conflicing information
Moderators: Section Moderators, Forum Moderators
conflicing information
Hi
I am in the process of an appeal for choice of secondary school, I asked the school and the LEA for the actual admission nos for year 7 for the previous 8 years. Both have given me similar figures. a difference of one pupil, (excepting one year, where the difference is 23!) who is most likely to be wrong? How do I go about questioning this or is this a good thing for my appeal if I draw attention to it? Can anyone offer any advice please.
I am in the process of an appeal for choice of secondary school, I asked the school and the LEA for the actual admission nos for year 7 for the previous 8 years. Both have given me similar figures. a difference of one pupil, (excepting one year, where the difference is 23!) who is most likely to be wrong? How do I go about questioning this or is this a good thing for my appeal if I draw attention to it? Can anyone offer any advice please.
Well I suppose that it would be worth finding out more about the discrepancies if it might in some way strengthen whatever your argument is...... what is it?
There may be any number of good reasons for the discrepancy e.g. the LEA may quote the number of pupils that they allocated to that school on school allocation day, and the school may quote the number that were enrolled as at the start of the September term - could be different for many different reasons.
Good luck
There may be any number of good reasons for the discrepancy e.g. the LEA may quote the number of pupils that they allocated to that school on school allocation day, and the school may quote the number that were enrolled as at the start of the September term - could be different for many different reasons.
Good luck
Hi
I can't offer advice but can tell you what happened when I queried admission numbers etc under f.o.i. act.
The panel did not like it one bit. They were visibly ruffled and upset.
Neither did they like being asked why there was a huge disparity in admissions from a nearby primary school (which had a poor ofsted report) and others in the area, but shared an admissions governor with the grammar.
Ooops - didn't intend to upset the panel!
Seriously - whatever we would have done would have made no difference at all. Our situation seems almost unique and the school's regular appeal clerk has now presided over eight consecutive years of panels who have never upheld any child's appeal - no matter what the reason!
In other areas appeals seem to be much more common place and fairly run with panels who really do listen, consider and then decide.
I would suggest a polite telephone call to an admin assistant at the LEA if you really must investigate, but I wouldn't mention it at the hearing!
I can't offer advice but can tell you what happened when I queried admission numbers etc under f.o.i. act.
The panel did not like it one bit. They were visibly ruffled and upset.
Neither did they like being asked why there was a huge disparity in admissions from a nearby primary school (which had a poor ofsted report) and others in the area, but shared an admissions governor with the grammar.
Ooops - didn't intend to upset the panel!
Seriously - whatever we would have done would have made no difference at all. Our situation seems almost unique and the school's regular appeal clerk has now presided over eight consecutive years of panels who have never upheld any child's appeal - no matter what the reason!
In other areas appeals seem to be much more common place and fairly run with panels who really do listen, consider and then decide.
I would suggest a polite telephone call to an admin assistant at the LEA if you really must investigate, but I wouldn't mention it at the hearing!
Why on earth should they be upset - I thought they were supposed to be completely independent?Katie wrote:
I can't offer advice but can tell you what happened when I queried admission numbers etc under f.o.i. act.
The panel did not like it one bit. They were visibly ruffled and upset.
Neither did they like being asked why there was a huge disparity in admissions from a nearby primary school (which had a poor ofsted report) and others in the area, but shared an admissions governor with the grammar.
Ooops - didn't intend to upset the panel!
Were you directing your questions at the LEA/school representative? - Sorry, just a bit confused by this as it seems to undermine the idea of impartiality.And do the statistics you have so far bear this out? Neglecting the year where you could be 23 out you may have got sufficient data to see whether or not this appears to be the case. Though it's possible that you do not have enough years of less than or equal to PAN, and greater than PAN, to produce an answer of statistical significance.
Do you have other strings to your bow in your argument? I am sure appeal panels take other factors into account when deciding to force the school to admit over PAN.
Do you have other strings to your bow in your argument? I am sure appeal panels take other factors into account when deciding to force the school to admit over PAN.
