Residence requirement

[That's Torn It!]

Hello again. Have been watching the posts with interest and, meantime, DH has been in touch with DCGS. Dr Fenton advises as follows:

The proposed change to the residency criteria ... was advertised in the local press on January 8th 2010. The proposed policy was also published on the school website. All other relevant authorities were consulted, including Bucks County Council

The responses were considered at a meeting of the Governors' Admissions Committee on March 25th 2010. Bucks County Council Admissions Forum had identified two concerns with the proposed policy which was amended accordingly. No responses to the consultation were received from parents or prospective parents. The policy as modified was therefore approved, no further approval was required from the local authority and the new policy was published on the school website the following day

Point 5a states that in order to qualify for admission under Rule 2, the applicant must have been resident within the catchment area continuously since April 1st of the year preceding proposed admission. Thus for admission in September 2011, families would need to have been living within the catchment area continuously since Apil 1st 2010

By my reckoning, that would have given people wishing to move into DCGS catchment (from within or without County) precisely 6 days to do so between publication of policy and policy coming into effect!!

[WP]

Hello again. Have been watching the posts with interest and, meantime, DH has been in touch with DCGS. Dr Fenton advises as follows:

The proposed change to the residency criteria ... was advertised in the local press on January 8th 2010. The proposed policy was also published on the school website. All other relevant authorities were consulted, including Bucks County Council.

The responses were considered at a meeting of the Governors' Admissions Committee on March 25th 2010. Bucks County Council Admissions Forum had identified two concerns with the proposed policy which was amended accordingly. No responses to the consultation were received from parents or prospective parents. The policy as modified was therefore approved, no further approval was required from the local authority and the new policy was published on the school website the following day

The proposed policy they consulted on has the proposed changes highlighted. Compared with their determined admissions policy, it seems they abandoned a planned expansion in external sixth form places, and added an exemption to the end of the new residence section (5):

Returning forces personnel and crown servants will be dealt with in line with the County Scheme.

Special treatment of these groups is required by the Admissions Code.

[Etienne]

There is some general guidance here about complaining to the Adjudicator regarding admission arrangements:
http://www.schoolsadjudicator.gov.uk/object1.cfm

The problem with a rule that you must sell your house is that, while I cannot see anything in the Admissions Code to sanction it, it hasn't (as far as I know) been 'tested'. It's arguably an unreasonable requirement, especially in the current economic climate.

An admissions officer in another county wrote the following on a DCSF website a couple of years ago:

it's quite possible to remain the owner of a house whilst being perfectly settled in another area. Especially in the current property climate, I really don't think LAs should dictate to people how they conduct their property affairs. By all means make a transparent rule - for example expecting new arrivals to show evidence of their intention to stay for a minimum period, say two or three years - but I'd be interested to see a precedent of someone who has legally challenged the refusal or withdrawal of a school place, or even an accusation of fraud, on the basis that they had decided to let rather than sell their previous property, whilst meeting all the other criteria imposed by the LA.

Assuming no one wants to pursue a judicial review at this stage, there may be one or two other avenues worth exploring.

There's been some discussion on the forum before (outside Bucks) about the lawfulness of admission arrangements. This was one such case involving a foundation school, although nothing to do with residency:
http://www.elevenplusexams.co.uk/forum/ ... sf#p122334
Note the Adjudicator's deadline of 31st July - and the confusion over who was responsible!

[WP]

I agree that the Schools Adjudicator would be the most effective avenue. To get them to consider an objection, one needs to argue that the arrangements are unlawful or contravene mandatory provisions of the School Admissions Code. Parts of the Code that seem relevant, especially to enforcement of the other property rule, are:

1.78 Admission authorities must not use supplementary application or information forms that ask:

1. for any personal details about parents and families, such as maiden names, criminal convictions, marital, occupational or financial status (including marriage certificates);

[...]
1.80 Local authorities and admission authorities may ask for proof of address in order to establish whether oversubscription criteria are met. Such proof may include Council Tax or utility bills, but must not contain information prohibited by paragraph 1.78 above.
[...]
1.82 Admission authorities must not unlawfully discriminate against children whose parents fall into certain social groups. No personal information about parents is relevant in considering an application for a place at a school and criteria which focus on parents cannot legitimately be included as oversubscription criteria. Collecting such information may suggest that it can be taken into account and therefore be misleading to parents.

