I am dubious about this idea of parents gaming the system by getting their children to underperform in the banding test. I don't know which school is involved, but in general when the school is using fixed bands your chances of getting a place depend on how many other pupils fall into the same band and how many have priority, e.g. due to siblings.

OP has told us there were 4 times as many applicants as places in the top band and seems to consider that unusual (it isn't), but we don't know about the other bands. We also don't know how many preferences parents are allowed in this LA. However, in an LA that allows up to 6 preferences you would typically expect each band in a popular school to have at least 5 times as many applicants as places, if not more. It may be that those in the lower bands always have a higher chance of getting places as OP suggests, or it may be that the only reason OP's child has missed out is that they are in the same band as a lot of siblings.

"On what basis though, would we be arguing it's unfair?"

@JimJamJim I have some experience with the OSA as both a successful defender of multiple referrals for my own school, and as an objector to the policies of a handful of other schools (all upheld). Based on what you have told us, you just need to fill in the form and tell the adjudicator you believe the school is breaching clause 1.8 of the Admissions code (google it) by unfairly disadvantaging children in your social group (which you will need to define in your own terms, and the adjudicator will consider if it can be classed as a social group). Include any reasoning and evidence that you have. Then follow the instructions to submit the form. You can ask to keep your name private if you don't want it shared with the school or LA.

The adjudicator will take it from there and ask the admissions authority for more information and a response to the objection. They will then do their own very thorough analysis to explore the objection and decide whether to uphold it or not. They will also review the rest of the policy to see if there are any other breaches of the code.

Sorry if I didn't explain myself very clearly on this point. The multiple of applicants to places is a different thing, and yes this is definitely much higher - I think it's something like 8 applicants per place based on previous years.

What I was talking about is the distribution of places in bands vs. distribution of performance in the banding test.

I don't have the exact figures but I've been led to understand that around 1 in 20 places at the secondary are allocated to the top band but something like 1 in 5 children in the feeder school have scored in the top band.

If that's accurate, then even if there were no siblings, there aren't enough places in the top band to accommodate everyone from the feeder school who has a top band score (never mind anyone from any of the other local schools).

Hi! I think this school has had bulge classes in the past - not for 2024 entry but in some previous years. Not sure what the basis was for doing so, though.

I’m going to continue being careful not to indicate the school I think this is since you haven’t, @JimJamJim.

But it’s worth looking up any past OSA decisions about this schools’s admissions criteria and reading them. Note discussion of the primary being named a feeder school and how they responded to community objections, including how they discussed the role of banding if feeder criteria were added.

And for gathering info for the argument that you were misled I’d focus on anything communicated to you when you selected the primary school (that was key to the Langley Park decision) and less around the actual secondary applications/transition process. I have no idea when your DC joined the school or what the messaging was to prospective primary parents at that point, but that’s the part where you could potentially show that you made a key decision based on faulty assurances.

As for the idea of parents telling children to tank the banding test to try to improve their odds:

1. OP’s DC would actually have benefited if a significant number of parents “in the know” with older siblings already there had done this. If parents are gaming the system they didn’t do it well.

2. I think we’re overestimating the level of performance control parents can have on a 10 year-old taking an unfamiliar nonverbal reasoning test which parents never get to see an example of. And tanking too far won’t help - the lowest bands are just as small as the highest ones and tend to have more children with EHCPs and LACs taking priority.

3. There will always be a certain amount of gaming the system. Parents rent close to a preferred secondary or feeder primary or “move in” with relatives, get their children in & then move back home. Unmarried parents with shared care pick whose home the child will be living at based on how it benefits school selection. Parents send oldest siblings to semi-selectives where they can use sibling priority to get in younger siblings rather than letting them go to grammar schools. And of course the giant pink elephant in the room: 11+ tutoring. There just can’t be (and isn’t) and expectation that admissions policies control for this behavior.

@GravyBoatWars - I’ve skim-read the OSA decisions but I need to sit down and read them more throughly.

We joined the school before the feeder status was established - we were told that the schools supported making the primary a feeder which did influence our decision, though to be fair at the time we applied we were very comfortably in “distance offered.

FWIW anything I have said about gaming is me ranting about the system, not anything I have any evidence of having happened nor anything that I think is relevant to an appeal.

…though having said we didn’t have any firm assurances about feeder status at the time we applied, arguably those later assurances impacted our subsequent decisions (e.g. decision to stay living in the area)

Just to say @JimJamJim that MNHQ have kindly edited my previous post that may have named the school in question, to preserve your privacy.

@GravyBoatWars

I've been poring over those OSA determinations and I think what the adjudicator is saying (though the language is rather opaque!) is, to hugely paraphrase:

"some people complained about the effect of banding, particularly the narrow top band, and that this wasn't fair to people living locally / particular local schools. However, I've looked at data on the furthest distance children were admitted from across the bands and all pretty similar, so I don't think there's anything to worry about".

