Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about an unsuccessful appeal for a school place. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the panel for us to be able to question its decision.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, complained about an unsuccessful school admission appeal for his daughter (Y). Mr X questions if one of the panel members was impartial as they were formerly employed by the school which has offered his daughter a place.

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 cannot question whether an independent school admissions appeals panel’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider if there was fault in the way the decision was reached. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the School.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

What I found

Background

5. Mr X’s daughter (Y) sat the Kent Test. This is used to decide which children will be offered places at selective (or grammar) schools in the Council’s area. Mr X’s preferred school was Tunbridge Wells Grammar School for Girls (the School). As a selective school it uses the Kent Test results to decide if children are of the required academic standard to attend. Test results combined with the School’s admission arrangements are used to decide which children it will offer places.
6. The required standard was 332 with no individual score in the test below 107. Y exceeded the required total score but fell short of the required score in the maths section.
7. Y’s results in the Kent Test meant the School did not offer her a place. Mr X appealed this decision.

The appeals process

8. Independent appeal panels must follow the law when considering an appeal. They need to consider if the school’s admission arrangements comply with the law, and if they were properly applied to the appellant’s application.
9. In appeals for selective schools, the panel needs to decide if the appellant’s child meets the necessary academic standard. If they decide this is not the case, then the panel cannot uphold the appeal.
10. If the child meets the academic standard and the panel decides the school can offer a place without it causing ‘prejudice’ to the school, then they must offer a place.
11. If the child meets the academic standard and the panel decides the school cannot offer a place without it causing ‘prejudice’ to the school, they need to balance the appellant’s case against the prejudice to the school.

Mr X’s appeal

12. The clerk’s notes show that during the appeal, the School’s representative presented their case. They explained how places had been offered. The panel and parents could ask questions.
13. In Mr X’s appeal, he explained why he wanted Y to attend the School. Mr X said he believed Y was of the required academic standard. Mr X explained Y had been unwell on the day of the test. Mr X provided written evidence in support of his appeal. Mr X said Y’s performance in maths was at the correct level for a year 6 student.
14. The panel considered Y’s case. The panel decided the School’s admission arrangements were lawful and had been properly applied. The panel decided there was not enough evidence to show Y was of grammar school ability. The panel refused the appeal and the clerk’s letter explained the decision.

Assessment

15. I understand Mr X is unhappy his appeal was unsuccessful. But we are not a right of further appeal and cannot question decisions which were properly taken.
16. In his complaint to the Ombudsman, Mr X has questioned if one of the panel members (Panel Member 1) was impartial. Mr X says they were previously employed by the school which has offered Y a place.
17. Paragraph 1.6 of the School Admission Appeals Code (the Code) says admission authorities must ensure panel members are independent. The Code goes on to say legislation disqualifies certain people from membership of an appeal panel. While ‘disqualified persons’ include those employed by the school appealed for, there is nothing in the Code which would allow us to say Panel Member 1 should have been a disqualified person. The Code also states persons employed by another school are not automatically considered a disqualified person – it therefore follows this also applies to former employees. There is nothing in the Code for us to say the inclusion of Panel Member 1 represents fault. The panel’s decision-making in general therefore needs to be the focus of our consideration.
18. The evidence I have seen shows the panel followed the proper process to consider and decide Mr X’s appeal. The panel considered the relevant tests set out in the Code.
19. The evidence shows Mr X had the chance to present his case in line with the written information he provided.
20. Each panel needs to reach a decision based on the information before it. The evidence I have seen shows the panel considered all the information presented. It is for the panel to decide the weight it gives to each piece of evidence. The panel balanced the evidence presented and reached a decision it was entitled to take. The clerk’s decision letter is in line with the notes taken during the hearing.
21. Based on the evidence available there is not enough evidence of fault in how the panel considered Mr X’s appeal to warrant us investigating.

Back to top

Final decision

22. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the panel.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman