Bucks Selection Review unsuccessful

[Etienne]

When we get to the oversubscription section, if there are a number of children that are considered to have strong appeals and the panel are then deciding a limited number to be offered places, do they have to use the admission criteria to judge one case against another

No - it's the overall strength of individual cases, each being balanced against the strength of the school case for prejudice.

The number of (potentially) successful appeals isn't necessarily limited - although it could be if the panel were to decide that the school couldn't possibly cope with the total number of cases that individually outweigh the prejudice to the school. (There's a paragraph in the Appeals Code that says that, in this specific situation, the panel would have to compare individual cases and determine which of them to allow.)

Also if we get that far but don't get offered a place, will we be put on a waiting list or will we simply be deemed unsuccessful?

Good question!

If Bucks were to opt for separate hearings to deal with oversubscription (which is one way of organising the appeals), then there would be no doubt about who is or isn't qualified, because of decisions taken in the 'first round' and notified to parents.

A child who has clearly been deemed qualified must then be eligible to go on the waiting list (at least for the particular grammar school being appealed for - it is arguable that qualification via an appeal wouldn't be 'transferable' to other grammar schools, because appeals for those schools are being heard separately).

However, in most selective areas, qualification and oversubscription are considered at one and the same hearing, and parents there seem on the whole to be given a single decision - 'successful' or 'not successful' (with no obvious mention of qualified status, and hence no possibility of going on a waiting list). I hope Bucks won't do this because I think it's wrong and could be open to challenge.

[carolinens]

So this means that the argument about why the child should go to the particular school is as important as all the other stages. This is the area in which I feel least confident of our ground. Our child has a sibling at one of the 2 schools we are appealing for. Both are our catchment grammar schools, and the primary school is a feeder school, but it is hard to find any more specific grounds except our parental choice. We can argue that the child has strengths and interest in the areas of specialism, but I am not sure we can produce solid evidence for that.

[Etienne]

I'd view it as a middle-ranking case (just my opinion!). It may not 'stand out' (few cases do!) - but nor is it an obviously weak case.

Where FCO has been rejected, an appeal panel might be sympathetic to in-catchment children who've lost out on a place because of a flawed review system.

A lot will also depend on the strength of the school's case, and possibly on the strength of other parental cases.
http://www.elevenplusexams.co.uk/appeal ... school#c20" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[carolinens]

So one could argue that if the Selection review was not FCo then a 'mistake' was made in the admission arrangements.

[Etienne]

Well, you raise an interesting point!

• If FCO were to be rejected, and
• if your arguments for selection succeed, and
• if you would have got a place in the first round but for a flawed review,
- it's arguable that that the admission arrangements were not correctly applied, and that you've been denied a place to which you are entitled.
Whether a particular appeal panel would accept the argument, I can't say - but in the event of an unsuccessful appeal it's a point that could be pursued with the EFA.



Incidentally I never got any response to the question which I posed in another thread last May:

• One of our members has drawn attention to the Determined Admissions Policy for Aylesbury High School:

  Parents of any child who does not achieve the qualifying score may apply for a Selection Review if they believe that their child would have met the qualifying score but for particular circumstances regarding their participation in the 11+ selection testing process. The Selection Review will be a "desk exercise" carried out by a panel which will consist of serving or recently retired Secondary and Primary Headteachers supported by a Local Authority Officer. The Panel will consider each written application received and will obtain advice from an Educational Psychologist, where appropriate, prior to making a decision. The Selection Review process will take place before places are allocated and children who are deemed qualified by the panel will be eligible for admission for any of the 13 Buckinghamshire grammar schools.
  
  After places have been allocated, parents will be entitled to make representations to an Independent Appeal Panel if their child has been refused admission because the school is full. An Independent Appeal Panel hearing will not ordinarily carry out a full review of a pupil's capacity to pass the selection test as that process should take place at the Selection Review.

I don't recall the above in the original Draft Policy that was published for consultation prior to 1st March.

If it hasn't been consulted on, one would have thought the change could be unlawful.

Can anyone shed any light on what is going on? There seem to be more questions than answers at the moment.[/quote]

The following day Sally-Anne added:

• I don't recall the above in the original Draft Policy that was published for consultation prior to 1st March.

  The same statement has now appeared in the Admissions Policies for SHF, CGS and DCHS. It was quite definitely not in any of those during the consultation period. I am assuming it is in all the rest, or will be in due course.

Is it conceivable that each grammar school carried out a public consultation on the review process without a single one of our members noticing?

[carolinens]

Hi All,

We have now had both our non qualification hearings and have heard successful on the first. Waiting to hear on the second. All the advice from this forum was incredibly helpful so thank you to our moderators and all the parents.

At our hearing one of the panel asked the AA rep whether BCC guarantees a place to all qualified Bucks children. He confirmed that this is the case for all children qualified before the March allocation. He confirmed that in the past IAPs had met before that date and so successful children were offered places. He further confirmed that next year's new timetable will allow both Selection Reviews & IAPs to take place before the March allocation. In other words children this year have been uniquely penalised.

This is certainly a strong argument for natural justice, but I am wondering if there is any legal remit on this. The question on the lack of public consultation on the policy might be worth raising at our final placement appeal. Are there more details on this?

