Stage 1 Appeal Advice, etc.

[inti]

Hi,
Just want to say that I have read most of the posts on this site and found them so much more useful than other forums regarding school appeals (not naming any!). Your advice is incredibly useful.
Although I am lodging an appeal for an academy (faith) school and not grammar I would like your sound advice. It can't be much different.
I really feel that I can 'nail' the school in part 1. Thanks to all the posters on this site I have done research and can prove the school is not full on 5 separate counts. BTW - I also in the enviable position of having worked at the school on temp contract. So that is on my side.
I am lodging a Year 8 In-Year appeal. What I would like is some clarification on how to handle the 'Notice of Appeal' paperwork before I send it off.
Must you only refer to Part 2 (your case) in this Notice? Must it only be grounds for your child to be considered?
I have very much based my case for Part 1, and therefore relucant to show my hand too early. I am sure that the school rep will have all the answers prepped if I do send this info & evidence in. I have evidence from my teaching paperwork/files to prove the school can accomodate my child. If I submit any paper-based evidence at the Part 1 Q & A on the day will it go against me?
Any thoughts anyone?
I do have a good case for part 2 also, but like many parents, I want this over as quickly as possible and would prefer not to get to part 2. I did appeal for a different school for my child in Year 7, when he/she did not get any of their pref's. I have appeals experience, however, that was so different as it was a multiple Year 7 appeal. I think that this appeal may be just a handful of parents wanting In-Year places. Feeling rather unsure at the mo of the right thing to do.

Thanks in advance. x

[Etienne]

Welcome!

What I would like is some clarification on how to handle the 'Notice of Appeal' paperwork before I send it off.
Must you only refer to Part 2 (your case) in this Notice? Must it only be grounds for your child to be considered?
I have very much based my case for Part 1, and therefore relucant to show my hand too early. I am sure that the school rep will have all the answers prepped if I do send this info & evidence in.

http://www.elevenplusexams.co.uk/appeal ... school#c29" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I have evidence from my teaching paperwork/files to prove the school can accomodate my child. If I submit any paper-based evidence at the Part 1 Q & A on the day will it go against me?

Strictly speaking, you should be asking questions. I suggest you have the evidence available, though, just in case you need to dispute the answers.

I have done research and can prove the school is not full on 5 separate counts.

Not too sure what that means - the school is full if it's up to its published admission number in year 8. The issue is then whether the admission of another pupil or pupils would cause prejudice.

If there are other in-year appeals, then other appellants will also benefit from arguments you put forward successfully at stage one.

Points you raise with regard to year 8 issues will carry more weight than whole school issues.

[inti]

Thanks Etienne,
As the evidence is quite specific, as me being a teacher, can I message you?
I know how to do it as just read the info.
I will be more than willing to share with other users when I win this.

Cheers
Inti

[Etienne]

Technically, rather than arguing "the school is not full," I think you would be on safer ground saying "the school could take more pupils without prejudice".

The key issue for the panel is likely to be the number of children in each year 8 class.

A standard classroom for 30 secondary school pupils should be 49 sq.m.
http://www.education.gov.uk/schools/adm ... f-schools/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Good luck!

[inti]

Hi again,
Thanks for reading that. It was loads. Sorry. But thought it best to supply you with background.

Yep, wording is pretty much key to success in appeal. So thanks for that.

I have been supplied with current info on year groups. There are 206 in Year 7 (DC's year group at time of appeal in June/July). There are 208 in current Year 8. That 208 group will be Year 9 in Sept. So September's Year 8 could accomodate 2 more, if you applied the same rhetoric? You think that would be an acceptable suggestion?

Will have to find you my sources for the square footage issue. I have downloaded so much my laptop might blow any minute. Wonder why would the school quote 54m2? Maybe out of date advice from LA? Do you agree the point of 1.8m2 per pupil? Have you heard that before at all? I have asked for a full copy of the schools Net Capacity assessment, so maybe more info in there? Let's hope so.

Thanks Etienne. I really value your experience on this. Have a lovely weekend.

[inti]

Looking at 'Assessing the Net Capacity of Schools' pdf from the link.

Page 2 Introduction

"The net capacity assessment method will apply to all mainstream Community, Voluntary Aided, Voluntary Controlled and Foundation schools in England.
The method will not apply to City Technology Colleges, Academies, nursery schools, special schools or pupil referral units."

Mmmmm...the school I am appealing for is an academy convertor. Converted Sept 2011. Does that mean its not full academy just yet? Is it in transistion? Do the old VA rules apply?

[inti]

Found it.

"In secondary schools, the smallest general classroom assumed for 30 pupils has risen from 46m2 to 49m2 and in other types of space there is a similar increase from previous methods.
In both sectors, further allowances are made for increasing the overall area per pupil to allow for those with SEN or disabilities."

49m2 is the minimum, maybe 54m2 is the maximum?

[Etienne]

There are 208 in current Year 8. That 208 group will be Year 9 in Sept. So September's Year 8 could accomodate 2 more, if you applied the same rhetoric? You think that would be an acceptable suggestion?

Not as such. If the extra 2 were successful appeals, the school can simply argue that they had no choice in the matter, and have had to cope as best they could, despite the prejudice. A better point would be "What evidence is there that the extra 2 really have caused prejudice?"
If they can't provide any convincing evidence of prejudice, then you could argue that there is room for two more!

Similarly, if the number of pupils per class in the current year 7 is uneven (as I think it is), you could ask "What evidence is there that one of these classes with a lower number wouldn't function just as well with an extra pupil?"

