Official reports (DfE, LGO, EFA, AJTC, OSA)

[Moderators]

Lawrence Sheriff School, Warwickshire

The Adjudicator dismisses objections to the admission arrangements for 2015:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... p_2014.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Conclusion
64. The Order granted in June 2013 gives permission for the school to give
priority to children eligible for the pupil premium. The admission authority is
therefore acting lawfully in using eligibility for the pupil premium in its
arrangements and paragraph 1.9(f) of the Code does not apply in this regard.

65. I have examined evidence from a range of sources and find nothing to support
the objections that including priority for admission for pupils eligible for the
pupil premium cause indirect racial discrimination or disadvantage to a social
or racial group as prohibited by 1.8 of the Code and the Equality Act 2010.
The arrangements determined by the school do not contravene the Code.

66. I have considered evidence relating to the other matters raised by the objector
relating to the use of catchment areas; the arrangements for administering the
11+ tests; and the definition of home address. I have found no evidence to
support the objections that the arrangements do not fulfil the requirements of
the Code.

[Etienne]

OSA decision on Dr. Challoner's (Bucks)
19th September 2014

Highlights:

I shall address first the objector’s key argument that it is unreasonable for a grammar school to have a catchment area and that the only fair and reasonable way for grammar schools to allocate places is on the basis of the highest scores achieved in the selection tests.

I do not find the objector’s argument that selective schools should “by definition...select the best with the highest scores” well founded or persuasive.

The objector has not provided and nor have I found any evidence to suggest that removing the catchment area would result in more pupils from lower socio economic groups gaining places. I also
find the objector’s argument in this regard confused as in his submission of 13 July 2014 he argues against the school’s giving priority to boys in receipt of free school meals, which is a well-established proxy measure for socio-economic disadvantage, and accuses the school of attacking wealthy parents.

The objector has cited the Greenwich judgement in support of his arguments against the school’s catchment area. The Greenwich judgement found that pupils should not be discriminated against in relation to admission to school simply because they reside outside the local authority area in which the school is situated (my underlining). The Greenwich judgement does not mean that catchment areas are unacceptable. The school’s catchment area is not based solely on the local authority’s boundary.

I find that the catchment area which is part of a long-established pattern of provision in the LA is reasonable and it is clearly defined and I do not uphold this aspect of the objection.

The objector considers that there is no reason why people should not own more than one property and continue to own one which is within 20 miles of the school while living in one closer to the school.

I have already indicated that I accept the school’s use of a catchment area. It is reasonable and sensible for the school to seek to ensure that those who secure places in Y7 actually live permanently in the catchment area. If they did not, then the principle of giving priority to those who live in the catchment area would be undermined. It is, of course, the case that some families move to an area in part or wholly because of the schools. If they do so permanently and by the date specified in the arrangements, then they will be treated in the same way as others who have lived there longer.

I find that the school’s residency requirement is reasonable and I do not uphold the aspects of the objection concerning sons of service personnel or those recently moving from overseas.

The objector maintains also that the school should not give priority to those with brothers at the school as this would breach the principle of awarding places to those who scored highest in the selection tests. The Code provides for admission authorities to give priority to siblings and I see no reason why a sibling who has reached the qualifying score should not be afforded priority if that is what the admission authority has decided following the proper procedures. I do not uphold this aspect of the objection.

The objector claims that the school’s approach discriminates against families who cannot afford to have more than one child and suggested that “if parent want children at the same school, then do not select a grammar school.” I find this argument entirely without merit and I do not uphold this aspect of the objection.

The objector refers to the requirement in paragraph 1.32 of the Code that admission authorities must “take all reasonable steps to inform parents of the outcome of selection tests before the closing date for secondary applications.” The objector argues that this was intended to allow parents to move near to any school in the knowledge of their child’s result. In fact the purpose of the provision is contained in paragraph 1.32 itself and it is “so as to allow parents to make an informed choice of school - while making clear that this does not equate to a guarantee of a selective place.” My view is that the
intention of this provision is as stated; so that parents know whether to put selective or non-selective schools or a mix of both on their common application form and thus do not “waste” preferences on schools which their child would not qualify for. There is nothing to suggest that it is related to residency requirements. I do not uphold this aspect of the objection.

I turn now to the element of the objection concerned with priority for pupils entitled to free school meals. While the Code generally prohibits giving priority to children according to their parents’ financial status, it includes an exemption for academies to give priority for pupils entitled to free school meals or the pupil premium if this is provided for in the school’s funding agreement. The exemption was introduced after this school became an academy so its funding agreement did not include such permission.

The school consulted fully and then made a request to the EFA to amend the existing funding agreement to allow the school to give priority to boys eligible for free school meals. However, it did this after it had determined the arrangements rather than before, so at the point of determination of the arrangements for 2015 the school’s funding agreement did not permit the school to give priority to boys eligible for free school meals. This means that the admission arrangements determined for 2015 contravene paragraph 1.9(f) of the Code. As the objection was lawfully made, I must uphold this aspect of the objection.

Finally, I address a point raised by the objector about the school’s consultation on its admission arrangements which the objector considered was inadequate as it was not a national consultation. There is no requirement for national consultation; rather, the requirements set out are in the Regulations and the Code are for local consultation. I do not uphold this aspect of the objection.

The admission arrangements give the highest priority to looked after children. A footnote explains that this includes previously looked after children. A previously looked after child is not the same as a looked after child and the arrangements do not therefore conform with the requirements of paragraph 1.7 of the Code. I have no reason to doubt that the school does in fact give the required priority to previously looked after children.

The arrangements explain that distance from the school will be used to separate eligible candidates should its PAN be reached and exceeded in any of its oversubscription categories. However, there is no final tiebreaker to cater for the – admittedly rare situation – that two such candidates might live at the same distance from the school.

These breaches of the Code can be easily rectified and the Code
requires the school to amend its arrangements as soon as possible.

The full report is available here:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... Sept14.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Etienne]

This proposal (in March) doesn't appear to have received much attention, but is interesting.

LGO welcomes commitment to giving parents a route to an independent ombudsman

http://www.lgo.org.uk/information-centr ... -ombudsman" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Local Government Ombudsman is welcoming the Government’s commitment to ensuring school complaints and admissions processes are clear and fair for parents and children.

Today’s White Paper from the Department for Education, called Educational Excellence Everywhere, sets out a number of proposals for strengthening schools accountability, giving parents and members of the public the opportunity to take their concerns and complaints to an independent ombudsman.

One of these proposals includes making local authorities responsible for handling the administration of admissions appeals for all schools and academies, and creating a ‘single route for escalating any complaints about the maladministration of appeals’.