Bishop Vesey's Grammar School’s handling of admission appeals was seriously flawed.

Bishop Vesey's Grammar School’s handling of admission appeals was seriously flawed finds the Local Government Ombudsman, Anne Seex. In her report, issued today (30 September 2011) she says that the School, in Sutton Coldfield, should hold new appeals for the boys affected, but the School argues that it is too late to offer new appeals as boys will be settled in other schools. But the Ombudsman says “This is not a reason to refuse to offer parents the opportunity of a fresh appeal. It should be for the parents, not the School, to decide whether an appeal would be disruptive.”

A parent, ‘Mrs K’, complained about the way that the School dealt with her appeal against the refusal of a place for her son at the School, which is a selective voluntary-aided grammar school.

The Ombudsman’s investigation found many faults (listed below) in the way the appeals were arranged and conducted. The Ombudsman concluded that the Clerk to the Governors was involved to a far greater extent in the appeal process than he should have been, and that the lack of training provided for members of the Appeal Panel and its Clerk were significant factors in the mishandling of the appeals.

These faults were maladministration that caused Mrs K the injustice of her appeal not being treated properly, fairly and in accordance with the law. It is likely that other parents who appealed also suffered similar injustice.

In response to the Ombudsman’s findings, the School initially agreed to arrange a fresh appeal for Mrs K, but it has now reneged upon that agreement, saying that Mrs K’s personal case was weak and that the proper decision was made. But the Ombudsman says “This is a decision for an Independent Appeal Panel to make after following the correct process and giving proper consideration to all relevant information.”

The Ombudsman listed the points where the School failed to comply with the statutory Admission Appeals Code; it:

• provided notes written by the Clerk to the Governors that were likely to deter appellants
• involved the Clerk to the Governors in the administrative arrangements for the appeal hearings
• failed to meet reasonable requests for the provision of information relevant to an appeal
• failed to provide the prejudice argument to the Panel and appellants in the required timescale in advance of the hearing
• failed to ensure that the prejudice statement contained the required information
• failed to provide adequate training for Panel members and the Clerk to the Panel
• failed to provide the Panel with the correct advice about the requirements of the Code during the hearing
• failed to provide the Panel with the correct guidance about the proper approach it should take to its decision making
• issued a decision letter that did not explain in enough detail the Panel’s decisions and why an appeal was unsuccessful, and
• issued a decision letter and that was not signed by either the Clerk to the Appeal Panel or the Chair.

In addition, the Appeal Panel failed to comply with the Appeals Code on two points; it:

• failed to either consider the prejudice argument at each appeal or hold a grouped multiple appeal, and
• failed to consider all the appellant’s grounds of appeal in the appeal hearing.

The Ombudsman finds maladministration causing injustice and recommends that the School’s Governing Body should:

• offer fresh appeals to all the parents who appealed in 2010 and whose sons achieved a mark above 318 – those appeals should be heard by a Panel composed of people who have been trained in the requirements of the Code and should be clerked by someone with knowledge and experience of school admission appeals, and
• pay £200 to Mrs K for her additional time and trouble in preparing her appeal and pursuing her complaint.

Complaint ref no 10 004 884

Article date: 30 September 2011