LGO criticises top grammar school for "seriously flawed" admissions appeals
A leading grammar school’s handling of admissions appeals was seriously flawed, an investigation by the Local Government Ombudsman has concluded.
The report into admissions at Bishop Vesey’s Grammar School in Sutton Coldfield followed a complaint by a parent about the way that the selective, voluntary-aided grammar school dealt with her appeal against the refusal of a place for her son.
The boy had scored 319 in the entrance test, more than the qualifying mark. However, the lowest score of a boy offered a place in 2010 was 325.
The LGO, Anne Seex, identified a number of areas where the school failed to comply with the statutory Admissions Appeals Code. In particular the Ombudsman found that the clerk to the governors was involved to a far greater extent in the appeal process than he should have been.
A lack of training for members of the appeal panel and the clerk was also seen as a significant factor in the mishandling of the appeals.
The school also :
- provided notes written by the clerk to the governors that were likely to deter appellants
- failed to meet reasonable requests for the provision of information relevant to an appeal
- failed to provide the prejudice argument to the Panel and appellants in the required timescale in advance of the hearing
- failed to ensure that the prejudice statement contained the required information
- failed to provide the Panel with the correct advice about the requirements of the Code during the hearing
- failed to provide the Panel with the correct guidance about the proper approach it should take to its decision making
- issued a decision letter that did not explain in enough detail the Panel’s decisions and why an appeal was unsuccessful, and
- issued a decision letter and that was not signed by either the clerk to the Appeal Panel or the Chair.
The appeal panel also failed to comply with the Appeals Code by failing to either consider the prejudice argument at each appeal or hold a grouped multiple appeal, and failing to consider all the appellant’s grounds of appeal in the appeal hearing.
The LGO, said the faults amounted to maladministration causing Mrs K, the complainant, injustice. Other parents who appealed were likely to have suffered injustice as well, she concluded.
The Ombudsman rejected the school’s claim that it was too late to offer new appeals to the boys affected. She said: “This is not a reason to refuse to offer parents the opportunity of a fresh appeal. It should be for the parents, not the School, to decide whether an appeal would be disruptive.”
In response to the Ombudsman’s findings, Bishop Vesey’s agreed to arrange a fresh appeal for Mrs K. However, the LGO said the school had since reneged upon that agreement, claiming that Mrs K’s personal case was weak and that the proper decision was made.
But Seex said: “This is a decision for an Independent Appeal Panel to make after following the correct process and giving proper consideration to all relevant information.”
The LGO recommended that the governing body offered fresh appeals to all the parents who appealed in 2010 and whose sons achieved a mark above 318. These appeals should be heard by a Panel composed of people who have been trained in the requirements of the Code and should be clerked by someone with knowledge and experience of school admission appeals, she said.
The Ombudsman also recommended that the school pay Mrs K £200 for her additional time and trouble in preparing her appeal and pursuing her complaint.
From 2010 the school has confirmed that Birmingham City Council will conduct appeals.
