Go to navigation
It is currently Sun Dec 04, 2016 10:28 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 8 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri May 16, 2008 9:16 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2008 6:27 pm
Posts: 12
We are appealing for a gs place the hearing is on monday.My son was not offered aplace because he did not get the necessary score.

We have full support from his current school - they have written a letter with predicted sats etc.

However on receiept pf the LA case it gives all the facts on scores and waiting lists but then goes on to give a "prejudice statement" and any increase in pupils "would be prejudicial to the efficiency and efficacy of....education...pastoral care...health and safety"

Our appeal purely concentrated on academic ability but at the hearing do i need to address over subscription as well and be able to put forward arguments for this?

Also we have not had notification of who the clerk is or panel members. Is this significant?

I get more confused by the minute!!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri May 16, 2008 9:33 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Mar 05, 2008 11:58 am
Posts: 181
I think if the school you are appealing for has already allocated all it's places, you will need to prepare a case for oversubscription as well as non-qualification. It seems to me that that is what the LA is getting at in their statement.

I think you should have had details of the panel by now though - perhaps you could phone the LA and ask about this.

Good luck with your appeal.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri May 16, 2008 10:00 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 8:03 pm
Posts: 1827
Location: Gloucestershire
Yes, it's both.

You need to prove why he should have qualified. Then you'll have to make the case for squeezing him in to a 'full' school.

Good luck.

_________________
Capers


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri May 16, 2008 10:27 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2008 6:27 pm
Posts: 12
Thanks to you both.

Presumably it doesn't matter that we have given no arguments for squeezing him into school in our submission, we can give them at the hearing?

Since sep 2004 schools admission number has been set at 75. However they state that the physical capacity as set by Sec. of State is 84. They say they have limited numbers because of confinement of site and health and safety in ICT and DT.

They would give this information to all appellents. I don't know how else we can argue this as everyone will be saying the same thing ie. tecnhically there is room for 9 more!

Kelly1


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri May 16, 2008 10:56 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Mar 05, 2008 11:58 am
Posts: 181
The school we appealed for always takes 10 above their published admissions number, and say in their submissions that beyond that number they can demonstrate clearly a prejudice to the other students by admitting extra. It seems that your LA are making a similar argument so effectively there are 9 places up for grabs.

At our hearing we didn't ask any questions about this but one of the panel members then asked the school whether, in the last few years, it had filled all of these extra places (which they had). You could possibly put this question to the admissions authority at the hearing, just to demonstrate to the panel that they can take the extra nine , although they are probably aware of this anyway.

Beyond this you will need to demonstrate why this is the right school for your son. In the advice notes we were sent they listed possible reasons as being:
    religious reasons
    family circumstances
    medical reasons
    transport
    family or friends and other links with the school
    social reasons
    your views on education and behaviour
    reasons to do with different subjects and the subjects your child is good at or enjoys
    how close you live to the school or how difficult it would be to get to another school
    other factors to do with the school


If you need to provide any further evidence regarding any of these make sure you take enough copies with you - probably 5 - one for each panel member, one for the clerk and one for the LA.

If the school has a specialism that is something your son has a real talent in, that might be worth arguing. Try looking through the school's prospectus or on their website for any other ideas about what makes this school particularly suitable for your son.

Good luck with this - you've got a lot of work to do!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 17, 2008 12:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2008 6:27 pm
Posts: 12
Sam's Mum

Thanks for all your valuable ideas,will certainly go through them over the weekend.
Kelly1


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 18, 2008 4:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2008 11:41 pm
Posts: 60
If you google "Schools Adjudicator" and go through all the warwickshire adjudications you will find one where KES wanted to increase their intake to 84 and were only allowed by the adjudicator to increase it to 75. If you plough through all the detail there is a very interesting reference to a letter from warwickshire education authority submitted to the legally binding adjudication.
In this letter the LEA say that they have conducted an assessment of the numbers KES can cope with and have concluded that it is 84!!!!
I do not know how they can now stand there during appeals and say the school cannot go over 75!!
If you cannot find the details PM me and I'll find it for you.
Good luck


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 18, 2008 5:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Mar 05, 2008 11:58 am
Posts: 181
Good luck for tomorrow.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 8 posts ] 

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
CALL 020 8204 5060
   
Privacy Policy | Refund Policy | Disclaimer | Copyright © 2004 – 2016