Summary: Mrs X complained about the School admission arrangements and the way they were applied. Mrs X also complained the admission appeal panel failed to properly consider her appeal for a school place for her child, Y. The School was not at fault and the panel properly considered her appeal.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained about the School admission arrangements and the way they were applied. Mrs X also complained the admission appeal panel failed to properly consider her appeal for a school place for her child, Y. Mrs X said it caused Y and the family avoidable distress and she would like a fresh appeal and for the admission form to be clearer.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way a school admissions appeals panel made its decision. If there was no fault in how the panel made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. If we find fault, which calls into question the panel’s decision, we may ask for a new appeal hearing. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), 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 considered:
• the information Mrs X provided about her complaint and spoke to her on the telephone;
• the information the School provided; and
• relevant law and guidance, as set out below.
5. Mrs X and the School had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

6. Statutory guidance about school admissions and appeals is within The School Admissions Code and School Admission Appeals Code, published by the Department for Education.
7. All schools must have a set of admission arrangements containing oversubscription criteria. The school’s admission authority uses these to decide which children will receive an offer of a place if there are more applications than places available. The school’s admission authority sets the admission arrangements.
8. A school’s admission arrangements must contain a Published Admission Number (PAN). This is the number of places the school will offer at each point of entry. The point of entry is when the school normally admits children, in this case the PAN for Year 7 was 170 pupils.
9. Parents/carers have the right to appeal an admission authority’s decision not to offer their child a school place.
10. Panels must follow a two-stage decision making process. At stage 1 the panel examines the decision to refuse admission. The panel must consider whether:
• the admission 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.
11. 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.
12. Stage 2 involves balancing the arguments. The panel must balance the prejudice to the school against the appellant’s case for the child to be admitted.
13. Appeal panels must either uphold or dismiss an appeal. A panel’s decision that a child shall be admitted to a school is binding on the admission authority concerned.
14. The School Admission Appeals Code sets out that the clerk to the appeal panel must ensure an accurate record is taken of the points raised at the hearing, including the proceedings, attendance, voting and reasons for decisions. (section 2.29)

The School’s admission policy

15. This sets out the oversubscription criteria used by the School, to prioritise applications where it receives more applications than has places available:
• Criteria A: pupils with an Education, Health and Care Plan which names the School.
• Criteria B: children in care and previously looked after children;
• Criteria C: children of staff at the School;
• Criteria D1. Christian pupils (up to 150 places). Church worship attendance to be provided on the supplementary information form by the parent/carer and confirmed by their vicar/priest/minister etc on a confirmation of Christian worship form. Where applications exceed the number of places available, a points system would decide which pupils would be offered a place and take into account variability of church attendance year on year. This includes:
1. A maximum of 72 points each for the parent and child with two years’ weekly attendance at an Anglican church.
2. 54 points each for the parent and child with two years attendance with attendance at an Anglican Church three times a month.
• Criteria D2. other world faiths, Muslim (up to 10 places);
• Criteria D3. other world faiths (up to 10 places); and
• Criteria E: all other applicants.