After the hearing we had a bit of a chat with the AA rep. He explained that although our child might be at the top of a waiting list for the school, if he is not admitted by the IAP system, he will have to wait for not just one child to drop out, but a number equivalent to all the additional children admitted by the IAP process. ie wait until his admission did not take class size above 30. This does seem to suggest that if we are not successful at this stage we have little hope of getting in over a two year period.

Finally, I have spoken by phone to BCC Admissions who said that if we are successful in our non qualification appeals and the decision is made before the Round 3 place allocation in third week of May, we will be included in that allocation round. The AA rep at our hearing seemed to contradict that as he said submissions had to be made by 3 May. Which is correct?

[Alex]

I understand Etienne is not around so won't be able to answer you herself. It seems as though you are in exactly the position she wrote about above:

Well, you raise an interesting point!

• If FCO were to be rejected, and
• if your arguments for selection succeed, and
• if you would have got a place in the first round but for a flawed review,
- it's arguable that that the admission arrangements were not correctly applied, and that you've been denied a place to which you are entitled.
Whether a particular appeal panel would accept the argument, I can't say - but in the event of an unsuccessful appeal it's a point that could be pursued with the EFA.

He further confirmed that next year's new timetable will allow both Selection Reviews & IAPs to take place before the March allocation.

and has this been consulted upon ....?

This is certainly a strong argument for natural justice, but I am wondering if there is any legal remit on this.

The legal argument would be, as Etienne laid out above, that the Admissions Arrangements were not correctly applied in your case (as the Review was found not to be FCO), and had they been so, your child would have got a place. I think, though, that you are breaking new ground in Buckinghamshire this year so there will not be any previous decisions to look to for guidance. I am not aware of any other authority which guarantees a Grammar school place to all who are resident in the county who qualify and this is important, I think.

The "natural justice" argument seems to carry weight in my County where it seems that Panels generally like to put someone back to where they would have been at allocation time had they qualified then rather than been deemed qualified at appeal - however, please note that this is an observation and I have not ever seen this alluded to in decision letters.

The question on the lack of public consultation on the policy might be worth raising at our final placement appeal. Are there more details on this?

I think that if you do raise the question of whether the admissions arrangements were in fact lawful because of the doubt over whether they were properly consulted upon, it would be best to ask the question formally in writing before the appeal as there is no guarantee that it will be properly answered on the spot. You could write to the Admission Authority asking, in connection with your appeal (Admission authorities must comply with reasonable requests from parents for information which they need to help them prepare their case for appeal. School Admission Appeals Code 2.8 ), the dates when the arrangements were consulted upon, where the consultation document was published, what steps were taken to notify interested parties that the consultation was going on and what responses were received. You would need, I think, to send a copy to both the school, assuming it is the admission authority, and the County Council as they are responsible for the co-ordinated arrangements and have been responsible for running the Reviews for the schools.

After the hearing we had a bit of a chat with the AA rep. He explained that although our child might be at the top of a waiting list for the school, if he is not admitted by the IAP system, he will have to wait for not just one child to drop out, but a number equivalent to all the additional children admitted by the IAP process. ie wait until his admission did not take class size above 30.

More accurately, if more children are admitted than the number of available places, you would be waiting until the year group fell below its Published Admission Number (PAN).

Finally, I have spoken by phone to BCC Admissions who said that if we are successful in our non qualification appeals and the decision is made before the Round 3 place allocation in third week of May, we will be included in that allocation round. The AA rep at our hearing seemed to contradict that as he said submissions had to be made by 3 May. Which is correct?

I think I would ask for clarification in writing about this from Bucks Admissions Department. I am not clear about the timings for Bucks allocations and appeals but it seems to me that it would be very unfair to allocate places to those who have been successful at overturning non-qualification if all the non-qualification appeals have not yet been heard so everyone is not "in the pot" together so to speak. "Submissions" may mean something like revised or very late applications rather than the result of an appeal for a place at a school which was on your original CAF.

[Jpk]

isnt it also grossly unfair to allocate late transfers in advance of appellants? a school could have had 30 vacancies on March 1st, only for 30 late transfers to get places and the school to be at its PAN. one child successful at IAP would then not get a place. Unfair?

[Alex]

isnt it also grossly unfair to allocate late transfers in advance of appellants?

This is what happens in most places. However, I think Bucks non-qualification appellants are in a unique situation, because to be in a position to be allocated a place their Appeal Panel must have deemed their Review not to be FCO and this (I think!) means that the Admissions Arrangements were not correctly applied to them and they were thereby denied a place that they would otherwise have had (assuming they are a Bucks resident and so guaranteed a place in a Grammar school if qualified). There is also the question whether they will, if there are places left, be allocated the same school as they would have been had they been allocated at the "right" time.

[carolinens]

Thanks Alex.

I keep having to get it straight in my mind afresh as it all seems so complicated. I re-read the appeals code today and note that it says that appeals MUST be held within 40 days of the deadline for submission date. I called the appeals team to check if this is likely to happen and they confirmed that they will not meet that requirement. Is that another factor that contributes to the admission arrangements not having been followed properly?

I remain unclear from reading the code whether, if the admission arrangements have not been properly applied, the IAP must automatically admit a place or must still consider the case for prejudice?