Changes in oversubscription criteria and Transfer Appeals
Moderators: Section Moderators, Forum Moderators
Changes in oversubscription criteria and Transfer Appeals
There have been a few subtle changes to oversubscription criteria in Buckinghamshire according to the 2009 Admission Arrangements document, see: http://www.buckscc.gov.uk/moderngov/Pub ... ocA.ps.pdf
These include:
"Rule three, the ‘sibling rule’ has been clarified to ensure, for immediate (casual) in-year admissions, siblings in all year groups are included."
and
"Within the fifth admission rule (‘the exceptional rule’), ‘educational reasons’ as grounds for priority admission has been deleted and now the rule only includes children with exceptional medical or social reasons. This is in line with the phrasing in the code, which prohibits giving priority on the basis of particular interests, specialist knowledge and hobbies, and particular educational aptitudes such as sport or music that might be well provided for at a particular school."
I am interested in the implications of these changes with regard to transfer appeals. Does the second point relating to specialism mean, for example, that a child who has a particular aptitude for a subject that is claimed as a specialism by a school (e.g. science, music, sport) would no longer be able to present this as a factor at a transfer appeal for that particular school?
With regard to the first point regarding siblings - if a qualifying child with a "non-eligible" sibling - i.e. in Y11 or Y12 of the school being appealed for - is refused a place at transfer appeal on grounds of distance, would that child then go to the top of the waiting list after September 1st when the application would presumably count as an immediate (casual) in-year admission, or would a new application need to be lodged?
Etienne kindly gave me some advice on this issue (sibling link not counting) a couple of years ago, when I realized there would be a problem when No 2 applied. That time is now approaching (2009 entry) and the situation is still the same with elder child due to enter the 6th form in 2009. We were going to use younger child's aptitude for science as one of our arguments should a transfer appeal be necessary, but it now appears that this is not taken into account at the allocation stage. Therefore we have one less argument for the case. If, however, our clear intention is to put second child on waiting list if transfer appeal is unsuccessful, would the second child stand a reasonable chance once the new term started as the sibling link WOULD then count?
And might a transfer appeal panel take this into account when considering its decision?
All this might never happen, of course - but it's been bugging me for years ever since BCC changed the sibling rules!
These include:
"Rule three, the ‘sibling rule’ has been clarified to ensure, for immediate (casual) in-year admissions, siblings in all year groups are included."
and
"Within the fifth admission rule (‘the exceptional rule’), ‘educational reasons’ as grounds for priority admission has been deleted and now the rule only includes children with exceptional medical or social reasons. This is in line with the phrasing in the code, which prohibits giving priority on the basis of particular interests, specialist knowledge and hobbies, and particular educational aptitudes such as sport or music that might be well provided for at a particular school."
I am interested in the implications of these changes with regard to transfer appeals. Does the second point relating to specialism mean, for example, that a child who has a particular aptitude for a subject that is claimed as a specialism by a school (e.g. science, music, sport) would no longer be able to present this as a factor at a transfer appeal for that particular school?
With regard to the first point regarding siblings - if a qualifying child with a "non-eligible" sibling - i.e. in Y11 or Y12 of the school being appealed for - is refused a place at transfer appeal on grounds of distance, would that child then go to the top of the waiting list after September 1st when the application would presumably count as an immediate (casual) in-year admission, or would a new application need to be lodged?
Etienne kindly gave me some advice on this issue (sibling link not counting) a couple of years ago, when I realized there would be a problem when No 2 applied. That time is now approaching (2009 entry) and the situation is still the same with elder child due to enter the 6th form in 2009. We were going to use younger child's aptitude for science as one of our arguments should a transfer appeal be necessary, but it now appears that this is not taken into account at the allocation stage. Therefore we have one less argument for the case. If, however, our clear intention is to put second child on waiting list if transfer appeal is unsuccessful, would the second child stand a reasonable chance once the new term started as the sibling link WOULD then count?
And might a transfer appeal panel take this into account when considering its decision?All this might never happen, of course - but it's been bugging me for years ever since BCC changed the sibling rules!
Dear MarylouDoes the second point relating to specialism mean, for example, that a child who has a particular aptitude for a subject that is claimed as a specialism by a school (e.g. science, music, sport) would no longer be able to present this as a factor at a transfer appeal for that particular school?
No, it doesn't. An IAP can take account of anything it wishes! I heard many appeals where the LA had not accepted a request under the "exceptional reasons" criterion, and my impression was that the vast majority were never accepted (even with the older wording)!
An IAP, however, would consider these reasons, especially if there is strong supporting evidence, and I do know of appeals that have succeeded on this basis. There are, of course, other factors to be taken into account, such as the strength of the school's case, and perhaps even the strength of other appellants' cases.
With regard to the Waiting List, it's a bit outside my area of expertise, but my feeling is that it would be re-prioritised to take account of the re-defined criteria.
Etienne
Many thanks for your reply, Etienne. It's reassuring to know that what we would consider to be valid arguments just might still carry some weight!
As I said in my previous post, there is a chance that things won't come to this - after all, we have to get through the 11+ hurdle first - but I'm simply taking the whole process through its logical progression and trying to find answers to all the "what if" questions. Sadly we still won't know until March next year whether or not our fears are grounded, I suppose it all really depends on the number of successful applicants for our school this year, how many of them have eligible siblings, and whether they live closer than us. I'll be interested to see this year's allocation profiles.
Marylou
As I said in my previous post, there is a chance that things won't come to this - after all, we have to get through the 11+ hurdle first - but I'm simply taking the whole process through its logical progression and trying to find answers to all the "what if" questions. Sadly we still won't know until March next year whether or not our fears are grounded, I suppose it all really depends on the number of successful applicants for our school this year, how many of them have eligible siblings, and whether they live closer than us. I'll be interested to see this year's allocation profiles.
Marylou