It might also be possible to make a case that the 18 months rule is unlawful discrimination under 1.82.

[WP]

Debbie Munday's report back to the Admissions Forum next week will be interesting.

The minutes are finally available:

10. Determined Admission Policies for 2011 Entry - Voluntary Aided and Foundation Schools (verbal report)

Minutes:

Debbie Munday advised members that the admission arrangements for 2011/2012 for all voluntary-aided and foundation schools in the area complied with the requirements of the Code. There were, however, a few minor issues to resolve. The rules for all schools were shortly to be available on the council’s website.

So apparently the above changes to the consulted arrangements were considered sufficient.

[mohannl]

Only last week, I came to know about the new residence policy of being resident in the DCGS catchment area before April 1 to be considered for admission in Sept 2011.

We currently live in Hazlemere which comes in the catchment area of Royal Grammar School in High Wycombe. We are moving to Amersham in Sept/October to live close to the tube station to make it easier for me to commute to London.

I am in a difficult situation with respect to the Home address rules of Bucks county council and those of DCGS. After I have moved to Amersham in Sept/Oct, I will not be considered in the catchment area of Royal Grammar because according to the rules, I should in the RGS catchment area on 19th November to be considered in that catchment area, and neither will I be considered in the catchment area of DCGS because I did not live in their catchment area since April 1.

The difference in the two dates put me in a situation that for a person moving from within the Bucks country into Amersham will not be considered for any Boys grammar school catchment area.

Do you thing I have a case here to convince DCGS to make an exception for us?
What would you suggest we should do to resolve this deadlock issue.

[zee]

Hi mohannl. I don't know the answer, but appreciate your problem. My reply is partly to bump this topic up the list in the hope someone else can answer. Meanwhile, I would call Bucks admissions and talk to them. Good luck.

[Etienne]

Sorry to say I'm very doubtful that asking to be an 'exception' would lead anywhere. The whole point about admission rules (assuming they have gone through the proper consultation procedures, and are lawful) is that they are meant to be applied strictly and objectively to everyone.

Ultimately the only body that might exercise some discretion is an IAP (Independent Appeal Panel). We do know of individual cases, involving forum members, where an IAP has ruled in favour of parents when the rules have been followed entirely correctly, but parents are viewed as having been treated unreasonably. However, the outcome in such cases will always be uncertain. It will depend on how receptive individual IAP members are to the argument being put forward, on the strength of the case to refuse further admissions being put forward by the admission authority, and (quite possibly) on the total number of appellants. Most grammar school transfer appeals take place in the summer term before entry, so unfortunately decisions in these cases are likely to be taken quite late.

I believe someone may have made an objection to the Schools' Adjudicator about the admission arrangements before the deadline of 31st July, so it will be interesting to see if anything comes of that.

[zee]

Sorry to say I'm very doubtful that asking to be an 'exception' would lead anywhere

But Etienne it's the conflicting rules of BCC and the new DCGS rules that have created the exception.

It can't be right (legally or morally) for someone who is living IN county the whole time not to be in catchment for ANY grammar because the two sets of rules use different dates, can it?

[Sally-Anne]

Hi Zee

But Etienne it's the conflicting rules of BCC and the new DCGS rules that have created the exception.

It can't be right (legally or morally) for someone who is living IN county the whole time not to be in catchment for ANY grammar because the two sets of rules use different dates, can it?

mohannl's child will still be in catchment for Chesham Grammar School, but s/he will not be in catchment for a single-gender school.

There are a couple of areas of Bucks where that situation exists, notably the Buckingham area, where a large number of children have RLS as their only catchment grammar.

Sally-Anne