What happened

16. Mrs X applied for a secondary school place for her child, Y in the national October 2023 school admission round. Mrs X’s school preference was School 1. The school is a voluntary aided Christian Church of England secondary school.
17. Mrs X applied for School 1 under the school’s oversubscription criteria D1, for Christian pupils and at the time of application Mrs X provided supplementary information for this criteria. Mrs X said she attended an Anglican church three times a month over the past two years and Y attended an Anglican church weekly over the past two years.
18. The confirmation of Christian worship form confirmed Y’s weekly attendance at the Anglican church in 2022 and 2023 and Mrs X attendance at the Anglican church three times a month in 2022 and 2023. The additional notes in the confirmation of Christian worship form and in a supplementary letter from the church explained Mrs X did not attend weekly because of her personal circumstances and a family member attended church with Y when Mrs X was not available.
19. In early March 2024 Y was offered a place at School 2. Y was placed on School 1’s waiting list. The next day Mrs X appealed for a place at School 1. Mrs X submitted her case in late March 2024. She said:
• Y had the qualities and Christian values and faith to succeed at School 1;
• Y attended church on a weekly basis and Y achieved the maximum point score of 72 for church attendance. Y regularly contributed to church services and other church activities;
• she scored 54 for church attendance because of her personal circumstances she could not attend church weekly and attended three times a month and Y’s father’s personal circumstances meant he could not attend church. Another family member attended church with Y when Mrs X was unavailable;
• other churches in the local area applied a rule if there was 75% attendance full points would be awarded for attendance which Mrs X felt was the same as attending church three times a month. She said this was unfair;
• she did not think the school admissions code 2021 had been applied because the criteria were not fair, clear and objective and the faith-based criteria could not be easily understood;
• School 2 was located around eight miles away from their home with limited public transport links and both Y’s father and Mrs X had work and other commitments which meant transporting Y to and from School 2 would be difficult;
• Y did not have any friends at School 2, was unfamiliar with the local area and School 2 was not in line with Y’s Christian beliefs;
• she submitted a late application for a different secondary school, School 3 and had been offered a place, but School 3 was not in line with their Christian beliefs; and
• she submitted various letters in support of Y’s place at School 1.
20. The appeal took place in mid-May 2024. The clerk’s notes recorded the appeal was attended by School 1, Mrs X, an admissions officer, three panel members and the clerk.
21. School 1 made the following points:
• the School had over 1,000 applications for a place. The PAN was 170 and ‘admitting additional pupils would severely jeopardise the teaching and learning and safety of pupils’. 180 places were allocated because of nine additional Education, Health and Care Plan places and one additional place for the other world faith category;
• additional pupils would make some teaching rooms too cramped and there was a problem with narrow corridors which stopped easy movement around the building. The communal facilities and social areas were already under pressure. They had already moved to two lunchtime periods;
• every student over 170 stretched capacity and there was no capacity to employ more teachers and no space or money to build more classrooms and there was double the average of special education needs (SEN) which was a strain on allocations and resources;
• quality of learning and health and safety were important and it did not want overcrowding; and
• the school was already full. The governors had applied the admissions policy but reluctantly felt that to further increase the number of pupils in any one year would prejudice the effective and efficient delivery of education to pupils already on roll and prejudice the efficient use of resources.
22. The stage 1 clerk notes show questions were asked and the panel decided the admissions arrangements were lawful and had been properly applied.
23. The panel then considered the second stage of the appeal and Mrs X’s case. Mrs X made the following points at the appeal:
• she was disappointed that Y had not been allocated a place at School 1 because Y was diligent, enthusiastic in education and faith and the decision had affected Y’s mental and physical health;
• she did not think the church attendance rules had been correctly or impartially applied and some churches were allocating full points at 75% attendance and some churches were scanning a QR code with some parents scanning in people who were not present. It was not clear how Ecumenical churches were scored and it should be a fair system. It did not take account of modern family life and the limited number of church services; and
• she made comments about class sizes, no health and safety accidents at School 1 and that Y would take a packed lunch.
24. The clerk’s notes recorded the panel considered Mrs X’s arguments. It noted Mrs X had not supplied any evidence to support her concern that other churches applied the rules differently. It decided the prejudice to School 1 by admitting Y outweighed the arguments put forward by Mrs X and it refused the appeal.
25. In early June 2024 the appeal panel clerk wrote to Mrs X with the Panel’s decision, explaining the appeal was unsuccessful.
26. Mrs X remained unhappy and complained to us.

Enquiries

27. Mrs X raised concerns the School scored Ecumenical churches in the higher points scoring bracket. In response to our enquiries the School said this was incorrect. It said the Ecumenical partnership was used to define non-Anglican Christian churches.

My findings

28. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. In cases such as this, our role is to decide whether the appeal panel followed the correct procedure in making its decision.
29. The code states the independent appeal clerk must take an accurate record of the appeal hearing, including the reasons for the decisions made.
30. There was no fault in how School 1 processed Mrs X’s application, the appeal letter it sent to Mrs X with the appeal details or how it undertook the appeal. The correct procedure was followed without delay.
31. The clerk’s notes provide a record of both School 1’s case and Ms X’s case and show the panel correctly considered the appeal in two stages.
32. At stage 1 the clerk’s notes record the panel’s decision that the admission policy and admission arrangements had been followed and were complied with and it said the admission of further children would prejudice all and recorded the reason for its decision, which was appropriate.
33. At the second stage of the appeal the panel needed to consider whether Ms X’s case was stronger than School 1’s case. Mrs X explained she could not attend church weekly and inconsistencies with scoring by other churches. The clerk’s notes show the church inconsistencies were considered and said more evidence was needed. The clerk’s notes set out how the panel reached its decision and there was no fault in the way the panel reached its decision.
34. School 1 could only consider the information provided at the time by churches and it awarded the points not the churches. The worship form was clear. The School stated Ecumenical churches were not included as Anglican churches. There was no fault in the way the admission arrangements were applied.

Back to top

Final decision

35. I have completed my investigation, finding no fault.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman