National Ombudsmen
Printable version E-mail this to a friend

Ombudsman asks for greater clarity on school admission appeals

Local Government Ombudsman, Jane Martin, has written to the Department for Education seeking greater clarity on the 2009 School Admission Appeals Code of Practice.

Local Government Ombudsman, Jane Martin, has written to the Department for Education seeking greater clarity on the 2009 School Admission Appeals Code of Practice. In her report (published yesterday, 1 February 2011) on a complaint about the conduct of an appeal panel she noted that the panel, on behalf of Poole High School, had followed the Government’s 2009 School Admission Appeals Code of Practice, but that the Code itself did not give detailed guidance in circumstances where the panel decided that some, but not all, of the children making appeals could be admitted to the school. This had resulted in confusion for the parent and may have unintentionally limited parental preference.

She says: “Whilst it is understandable that the complainant was confused by the outcome and felt that the reasons for her preference had not been properly considered, I consider that this was a consequence of an unclear Appeals Code and not the fault of the appeal panel.”

The Ombudsman warns: “This is unlikely to be an isolated approach by an appeal panel and there may be many other parents who are being refused places on appeal that according to the law should have been allowed. In order to avoid further confusion, uncertainty and unfairness in future appeals, I have written to the Department for Education asking for a revision of the 2009 Code to provide clarity on the matter.”

‘Mrs Smith’ (not her real name for legal reasons) applied unsuccessfully for a place for her daughter at Poole High School. She was dissatisfied with the handling of her appeal against the refusal of her application.

The Ombudsman’s investigation found that the appeal panel had concluded that some, but not all, of the children making appeals could be admitted to the school without prejudicing efficient education or the efficient use of resources. The panel then interpreted the Code to admit five more children, but Mrs Smith’s daughter was not one of them.

The Ombudsman could not criticise the approach of the appeal panel, but raised a question about the lack of detail in the 2009 Code as to what should happen in these circumstances.

She says “Whilst I do not believe that the Code intended to limit a parent's entitlement to school preference under section 86 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 where there is no prejudice, it seems that this may have been an unintended consequence in this case.”

Downloads

 

Free, Secure, Compliant UK Public Sector IT Recycling Service