Ombudsman rules against Herschel Grammar
Moderators: Section Moderators, Forum Moderators
-
JaysDarlin
- Posts: 548
- Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2008 6:34 pm
Hi Mitasol,mitasol wrote:JaysDarlin - I agree with your analysis but I don't see the negative. You will be offered your highest ranking preference. It is impractical to expect multiple offers.
The negative being the fact that many disappointed parents have put down schools as 2nd preference, being under the notion that the one they put down as first had to be put down as first - thus having lost out on their first preference school.
Chad has answered part of this, but just to add one point: you have to accept whatever school you're offered in March (unless you're opting out), but that doesn't prevent you from going on waiting lists and/or appealing for higher ranked schools.passinby wrote:I am a little confused about the procedure of "2nd round" offers which I have read in the posts. How does this work in practice? For example, if Langley does not give my child a place on the offer day in March, presumably the LEA will write to say we have been offered the next school down which accepts us. Looking at old posts, some children have been offered a place as late as June. What happens then? Does the LEA write withdrawing the March offer, saying our higher preference was possible to allocate? Or, does Langley write to make the offer directly and parents then have to negotiate with the LEA and the school allocated in March. You see, I was under the impression in March we would have to make a definite agreement (if we were not going to appeal) to accept or not the offered school place.
Excellent. The ombudsman finds maladministration both in the consortium admissions and Herschel's appeal process, and failure by the council in its oversight role, and requires that they all be put right as a matter of urgency.chad wrote:To read the report from the Ombudsman's office website see link below...
http://www.lgo.org.uk/news/info.php?ref ... &startnum=
You can download the full report as a word doc... using the 'Information files' link at the bottom of the page
The only cloud is that there is no relief for a dozen children who may have been affected but did not appeal. There are too many of them and it is too late.The Ombudsman looks to the Governors of the School, and the Consortium, to ensure that any flaws in the arrangements for 2009/10 are addressed urgently.
Thank you mitasol for your reply,
I feel a bit reassured now. I rang Tiffin this morning (my second choice) and they said to me that schools do not know about how we have ranked them on our CAF and that all that matters is the pass mark. Indeed if my son scores high enough (between 280 and at least 230 roughly as last year they stopped at 229) , he will be offered a place.
I also called my local LEA and I was told that it is ILLEGAL for schools to tell parents that if they do not put their school first on their CAF, they will not be offered a place. Am I right in thinking that all that matters, really is the pass mark? What are, then, schools playing at?
I feel a bit reassured now. I rang Tiffin this morning (my second choice) and they said to me that schools do not know about how we have ranked them on our CAF and that all that matters is the pass mark. Indeed if my son scores high enough (between 280 and at least 230 roughly as last year they stopped at 229) , he will be offered a place.
I also called my local LEA and I was told that it is ILLEGAL for schools to tell parents that if they do not put their school first on their CAF, they will not be offered a place. Am I right in thinking that all that matters, really is the pass mark? What are, then, schools playing at?
Thanks Chad. Did you read the full report - in particular section 53 ?chad wrote:
To read the report from the Ombudsman's office website see link below...
http://www.lgo.org.uk/news/info.php?ref ... &startnum=
You can download the full report as a word doc... using the 'Information files' link at the bottom of the page
'53. In the current arrangements now in place for admissions to the Consortium Grammar Schools for September 2009, the written Admissions Procedures for the Schools says that children who score 111 or more “will be eligible to be considered for a place at the Grammar School in the Consortium which has been named as the highest preferenceâ€
Section 71 says..
So I think the ombudsman has set a time limit for them to address the problem...and it will have to be addressed before the March allocations and the beginning of the 'waiting lists'.71. My report has identified a number of flaws in the Consortium’s admission arrangements for 2008/09. I look to the Governors of the School, and the Consortium, to ensure that any flaws in the arrangements for 2009/10 are addressed urgently. The Governors should write to me before the end of February 2009, with details of the remedial action it has decided upon.
I think it's significant that the DCSF has taken an interest (paragraphs 62 and 72). The ombudsman reports on some impressive stubbornness by the heads (paras 42-57), but surely they don't want to star in Ed Balls's next press release.chad wrote:So I think the ombudsman has set a time limit for them to address the problem...and it will have to be addressed before the March allocations and the beginning of the 'waiting lists'.
The Ombudsman’s decision may open a can of worms for the Consortium Schools.
If a parent had decided against placing two consortium schools on their DC’s CAF and now find their child attained a score of, say, 115. If the only consortium school on their CAF was Langley could they now argue that if they had not been let astray by the consortium and the postion of the LA in dealing with appeals prior to the Obudsman’s finding they would have also placed Hershall on their CAF and accordingly may have secured a place at that school ?
If a parent had decided against placing two consortium schools on their DC’s CAF and now find their child attained a score of, say, 115. If the only consortium school on their CAF was Langley could they now argue that if they had not been let astray by the consortium and the postion of the LA in dealing with appeals prior to the Obudsman’s finding they would have also placed Hershall on their CAF and accordingly may have secured a place at that school ?
Regarding appeals, in Slough appeals for foundation and voluntary aided schools are arranged by the schools themselves. The local admissions forum resolved in March to conduct an audit into appeals at these schools, but it was not an immediate priority. By the account in the ombudsman's report, appeals for Herschel at least are managed extremely poorly. Perhaps it's a higher priority now.orion wrote:The Ombudsman’s decision may open a can of worms for the Consortium Schools.
If a parent had decided against placing two consortium schools on their DC’s CAF and now find their child attained a score of, say, 115. If the only consortium school on their CAF was Langley could they now argue that if they had not been let astray by the consortium and the postion of the LA in dealing with appeals prior to the Obudsman’s finding they would have also placed Hershall on their CAF and accordingly may have secured a place at that school ?
