Were late tests necessary and 'Required'?

[SuttonParent71]

The problem is the School Admissions Code is not clear and so it is left to others to interpret it how they wish.
I don't think late tests can be considered invalid if the school has run it, but those who have been displaced as a result may have a case at appeal (they would have to show that if, for example, 10 had got an offer and sat the late test, that they were in the first 10 displaced - it wouldn't be enough just to show that the late test was conducted against the admission arrangements). This information can be asked for under the FOI to support appeals.
Tiffins and the others that have run late tests which are not published in the school arrangements (do remember the council brochures usually only summarise the arrangements, it is more important what is in the school's policy on their website) are likely to face challenges.
Having talked to the manager of the Sutton school admissions team they say the schools are obliged to follow their published arrangements or be challenged as I have outlined above. They think Kingston's advice is wrong and Tiffins are wrong and have taken advice on it to support their views. If all schools offered late tests there would be no reason to hold early ones and this would seem to be ridiculous if the School Admissions Code makes them almost a mandatory requirement. They went on to say that it is a new School Admissions Code and future policies may be defined by challenges which take place this year or next year. But they made a good point that the Office of the Schools Adjudicator inspected the admission arrangements for Wallington Girls and Sutton Boys and did not find against them for not having late tests, and some of the Sutton schools had only run early tests before and defended challenges at appeal.
He said the School Admissions Code allows schools to require Supplementary Information Forms (or test registration forms) in order to be considered and there is no legislative requirement for these forms to have the same closing date as the CAF. Test cut-offs are well advertised and parents can make a case to schools as to why they may have missed the date, and it is then up to them if that is reasonable if their DAA allow a further test on that basis.

It sounds like it is fair to test people who move into the area by the Council closing dates and were unable to register for or attend the early test.
If Sutton's advice is correct, and the numbers being talked about on this forum of those attending the late test at Tiffins are correct, then they could be forced to admit many above their normal intake through the appeals process.

[tiffinboys]

Thank you Suttonparent71 for your very helpful input.

I think that 30-50 parents just below the cut-off score should have a very strong case as Tiffins and Sutton Grammar have deviated from their published DAA. Late tests were not necessary, not statutorily required or in line with their DAA.

[SunlampVexesEel]

There is an old document "LONDON BOROUGH OF SUTTON" "DRAFT PAN-LONDON CO-ORDINATED ADMISSIONS SCHEME" http://www.sutton.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=4087&p=0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; of which there presumeably is a final version somewhere that seems to imply that any schedule for testing should be consistent with the Pan London timetable... i.e. the closing date is end October.

I'm not aware of what is going on in Sutton but if I had applied by October 31st and the school was not prepared to test me I would be taking legal advice and appearing at the appeal with this document, or even better the final version, under my arm!

Regards
SVE

[SuttonParent71]

SVE - the scheme is how the Council processes its applications, the schools then apply their admission arrangements within the dates specified to provide a ranking oreder for their applicants.

I see you have linked to a 2012 version. The 13/14 one is here http://www.sutton.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=18476&p=0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; Paragraph 13 says "Supplementary Forms for schools in this LA must be returned directly to the relevant school by the date specified by the school." This would acknowledge that closing dates for these may be different to 31st October.
The paragraph 16 or equivalent you are referring to"Any school within this LA that operates criteria for selection by ability or aptitude will ensure that its arrangements for assessing ability or aptitude, to enable decisions to be made on nominations, conform to the timing requirements of this scheme (as set out in Schedule 3)." I would read this as meaning they must make their testing arrangements as such to allow for the results and ranking to be completed in time for the allocation of places, and no more.

[SunlampVexesEel]

Depends on the interpretation of "conform to the timing requirements of this scheme (as set out in Schedule 3)."

By Schedule 3 the first date mentioned is "26 October 2012 Recommended return date for Common Application Form"

with...

"21 November 2012 Schools to consider applications according to
- 11 January 2013 admission criteria."

My interpretation of conforming would be that applications were to be made late October and the Schools then consider the applications in November.

Any early cut-off date e.g. registration would not conform to Schedule 3 if it was prior to the date required for applications as detailed.

IMHO Sounds definitely open to a challenge.

Regards
SVE

[tiffinboys]

Any testing consistent with 31 October timetable implies testing before 31 October; not after. It does not stop earlier testing- say in September. Schools are their own admission authorities. Sutton LA document is only dissemmination of information; not a replacement of Schools' DAA. Schools are required to finalize their DAA by 15th April and publish on their websites. Once the AA are determined, these can not be changed without the express approval of the School Adjudicator.

Schools are also required to conduct their entrance test such that results could be given reasonably before CAF deadline, which implies testing much before 31 October. If late tests are to be conducted, these should be described in the DAA and considered as late applications, as Kendrick has done properly.

Late tests by Tiffins and Sutton Grammar are violation of their own admission arrangements. It would be interesting to see the outcome of legal challanges.

[SuttonParent71]

SVE - I still disagree.

While the schools have completed testing in September/October, they are then only permitted to rank those who also subsequently name them on the CAF by 31st October. As they will not receive details of those resident in other boroughs naming them on their Council's CAF until mid-November, they can only begin ranking from the date specified in the scheme. As their arrangements require, and the School Admissions Code permits, them to rank as eligible only those who have completed both parts of the process i.e. CAF and supplementary information form.

I really do not think any challenge on the circumstances you describe would hold up.

Of course, naming a school on a CAF without completing the test registration would still entitle you to an appeal if you were not offered a higher preference school, and the school can then consider if they wished to test before the appeal (the Appeal Code requires you to prove selective ability to the appeals hearing, but I expect the school would want to test instead).

[tiffinboys]

Of course, naming a school on a CAF without completing the test registration would still entitle you to an appeal if you were not offered a higher preference school, and the school can then consider if they wished to test before the appeal (the Appeal Code requires you to prove selective ability to the appeals hearing, but I expect the school would want to test instead).

Even then Schools are not oblidged to consider late applications if School is over-subscribed and PAN has been achieved. School can not refuse to consider application just because test not taken, true, but it can not give priority to late applicants. It first has to consider in-time applications and then can consider late applications even if they have not taken the test.

I give 80% chance to seeing schools being forced to take an extra form.

[SuttonParent71]

Yes Tiffinboys, as appeals are after the offer of places, they would be considered as late applications and a panel could not uphold an appeal purely on the basis that the applicant was of the required ability, or higher ability than others offered a place - unless the appeals panel felt the school had not abided by its own admission arrangements. The panel can consider a parents case for wanting a place and weigh that against the schools case for being full, but cannot do this until they are satisfied the child is of the required selective ability.

[SunlampVexesEel]

SVE - I still disagree.

I stand corrected in the case of Sutton.... In the "Transfer from Primary
to Secondary School" documentation the Closing Dates for the Supplementary Forms (and by implication the application to take an entrance exam) are explictly stated.

For Kingston, perhaps due to this being a new process, the wording is absolutely not clear, in fact it seems to suggest that the Supplementary Form and CAF can be submitted anytime up to end October. What constitutes 'registration' and whether there is a closing date for 'registration' does not seem well defined.

In any case the need for an appeal by someone missing registration and being denied a test was mitigated by the efforts of the schools to accomodate late registrants.

Regards
SVE