Summary: there were problems with the evidence the Council presented at Ms M's appeal for a place at a school, but the problems do not call the Panel’s decision not to admit Ms M’s son into question.

The complaint

1. Ms M complains about the Independent Appeal Panel’s decision not to admit her son to a primary school. In particular, Ms M complains the Panel based its decision on incorrect information about the size of classrooms and overcrowding at the school.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. The Ombudsman cannot question a school admission appeal panel’s decision simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider if there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3))
3. We check the Independent Appeal Panel followed the Code of Practice issued by the Department for Education and the hearing was fair.  We do this by examining the notes taken by the Clerk during the hearing.  We do not have the power to overturn the Panel’s decision, and we cannot give a child a place at the school. If we find fault, which calls the panel’s decision into question, we may ask for a new appeal hearing.
4. If we are satisfied with a panel’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I have considered:
• Ms M’s comments;
• all the information presented to the Appeal Panel, the notes taken by the Clerk during the appeal, and the Panel’s decision letter following the appeal; and
• the School Admissions Appeals Code 2012.
6. I invited Ms M and the Council to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

7. The school is a community school. The Local Authority is the admission authority and is responsible for admissions and appeals.
8. Ms M applied for a place for her son in Year 1. Her application and subsequent appeal were unsuccessful. Ms M complained to the Ombudsman.
9. The Ombudsman checks the appeal was carried out properly. We do not decide whether Ms M’s son should be given a place at the school.
10. The School Admission Appeals Code 2012 issued by the Department for Education sets out the process the Independent Appeal Panel must follow when considering an appeal.
11. The Panel must first consider whether the School has correctly applied the admission criteria to the application. Ms M’s application was unsuccessful because Year 1 at the school is full. There are 15 places and 15 children already on roll.
12. The Panel must then consider whether the school can accept any more pupils without disadvantaging those already given places. The Council explained in its written submission that the school was on a small site with no room for expansion. It said the hall was small for a school of its size, and the size of classrooms varied considerably which limited the capacity of the school. It said the linear layout of the school, with no corridor access, also posed problems. Both Ms M and the Panel had an opportunity to question the Council’s representative. The Panel asked about the sizes of the classrooms, and the Council’s answer is recorded in the minutes. The minutes say the four classrooms are 47, 31, 34 and 43m2.
13. The Council’s written case sets out how many children there are in each of the four classes. It says the Government’s recommended size for a class of 30 children is 62m2 in reception, year 1 and 2, and 55m2 in year 3 and above. The minutes do not show whether the Panel used this information to assess whether the classrooms were an adequate size for the number of children, or whether they were overcrowded. The Panel accepted the school was full and could not take extra pupils.
14. Was it right? Using the Government’s recommended size, the school needs classrooms of 43, 54, 56 and 51m2 to accommodate the pupils on roll. Only one of the classrooms at the school is big enough. The other three are too small. The Panel was right.
15. There is, however, a discrepancy between the figures noted by the Clerk in the minutes during the hearing and the figures in the decision letter sent after the hearing. The Clerk’s notes say class one is 47m2 and class two is 31m2. The decision letter says class one is 51m2 (47m2 plus a store of 4m2) and class two is 37m2 (31m2 plus 6m2 of ‘circulation space’ used by the neighbouring class to access other parts of the school). There is no mention of the store or the circulation space in either the Council’s written submission before the hearing or the Clerk’s minutes of the discussions during the hearing.
16. The discrepancy could be explained if the Council presented ‘net’ figures for the size of the classrooms at the hearing (the area available for teaching), whereas the decision letter and the information provided by the school appear to be the ‘gross’ figures (which include storage and circulation space).
17. If this is the case, the decision letter includes more information than the record of the hearing in the minutes. That does not necessarily the information was not presented at the hearing, but it is not good practice. And although it is disappointing, it does not necessarily mean the Council mislead the Panel about the space available for teaching.
18. Even using the larger sizes given in the decision letter, there is still only one of the classrooms that is big enough for the number of pupils on roll. The others are too small. The Panel’s decision is still right.
19. In her complaint to the Ombudsman, Ms M questioned the accuracy of the information presented to the Panel by the Council. She sent me information about the size of the classrooms she obtained directly from the school. The school says the classrooms are 51, 37, 44 and 44m2. This is different from the information recorded in the minutes and the decision letter, but there is still only one of the classrooms that is big enough. The others are too small. The Panel’s decision is still right.
20. Ms M also says the Panel was incorrectly told that coats and bags had to be stored in the classrooms, and an extra child would mean an extra desk was needed. That may be the case, but I have already confirmed three of the four classrooms are too small for the number of children on roll even without coats, bags and an extra workspace.
21. What have I found? The size of the classrooms recorded by the Clerk at the hearing does not match the size of the classrooms stated in the decision letter, and the information Ms M obtained from the school is different again. The Council’s case is not clearly stated, either in writing or in the minutes of the hearing. There is no record the Panel ‘tested’ the evidence to see whether the classrooms were in fact too small. I have had to do the calculations myself. The result is that everybody’s classroom size figures – those used during the appeal, and those provided by Ms M with her complaint – show that only one of the classrooms is large enough. The others are too small.
22. Do these problems call the Panel’s decision into question? Was the Panel misled as Ms M believes?
23. My conclusion is that although the Council’s written case is not clearly presented and there are contradictions between classroom sizes in the minutes and the decision letter, the Panel was not misled about overcrowding at the school. I reached this conclusion by using the Government’s recommended classroom size and working out for myself whether the classrooms were large enough. Three of the four classrooms are too small, regardless of whose figures are used: either the ones given by the Council at the hearing, in the decision letter, or provided by the school to Ms M.
24. There is, therefore, no fault which calls into question the Panel’s decision the school is full and the admission of an extra pupil would cause overcrowding.
25. The evidence is complicated and it might have been better if it had been presented in advance in the Council’s written case.
26. The Panel must then consider Ms M’s case for her son to be admitted to the school even though the school is full. This is known as the balancing stage where the prejudice to Ms M’s son if he is not given a place is balanced against the prejudice to the school if he is. I will not repeat the details of Ms M’s case here to ensure her anonymity. The Clerk’s notes and the decision letter clearly record Ms M case and her discussions with the Panel at the hearing. The Panel considered Ms M’s arguments but decided that the prejudice to her son did not outweigh the prejudice to the school. There is no fault in the Panel’s decision. The Ombudsman cannot question decisions taken without fault.

Back to top

Final decision

27. I have completed my investigation. There is no fault which calls the Appeal Panel’s decision into question.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman