Summary: Mrs X complained about the way the School Admissions appeal panel considered her appeal and refused a place for her son. We found fault with the failure of the panel to properly explain its decision making in its notes. The School has agreed with our recommendations.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the School's Admissions Appeal Panel did not conduct the process fairly when it refused a place for her son at the School. She said it had not properly or impartially considered her son’s personal and individual circumstances for why they wanted him to attend the School, mainly in relation to his medical condition. This has caused her family uncertainty, frustration, and distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. If we are satisfied with an organisation’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

4. I discussed the complaint with Mrs X and considered her views.
5. I considered the information the School provided in respect of this complaint, including the clerk’s notes and records of the appeal meetings.
6. Mrs X and the School had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law and administrative background

7. Statutory guidance about school admissions and appeals can be found in The School Admissions Code and School Admission Appeals Code. Both are published by the Department for Education.
8. The School Admissions Code says, “all children whose Education, Health and Care Plan name the school must be admitted”.
9. Parents have the right to appeal an admission authority’s decision not to offer their child a school place.
10. Appeal hearings must be held in private and conducted in the presence of all panel members and parties.
11. A clerk supports the appeal panel. Parents can submit information in support of their appeal. The clerk must send all papers required for the hearing a reasonable time before the date of the hearing. This includes information from the appellant and the admission authority.
12. The admission authority must provide a presenting officer at the hearing to explain the decision not to admit the child and to answer questions from the appellant and panel.
13. Panels must follow a two-stage decision making process:
14. Stage 1: the panel examines the decision to refuse admission. The panel must consider whether:
• the admissions arrangements complied with the mandatory requirements set out in the School Admissions Code;
• the admission arrangements were applied correctly; and if
• the admission of additional children would prejudice the provision of efficient education or the efficient use of resources.
15. If a panel decides that admitting further children would “prejudice the provision of efficient education or the efficient use of resources” they move to the second stage of the process.
16. Stage 2: balancing the arguments. The panel must balance the prejudice to the school against the appellant’s case for the child to be admitted.
17. Appeal panels must either uphold or dismiss an appeal and must not uphold an appeal subject to any conditions. Appeals must be decided by a simple majority of votes cast.
18. The clerk must take an accurate record of the hearing, including the proceedings, attendance, voting and reasons for decisions.
19. The appeal panel must write to the appellant, the admission authority and the council with its decision and the reasons for it. The decision letter must be easy to understand and must contain a summary of relevant factors raised by parties and considered by the panel. It must also provide clear reasons for the panel’s decision.

The School’s Admissions Policy

20. It’s published admissions policy sets out the oversubscription criteria it applies when there are more applications than places. It places applicants into one of six categories. Categories 1-4 give priority to baptised Catholic children. Category 6 is for any other children.

What happened

21. I have summarised below an overview of key relevant events.
22. Mrs X applied for a secondary school place for her son (“Y”) at this School. He was unsuccessful. It had offered places to other children who had higher priority for the places available up to Category 4. He was in Category 6. The School was full and could not take additional pupils.
23. Mrs X appealed the decision. The School’s Admissions Appeal Panel considered her case.
24. At Stage One of the process, the clerk’s notes show the School’s case why it considered admission of further pupils would cause it prejudice. It said increased numbers would cause additional pressure on class sizes and would be detrimental to staff and pupils. There were health and safety concerns with practical subjects with limited workshop spaces. New building work had taken place to meet current needs but not for expansion. There were different break and lunch times for groups because of pressure on communal spaces, so increased numbers would create further problems.
25. At Stage Two, Mrs X put forward her grounds of appeal. Her main concern was her son’s health condition which he had to manage on a day to day basis. If he attended the School, he would have the support of existing friends who knew what his condition entailed, making him more comfortable. There was also the presence of family close by should he need medical support. The School would enable a smooth transition with minimal disruption for his health condition and quality of life. She had provided a letter of support from Y’s primary school and the NHS. She said Y, although not baptised, was raised around the Catholic faith.
26. The Panel later considered her case. The clerk’s notes show individual sheets from each Panel member. All three voted “no” to Mrs X’s appeal.
27. The clerk wrote to Mrs X to inform her the Panel dismissed her appeal. It outlined the evidence considered at Stage One. The Panel was satisfied if it admitted a further pupil, this would cause prejudice to the School with the provision of efficient education and efficient use of resources. Having established this, it went on to consider Mrs X’s case to determine if the prejudice to Y outweighed the prejudice to the School in admitting one further child. It noted her reasons for appeal and “ultimately, they determined the balance in favour of the School”.
28. Mrs X complained to us. She felt the Panel did not properly consider her son’s personal and individual circumstances. She added Y had an Individual Health Care Plan (“IHCP” - which sets out a child’s medical needs and how they should be handled). She said it should be treated the same as an Education, Health and Care Plan (“EHCP” – a document specifying special educational, health and social care provision required for a child). She also felt the School discriminated based on religion as he not been baptised due to other circumstances.

Analysis

EHCPs and Oversubscription Criteria

29. All schools must admit children with an EHCP that names it. I recognise Mrs X’s disagreement about this priority compared to Y, who had an IHCP. However, from an admissions point of view, they are not the same. Children with social or medical needs are not automatically given priority and schools can have oversubscription criteria for these needs, but they are not required to. This School did not, and so it considered applications in line with its existing criteria. I do not find fault.
30. The School placed Y in a lower priority band within its oversubscription criteria as he was not baptised. I note the reasons why Mrs X said he wasn’t, and she said the rest of the family had, and they wanted his education in a Catholic school. However, faith schools can give preference on faith-based criteria. This is in line with its admissions policy and was applied to Y. I do not find fault.

Panel Notes

31. I now consider whether the Panel properly considered Mrs X’s appeal. The clerk’s Stage One notes are limited and appear to only record what the School’s Presenting Officer had stated. The decision letter reflected this. The notes showed the “Reasons” and “Decision” spaces were blank. There is no record of voting. I cannot see the Panel questioned the School or any discussions when making their decision. The notes do not show how the Panel decided, or for what reasons, why it was satisfied the School would be prejudiced. Failure to record the Panel’s reasoning in the decision-making part of the meeting is fault.
32. Similarly, the Stage Two notes outlined the points of Mrs X’s case. The “Reasons” part was blank. The “Decision” part only showed the votes of the Panel members. I cannot see how the Panel came to its decision at this stage either. I do note one of the individual member sheets showed some reasons for refusing the appeal. However, the decision letter recorded no reasons. It said the Panel had considered Mrs X’s reasons, but the balance was tipped in favour of the School. But there is no detailed explanation or discussion of why the Panel concluded Y’s case did not outweigh the prejudice to the School. This is fault.
33. I do not consider the notes adequately show the Panel properly weighed up the prejudice to both parties or what weight it gave to each side’s evidence. The above fault calls into question the Panel’s decision at both stages of the appeal process. This caused injustice to Mrs X with uncertainty about whether it properly considered her case.
34. Our usual approach is to recommend a fresh appeal to remedy the injustice. In response to my draft decision, Mrs X declined this as Y is settled in a different school.

Back to top

Agreed action

35. The School has agreed to carry out the following actions:
36. Within one month of the final decision:
• Apologise in writing to Mrs X and Y for the fault in how it considered her appeal.
37. Within two months of the final decision:
• Send written reminders to Panels and clerks of the need to discuss and record robust and clear reasons for how it reached its decisions and what account it has taken of the evidence provided.
38. The School should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

39. I found fault with the School which caused injustice to Mrs X and Y. The Council has agreed with my recommendations to remedy this, and I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman