Ombudsman asks for greater clarity on school admission appeals

Local Government Ombudsman, Jane Martin, has written to the Department for Education seeking greater clarity on the 2009 School Admission Appeals Code of Practice.

Local Government Ombudsman, Jane Martin, has written to the Department for Education seeking greater clarity on the 2009 School Admission Appeals Code of Practice. In her report (published today, 1 February 2011) on a complaint about the conduct of an appeal panel she noted that the panel, on behalf of Poole High School, had followed the Government’s 2009 School Admission Appeals Code of Practice, but that the Code itself did not give detailed guidance in circumstances where the panel decided that some, but not all, of the children making appeals could be admitted to the school. This had resulted in confusion for the parent and may have unintentionally limited parental preference.

She says: “Whilst it is understandable that the complainant was confused by the outcome and felt that the reasons for her preference had not been properly considered, I consider that this was a consequence of an unclear Appeals Code and not the fault of the appeal panel.”

The Ombudsman warns: “This is unlikely to be an isolated approach by an appeal panel and there may be many other parents who are being refused places on appeal that according to the law should have been allowed. In order to avoid further confusion, uncertainty and unfairness in future appeals, I have written to the Department for Education asking for a revision of the 2009 Code to provide clarity on the matter.”

‘Mrs Smith’ (not her real name for legal reasons) applied unsuccessfully for a place for her daughter at Poole High School. She was dissatisfied with the handling of her appeal against the refusal of her application.

The Ombudsman’s investigation found that the appeal panel had concluded that some, but not all, of the children making appeals could be admitted to the school without prejudicing efficient education or the efficient use of resources. The panel then interpreted the Code to admit five more children, but Mrs Smith’s daughter was not one of them.

The Ombudsman could not criticise the approach of the appeal panel, but raised a question about the lack of detail in the 2009 Code as to what should happen in these circumstances.

She says “Whilst I do not believe that the Code intended to limit a parent's entitlement to school preference under section 86 [of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998] where there is no prejudice, it seems that this may have been an unintended consequence in this case.”

Report ref no 09 007 281

Article date: 01 February 2011

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings