My feed
Premium

Please
or
to access all these features

Connect with other parents whose children are starting secondary school on this forum.

Secondary education

Appeal help late application

33 replies

sukilou · 18/03/2011 11:37

hi everyone
I'm on the verge of crying all the time and it is all my stupid fault
Back at the beginning of Nov I suddenly thought ooh shouldn't it be the time for secondary applications for my daughter, so i looked on the internet and found to my horror that we had just missed the date.
I rang my daughters primary school to find that they had sent all of the forms to the yr5 (at the time) classrooms back in July.
Nothing ever came back with my daughter so i'm guessing the application has been dumped in her tray and then emptied during the summer holidays.

Any way we sent the application off late and attached a covering letter with the reasons for this
Today we have finally been offered a place and it definitely isn't a school that we want.
We have also been told that as of today she is number 25 on the waiting list, originally there were at least 74 ahead of her who got apps in on time but were out of catchment and they take priority over late apps

Our daughter is in the (said) feeder school for bramhall high, our son attends bramhall high and we are in the catchment for bramhall high.
But because of the late application we now have to appeal.
we have no medical grounds
but our daughter is very very shy even with her close friends sometimes and to break them up and sent her to an area that she hasn't ever been to and knowing nobody this is really going to affect her.

Any help towards building a fantastic case would be great
louise

OP posts:
Report
GrungeBlobPrimpants · 18/03/2011 12:22

How on earth could you not know?! [shock} - not that that's the point any more and you've got to take action now.

There are lots of people on mumsnet who work on admissions and I hope someone can come along to give you some good advice but I think:

  • you need to keep the place you've been offered, even if it's not the one you want, because that keeps you in the system


  • keep on all continuing interest lists, no matter how pessimistic they may seem. There can be a lot of movement and you may want to consider sticking there and considering a move during Year 7 to your first choice school if a place comes up - people do move etc all the time even at highly sought-after schools


  • I really dont think you have grounds for appeal tbh - being shy or not being school you want is the case for a lot of people and not (and should not ever be) grounds for appeal
Report
mummytime · 18/03/2011 12:32

Wait until the admissions gurus get here, but I don't think the admissions code allows them to put people who applied on time ahead of you on the waiting list. You should be at the place on the waiting list for where you are for the admissions criteria, not behind those who applied on time.

That is why people move down waiting lists as well as up.

Report
prh47bridge · 18/03/2011 12:46

I am a little unclear as to what you mean by "We have also been told that as of today she is number 25 on the waiting list, originally there were at least 74 ahead of her who got apps in on time but were out of catchment and they take priority over late apps".

If you mean that those who applied on time got places in the original allocation ahead of those who applied late, that is perfectly normal. However, if you mean that they put late appliacants at the end of the waiting list that is a direct breach of the Admissions Code. They aren't allowed to do that. If that is what has happened and your daughter would have been admitted if the waiting list had been administered it is a very strong case for appeal.

Can you clarify. Have they put you at the end of the waiting list because you applied late?

Report
curlymama · 18/03/2011 12:55

I think you should accept the place that you have been offered, and jsut in case the appeal doesn't work, start to look at other schools that could be a possibility. Get your name on all the waiting lists, and you may end up with a little more choice, even if they are not your first preference. Good Luck!

Report
angelpantser · 18/03/2011 13:13

I second accepting the place you have been offered and appealling for the school you want. I would recommend that you also check with the LEA if they have a date when appeals should be submitted by. It should be printed in the admissions booklet.

Report
sukilou · 18/03/2011 13:16

when we received the original letter on the 1st of march it included a list of allocations
it went-
sibs in catch - all allocated
catch - all allocated
sibs not in catch - all allocated
distance - 33 of 107 allocated
wait list catch - 0
wait list sibs not catch - 0
wait list distance - 74 of 107
wait list received after closing date - 11

when i rang today to find out where she was on the waiting list i was told 25, i then asked if the listing was correct because it seem the people on waiting list for distance are being picked before waiting list for late apps.

OP posts:
Report
titchy · 18/03/2011 13:36

As of 1 March you were one of the 11 late apps. However now that 1 March has passed and places have been allocated, you are now on the waiting list the same as everyone else - so the fact that you were late applying does not now make a difference. You are 24th on the list according to distance.

However - you say your son goes to this school - if you're in catchment and have a sibling there already you shoudl be much higher than 24th I'd have thought?

Report
sukilou · 18/03/2011 13:59

Is distance the same as not in catchment or am i reading that wrong

OP posts:
Report
prh47bridge · 18/03/2011 17:48

From the way they have worded it, I would say that "distance" is those not in catchment who therefore get priority based on distance from the school.

If you are in catchment and your daughter has a sibling at the school you should be at the head of the waiting list. Paragraph 3.19 of the Admission Code is clear. Unfortunately you cannot appeal to get moved up the waiting list. However, as soon as a child is admitted from the waiting list you can appeal on the basis that the place should have gone to your daughter.

Bluntly, I am amazed that Stockport are still doing this. I advised a Mumsnetter on an appeal there last year which they lost because they were putting late applicants at the end of the waiting list. The appeal panel referred the matter to the Schools Adjudicator who ruled that the arrangements were a breach of the code but accepted that, apparently, Stockport had mended its ways and would comply in future. It seems they are still flouting the code.

Report
admission · 18/03/2011 21:36

I agree with PRH. As you have a sibling the correct place for you as a late applicant is that you would be in the sibling in catchment category.
Having looked at the Stockport LA site they seem to applying the correct process as opposed to the totally illegal one last year.
I would be tempted to firstly apply for an appeal and secondly make sure that you are on the waiting list and ask where you are on the list. Whilst you might not be first you should be very high up on the list. If not ask the admission office for an explanation as to why you are not being treated as having a sibling and see what is said.

Report
sukilou · 20/03/2011 17:16

Thanks for the last two messages
the lady i spoke to from the admissions team quite openly confirmed to me on friday that the people on the waiting list for distance were being put first because we were late.

So from what you have now told me it seems that stockport hasn't changed a thing when it comes to their waiting lists.
I know that she is number 25 but what i dont know is where she started on it and how many they have already let in.
Where do you think i should go from here?

OP posts:
Report
admission · 20/03/2011 17:34

You need to get confirmation in writing (email) as to where your duaghter is on the waiting list. My inclination would be to email them and ask why whilst accepting you are a late entry, you are not high on the list as there is a sibling involved. You need to get them to commit in writing that they are still doing what is illegal. When you have that you can then hit them over the head with the school adjudictor's judgement last year but my temptation would be to go straight to the adjudicator and let them sort it.
There is no way that that are 24 siblings who are in catchment wanting a place at the school who did not get a palce to start with.

Report
prh47bridge · 21/03/2011 11:28

Agree with Admission. Unlike appeal panels, the adjudicator can make Stockport change the order of the waiting list. You also have the option of appealing if a child is admitted from the waiting list on the basis that your daughter should have been at the head of the list.

The judgement of the adjudicator I referred to can be found http://www.schoolsadjudicator.gov.uk/upload/ADA1791%20Stockport.doc. The important point is at the start of paragraph 9 where it says "This aspect of the Council's admission arrangements in 2010 were indeed in breach of the Code". The rest of the document goes on to talk about the changes to the admission arrangements Stockport were making for 2011 and decides that the arrangements were now compliant with the code.

I must admit I was concerned about this when I first saw this judgement. I don't think the adjudicator understood that Stockport intended to continue placing late applicants after on time applicants on the waiting list.

Stockport's argument is that they aren't using the date of application to determine a child's place on the waiting list. They are simply placing all the children applying after the cut off date behind all the children applying before the cut off date. If you do end up referring this to the adjudicator, I will happily help you construct a detailed analysis of paragraph 3.19 to show that Stockport are wrong to include in your submission.

Report
radun10 · 22/03/2011 10:31

Let me guess - the school you have been offered is Werneth.

Report
sukilou · 23/03/2011 09:20

i understand everything that you are saying but, stockport haven't hidden what they are doing and are quite happy to admit that they place applications received after the closing date last.

dd has now gone down to number 17
they have told me there are 2 waiting lists

app before closing date (now being chosen according to distance)
=12
app after closing date(being chosen acc to criteria a-g)
=my dd at number 5

i was told yesterday that until they have placed all of the on time app they will not be dealing with the late ones
it does say that in their policy and they are quite clear and open about it

OP posts:
Report
sukilou · 23/03/2011 09:21

she has been given stockport academy (I make no comments for fear of offending)

OP posts:
Report
sukilou · 23/03/2011 09:23

On reading the National Code it says

For all applications date of receipt shall not be used as a distinguisher. I believe this only applies to all applications made before the closing date.??????

The Code also says that a policy on how to deal with late applications shall be made and published.

It does not follow that all late applications shall be treated as though they were on time.

OP posts:
Report
prh47bridge · 23/03/2011 10:46

No, paragraph 3.19 applies to all applications. If it only applied to on time applications it would say so. Stockport must not give priority to children based on the date either their application was received or their name was added to the waiting list (paragraph 3.19). The example in that paragraph shows a late applicant being placed on the list based purely on the normal oversubscription criteria. Stockport interpret this paragraph as meaning they only have to place children moving into the area at the head of the waiting list but that isn't what it says.

Note the judgement I pointed to previously (and apologies for formatting the link incorrectly - it is here). Paragraph 8 describes the process of placing late applicants at the end of the waiting list. The first sentence of paragraph 9 says "This aspect of the Council?s admission arrangements in 2010 were indeed in breach of the Code." That is clear and unequivocal. Unfortunately the adjudicator accepted what Stockport said which appeared to confirm that they would not be doing this in future. However, to those who understand Stockport's rather strange reasoning it is clear that they were stating that they intended to carry on flouting the code.

Yes, they must have a policy on how to deal with late applications. However, that policy may NOT include placing them at the end of the waiting list. You have already been penalised by not getting a place in the initial round of allocations. They are now penalising you a second time by placing you at the end of the waiting list. They are not allowed to do that. For the purposes of the waiting list it doesn't matter when you apply.

Their oversubscription criteria are wrong. They should not have a separate category for late applications. They should only process late applications once all on time applications have been dealt with. Paragraph g of their oversubscription criteria should not be there.

Stockport argue that placing late applications at the end of the waiting list is not giving priority based on the date their application was received. However, it clearly is. They are giving priority to those children who apply before a particular date. Stockport seem convinced that they are right despite the judgement of the adjudicator last year which clearly says they are wrong. I think it is time for you to complain to the adjudicator. Having been involved in the case that led to the adjudicator's decision I link to above, I would be happy to help you frame the complaint so that the adjudicator understands the flawed logic Stockport use to justify their position. I want to see Stockport forced to comply with the Admissions Code and stop them unfairly penalising parents like you.

I would also add that I fail to see how you are fifth in the late applications. You are in catchment and have a sibling at the school. Are there really another four late applications from people in catchment with a sibling at the school?

Report
sukilou · 28/03/2011 19:36

Thanks prh47bridge I am looking into everything you have said and trying to fully understand it all, i am sure i will be back soon with more questions

OP posts:
Report
sukilou · 28/03/2011 19:40

dd is now 3rd on overall waiting list
before closing date = 1
after closing date = dd is now 2nd

OP posts:
Report
sukilou · 28/03/2011 21:25

Having now read and re-read both your posts and the adjudication document I believe that Stockport are following the code (at least as far as the adjudicator is concerned) I may not agree with it but the adjudicator seems content. Please feel free to correct me but I see it as follows:

MAIN APPS Applications received before the closing date will be allocated placements until the school in question reaches its subscription level.
(in order of criteria a-g)

OVERSUBSCRIBED APPS Applications received before the closing date but did not manage to get a place within the initial subscription will be added to a waiting list and will be allocated places as they become available (in order of criteria a-g then straight line distance)

LATE APPS Applications received after the closing date will then be dealt with after MAIN APPS and OVERSUBSCRIBED APPS have all been dealt with. (in order of criteria a-g)

The adjudicator points out that ?waiting lists must not give priority to children based on the date either their application was received or their name was added to the list." but then goes on to accept Stockport's revised admission arrangement statement ?Late applications will be ranked in accordance with published admission criteria and considered after all those received by the closing date?. Which they are following and therefore I have no case for appeal.

OP posts:
Report
sukilou · 28/03/2011 23:08

I have just read the forum messages about the case that you dealt with last year.
You must forgive me for my past messages as it seems that stockport admissions had brainwashed me.