Admitting over PAN
Hi Liney,
Etienne has had some good advice for myself and Watdad on our threads. You would be better off asking whether they have ever admitted over PAN, and then asking whether this has been due to successful appeals.
Even if you know the answer, it will look better to the panel coming from the LEA. If their answer is affirmative then you have shown that they have admitted over PAN in the past, and that it is possible to admit pupils at this stage as a precedent has been set.
As for looking at the effect on results, again I would ask the question whether their has been any effect caused by higher admissions? If the answer is yes, then you really need to respectfully accept what they're saying but prove that the prejudice of not admitting your child is greater than the prejudice to the school of admitting him/her.
hope this helps
Bouga
Etienne has had some good advice for myself and Watdad on our threads. You would be better off asking whether they have ever admitted over PAN, and then asking whether this has been due to successful appeals.
Even if you know the answer, it will look better to the panel coming from the LEA. If their answer is affirmative then you have shown that they have admitted over PAN in the past, and that it is possible to admit pupils at this stage as a precedent has been set.
As for looking at the effect on results, again I would ask the question whether their has been any effect caused by higher admissions? If the answer is yes, then you really need to respectfully accept what they're saying but prove that the prejudice of not admitting your child is greater than the prejudice to the school of admitting him/her.
hope this helps
Bouga
Hi again,
Two points I should have mentioned about our case:
1) We were appealing against a Foundation School who have allowed the same Clerk to preside over "Independent" appeals on their behalf for eight years - and in those eight consecutive years no child's appeal has ever been upheld.
I cannot help but wonder at the fact that the school pay the clerk's wages - I know that this cannot make any difference to "independence", however so many people have commented on it that it's difficult to ignore!
2) We did exactly as you are suggesting - provided the pupil numbers / statistics in a polite and concise way. It caused palpable waves to resonate around the room. It didn't go down well at all. There was no possibility of the stats being disputed by the panel as both the LEA and the school had provided identical figures. All it did was cause an embarrassmed silence as our figures rather shot down in flames the school's claim that they "simply did not have enough room".
No one really had an answer to our question about the PAN and huge discrepencies shown by the statistics. Despite the evidence before them - the panel found (once again) in favour of the school.
Hope that clarifies the situation for those not familiar with our situation.
As I said in my earlier post - appeals in your area seem to be a much more acceptable and fair process compared to our locality. Very good luck - I wish you every success.
Two points I should have mentioned about our case:
1) We were appealing against a Foundation School who have allowed the same Clerk to preside over "Independent" appeals on their behalf for eight years - and in those eight consecutive years no child's appeal has ever been upheld.
I cannot help but wonder at the fact that the school pay the clerk's wages - I know that this cannot make any difference to "independence", however so many people have commented on it that it's difficult to ignore!
2) We did exactly as you are suggesting - provided the pupil numbers / statistics in a polite and concise way. It caused palpable waves to resonate around the room. It didn't go down well at all. There was no possibility of the stats being disputed by the panel as both the LEA and the school had provided identical figures. All it did was cause an embarrassmed silence as our figures rather shot down in flames the school's claim that they "simply did not have enough room".
No one really had an answer to our question about the PAN and huge discrepencies shown by the statistics. Despite the evidence before them - the panel found (once again) in favour of the school.
Hope that clarifies the situation for those not familiar with our situation.
As I said in my earlier post - appeals in your area seem to be a much more acceptable and fair process compared to our locality. Very good luck - I wish you every success.
Hold on. The clerk does not preside over an appeals panel. The clerk is there to administer / clerk to the panel, and provide legal advice. I would, in no uncertain terms, tell a clerk where to go if they tried to preside over a panel I was sitting on.
The chair of the panel presides over it! If not, and it was provable, then I would take it to judicial review, probably bypassing the Ombudsman if possible.
That's the same as saying the clerk to a magistrates court presides over the chair of the magistrates.
The chair of the panel presides over it! If not, and it was provable, then I would take it to judicial review, probably bypassing the Ombudsman if possible.
That's the same as saying the clerk to a magistrates court presides over the chair of the magistrates.
Capers