However, since that determination things have obviously shifted a fair amount. Looking at data from the last three years, the furthest distance offered across bands 1-8 is more than double the furthest distance in band 9. In 2024, the average furthest distance across bands 1-8 was more than SIX times the distance for band 9.

So if the adjudicator were looking at the situation today, perhaps they would take a different view?

I think there's a rule that you can't log the same, or similar, objection for the same school within either 2 or 3 years - can't remember which, but you'll find the answer if you search online.

Thanks, I will check. This determination was in 2021 so if it's either 2 or 3 years we will be clear.

Presumably that is because the bands follow the bell curve of the way brighter, middle level and poorer academic students present. More students on average are are of middle ability so more places are available to them. If places were offered equally then they would be disadvantaged.

@JimJamJim sort of. That entire decision was related to objections about adding feeder status, not banding. Banding has been in place since the school was established (as seems to be the norm for that foundation’s schools), and when they wanted to add feeder status later on there was a lot of local objection, including some from the LA. The first time they tried the OSA upheld the objections. The second time the OSA allowed the feeder status to be added. When you’re reading remember that the feeder status being added at all is what was being objected to/reviewed and the banding is repeatedly discussed as a protective factor against the potential ill-effects the objectors raised. The banding is only ever questioned in reference to whether adding feeder status would be unfair to non-feeder students because of the existing banding, and the OSA says it wouldn’t. And that remained true this year as far as you know - the feeder criteria didn’t impact your DC or other students in that band.

I think it’s also worth noting the quote in point 61 (page 20 in my pdf) from the school and the OSA’s comments around it - the school expected the students from the feeder to fall disproportionately into the top bands and that oversubscription criteria would have a different effect in the higher bands when they made their argument for feeder status (and the OSA accepted that). I suspect this would be unhelpful for an argument that the banding system is unacceptably unfair but if you’re trying to make an argument that the school misled you it might. The bands have been set based on a national distribution for valid reasons and that’s a permitted structure, but I can see an argument that the foundation knew this “unforeseen outcome” of some feeder school students not getting a place in the top band was a real possibility and should have better informed parents that offers were definitely not assured for all feeder school applicants.

Just jumping back on this thread with a question for @prh47bridge and other experts!

I thinking now about the actual banding test results. DD's mock SATS results are all between the 50th-65th percentile compared to last year's national results Whereas to get a top band score she would be 95th percentile based on national averages.

Obviously I appreciate the test is the test and we cant argue it's not a fair reflection of DD's ability. But it does raise the question of whether the test has been marked correctly and she's been placed in the correct band. More likely that she's just exceptionally good at non verbal reasoning (I can believe this) but leave no stone unturned....

So how would I go about checking that the test has been marked correctly and she's been correctly allocated to the band she's in? Who do I ask? Would it be my job to prove an error or the school's job to prove an error hasn't been made? Is it part of the appeal?

If you can show that she has been placed in the wrong band and, as a result, has missed out on a place, that would be a winning case for appeal. However, it will be difficult to prove. Your daughter's test script is exempt from subject access requests and I doubt the school would want to give it to you. Even if you got it, you would need the answers to check. I suspect your best bet is to tell the school you were surprised that your daughter is in the top band and ask them to check her paper has been marked correctly.

If, in your case, you express surprise that your daughter was placed in the top band, the appeal panel may look for reassurance from the school that nothing has gone wrong.

Having said all that, it is possible that the test was marked by computer, in which case there is little scope for errors to creep in unless the results have to be transcribed into another system by hand.

Thank you @prh47bridge - when you say "tell the school we were surprised and ask them to check" would that be through the appeal process, or outside of the appeal?

One complication is there's been no official communication about what band DD was in - I'm certain it's top band given info that's been shared with us but technically we probably shouldn't know what we know. Do we have a right to be told officially about the band they're in?

(I do realise a mistake is unlikely, but has to be worth checking)

And to @GravyBoatWars - apologies I never responded to your detailed post, I think I'd reached my mental capacity with all this last week and my brain had turned to mush. Now I've been through the OSA report again yes I completely see what you are saying.

I'm struggling to see any case for raising the principle of the admissions criteria with the OSA. I do still take issue with the fairness of the system but it's basically entirely down to the use of national averages as the basis of the banding, which is explicitly permitted under the Admissions Code so I don't really see what latitude the OSA would have for determining anything was unfair.

I've read quite bit anecdotally now about banding. This includs cases where banding based on national averages has been used to 'drag up' the profile of schools which haven't historically attracted high-attaining pupils (arguably this may have been the case in this school when it was originally introduced, it has turned it's reputation around in a fairly short period). Also where the furthest distance offered is wildly variable depending on the band - so top bands need to be living next door to the school, middle bands intake is from miles around. I also question what would happen if many schools in a locality adopted the same system - it's one thing systematically reducing the chance of children of particular ability levels getting into one school, but if multiple schools in the same area start doing it, what happens to the pupils at the top/bottom ends who get squeezed out?