As you have said it seems that they have just reworded their policy to say exactly what it had said previously and have just tried to get away with it again.
Ok we are now at number 3 but on the 1st of march their were 85. where have they all gone???
Now the fight is on

Do you still have an email for Sunnydays1234 and if you do would you mind contacting them to see if they would be interested in helping me with this as well (i hope they still have the paperwork)

I feel as if I've had an ahhhhhh moment and can now sleep slightly sounder in my bed tonight

OP posts:
Report

Don’t want to miss threads like this?

Weekly

Sign up to our weekly round up and get all the best threads sent straight to your inbox!

Log in to update your newsletter preferences.

You've subscribed!

prh47bridge · 28/03/2011 23:12

I do know what I am talking about here. Stockport are wrong. The Adjudicator correctly ruled that they were wrong but unfortunately failed to understand Stockport's twisted logic and assumed they would get it right in future. That is the only reason the objection was not upheld.

The problem is that sentence "Late applications will be ranked in accordance with published admission criteria and considered after all those received by the closing date". Stockport and the Adjudicator clearly understood it to mean different things. The Adjudicator assumed it meant that Stockport would look at the late applications after they'd looked at the on time applications and would then interleave them with the on time applications, hence producing a correct waiting list. However, that isn't what Stockport meant. They meant that they would look at late applications after those received by the closing date and then put them after the on time applications in the waiting list.

Take another look at the adjudicator's decision. The first sentence of paragraph 9 clearly and unequivocally (and correctly) states that Stockport may not place late applicants after on time applicants on the waiting list. The adjudicator is not going to contradict himself in a single decision. Having said that Stockport are in breach of the code by putting late applicants at the end of the waiting list he is not then going to say it is ok for them to continue doing so. So it is clear that his understanding of what Stockport were saying differed from Stockport's. He believed that Stockport would not in future place late applicants at the end of the waiting list. He assumed that, when they said they would not give priority to applicants based on the date on which their application was received, they meant that in the normal English interpretation of that sentence. Unfortunately they didn't. Only Stockport could argue that a process which uses the date of the application to determine whether an application goes in the first or second part of the waiting list is somehow not using the date of the application to give priority.

Look at the letter from the Council quoted in paragraph 9. The final sentence appears to say that the late applicants are added to the waiting list in the order specified by the oversubscription criteria, but that this only happens after the on time applications were put on the waiting list. That is what the adjudicator understood it to mean. However, that isn't what Stockport meant. Stockport meant that the late applicants are ordered by the oversubscription criteria and then placed after the on time applicants.

Go back to paragraph 3.19 of the Admissions Code. It says they cannot give priority based on the date on which an application was received. So, when putting the waiting list in order they cannot use the date on which the application was received, either directly or indirectly. If they don't know the date on which your application was received they don't know whether or not an application was late. So if they aren't using the date on which the application was received they can't put late applications at the end of the waiting list. But Stockport are putting late applications at the end of the waiting list, so they are giving priority based on the date on which an application was received. Despite their twisted logic and attempts to argue that black is white, Stockport are clearly in breach of the Admission Code. The adjudicator said so last year.

Please, please, please refer this to the adjudicator. I cannot do so as, although I helped the parent in the case which resulted in the decision we are discussing, I am not a parent in Stockport. I want Stockport to stop unfairly disadvantaging parents such as yourself. You were penalised once for being late in that you didn't get a place at any of your preferred schools. They may not penalise you again by putting you at the back of the waiting list. I will be amazed if the adjudicator rules that Stockport are allowed to continue this practise, especially since the decision last year clearly states that the practise is a breach of the Admissions Code.

I am also puzzled about what is happening with this waiting list. Where has everyone gone? Have they all been admitted? And I still don't understand why there is anyone on the late part of the list in front of you.

Report
prh47bridge · 28/03/2011 23:14

Cross posted!

I'll see if I can get hold of Sunnydays. Watch this space!

Report
admission · 28/03/2011 23:21

I fully agree with PRH here, it is in your interest to give the information to the school adjudicator as a matter of urgency so that they understand that Stockport are just trying to hoodwink them by clever words.

Report
Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.