If the school converted to academy status in 2011, it is no longer required to have a net capacity assessment. Instead it has a 'capacity' figure written into its funding agreement with the DfE - which could possibly be the same as the last available net capacity! If so, the standard size of general classrooms would in reality still be based on 49 sq.m.

I don't recognise 54 sq.m. and 1.8 sq.m. per pupil!

There is a document called Building Bulletin 98
http://media.education.gov.uk/assets/fi ... ojects.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
which gives recommended figures for new buildings etc., but it's not obligatory for existing academies. In fact, I'm unaware of any document relating to room sizes that existing academies must use!

Perhaps this is why some academies still refer to their last available net capacity assessment - because they have no other detailed analysis of their rooms.

[inti]

If the school converted to academy status in 2011, it is no longer required to have a net capacity assessment. Instead it has a 'capacity' figure written into its funding agreement with the DfE - which could possibly be the same as the last available net capacity! If so, the standard size of general classrooms would in reality still be based on 49 sq.m.

I don't recognise 54 sq.m. and 1.8 sq.m. per pupil!

There is a document called Building Bulletin 98
http://media.education.gov.uk/assets/fi ... ojects.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
which gives recommended figures for new buildings etc., but it's not obligatory for existing academies. In fact, I'm unaware of any document relating to room sizes that existing academies must use!

Perhaps this is why some academies still refer to their last available net capacity assessment - because they have no other detailed analysis of their rooms.

I got the info from this article
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/33 ... ppeal.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Possibly a bit dated, but I really wanted to find out how schools arrive at PAN in the first place. Why that number? How is it calculated against the size of the school? I am sure that when I was a lecturer years ago we had a new build and produced a capacity report based on square footage per student in relation to the average-sized classroom. However, in the web article link above a chap running an appeals consultancy ( I know..., he's someone making money from school appeals) says,
"Too many parents just accept what the school says. But it is not enough for the school to say that it is full, it must say exactly what problems admitting more children would cause." He advises questioning them in exacting detail. The Government allows 1.8 square metres per child in a classroom. It will be difficult for a school with classrooms of 60 to 70 square metres to claim that they are too small. This last couple of sentences are by Ben Rooney who compiled the article.

The article is from 2004, but it indicates how much space each pupil is awarded. It relates to the government at that time, but I was wondering if the way they calculate net capacity has changed any? Where did Mr Rooney get his info? I could look in his book, however, I threw my copy in the bin after our last appeal. The 1.8m2 may well originally come from teachers union policies, then govnt adopted?

I would like to explore this factor. I just need to establish how the calculations of pupil and rooming relate to eachother. Then I think I may be able to make a good point in Part 1.

Thanks so much Etienne for the approaches and fabulous phrases you have advised me to use.

[inti]

There are 208 in current Year 8. That 208 group will be Year 9 in Sept. So September's Year 8 could accomodate 2 more, if you applied the same rhetoric? You think that would be an acceptable suggestion?

Not as such. If the extra 2 were successful appeals, the school can simply argue that they had no choice in the matter, and have had to cope as best they could, despite the prejudice. A better point would be "What evidence is there that the extra 2 really have caused prejudice?"
If they can't provide any convincing evidence of prejudice, then you could argue that there is room for two more!

Similarly, if the number of pupils per class in the current year 7 is uneven (as I think it is), you could ask "What evidence is there that one of these classes with a lower number wouldn't function just as well with an extra pupil?"

If the school converted to academy status in 2011, it is no longer required to have a net capacity assessment. Instead it has a 'capacity' figure written into its funding agreement with the DfE - which could possibly be the same as the last available net capacity! If so, the standard size of general classrooms would in reality still be based on 49 sq.m.

I don't recognise 54 sq.m. and 1.8 sq.m. per pupil!

There is a document called Building Bulletin 98
http://media.education.gov.uk/assets/fi ... ojects.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
which gives recommended figures for new buildings etc., but it's not obligatory for existing academies. In fact, I'm unaware of any document relating to room sizes that existing academies must use!

Perhaps this is why some academies still refer to their last available net capacity assessment - because they have no other detailed analysis of their rooms.

I'm looking at the document you pasted in earlier post.

http://media.education.gov.uk/assets/fi ... chools.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I could bring it up and then the school rep could say "We have no legal requirement to abide by this now we are academy convertor"
May they say this Etienne? It would end any points I would want to raise there and then.
(Page 4)
"Schools to which Net Capacity Applies
3 The net capacity assessment method will apply to all mainstream Community, Voluntary Aided,
Voluntary Controlled and Foundation schools in England. The method will not apply to City
Technology Colleges, Academies, nursery schools, special schools or pupil referral units."

Also this bit has me thinking, as I wanted to make a point about the extra 45 6th Formers causing predjudice. This quote may have disolved that argument.
(Page 6)
"Why Net Capacity has been Introduced
14 Historically, a variety of methods have been used to assess the capacity of schools, based on
different indicators. But the capacity of a school, for any purpose, should now be the net
capacity. This will be based on the physical capacity of the school buildings.
15 The net capacity assessment method will provide a realistic and fair assessment of physical
capacity. Its key features are that:
the assessment is based only on the physical attributes of the available space, and is not
affected by the number of sixth form students on roll or pupils with statement of special
educational needs (SEN);"

Nope, I can't find any info on the 1.8m2 per pupil after Googling this morning either. The govnt now assume a maximum class size of 30 by the look of it,
as you have quoted in your earlier responses. Do you think I may be cheeky to say that they are using this 30 pupil benchmark when their PAN is 26?
(Page 6)
"Increased Area Standards
In secondary schools, the smallest general classroom assumed for 30 pupils has risen from 46m2 to 49m2 and in other types of space there is a similar increase from previous methods."

Thanks