Annex
ADMISSION ARRANGEMENTS REFERRED TO THE ADJUDICATORS
2002-03[1]
OBJECTORS
|
| Objector | Upheld
| Partially Upheld |
Not Upheld | Total
|
|
| LEA | 30 |
36 | 8
| 74 |
| Admission Authority School | 11
| 11 | 18
| 40 |
| Community Schools | 7
| 9 | 4
| 20 |
| Parents | 5
| 0 | 0
| 5 |
| TOTAL | 53
| 56 | 30
| 139 |
|
SUBSTANCE OF
OBJECTIONS
|
| Subject | Upheld
| Partially Upheld |
Not Upheld | Total
|
|
| Partial Selection | 18
| 14 | 9
| 41 |
| Catchment/ Feeder | 5
| 0 | 4
| 9 |
| Children of Staff | 15
| 20 | 0
| 35 |
| Looked After Children | 10
| 28 | 0
| 38 |
| Admission Numbers | 8
| 7 | 16
| 31 |
| Other | 24
| 85 | 5
| 114 |
| TOTAL | 80
| 154 | 34
| 268 |
|
Notes:
1. The totals in these tables do not agree since some
referrals include objections to more than one admission criterion.
2. There were 33 "variations to admission arrangements"
not covered by these tables.
3. Some cases referred in July have not been resolved
on 5 September 2003.
1. HIGH COURT
APPEALS
Regina v The Schools Adjudicator ex parte Metropolitan Borough
of Wirral (20.12.1999)
The adjudicator decided that the practice of elevating a
second preference for an all ability school into a first preference
for that school, in circumstances where a child had not been offered
a place at a selective school which was the parent's first preference,
was unfair.
The Court did not agree that the determination of the adjudicator
was procedurally flawed or unreasonable. In particular, the Court
considered that, provided the nature of an objection was clearly
stated at the outset and the respondent was invited to answer
it, it was for the respondent to provide all the information thought
relevant to a determination of the matter. It was not, for example,
necessary for an adjudicator to advise the respondent, in the
course of his consideration of the issues, of any preliminary
views he had formed, thereby enabling the respondent to provide
further information designed to influence those views. This case
was also an example of one where the court was not prepared to
substitute its judgement for that of the adjudicator on the question
of the fairness of particular admission arrangements.
Regina v Peter Downes ex parte Wandsworth London Borough Council
(14.1.2000)
The adjudicator had determined that the level of partial
selection at two foundation and one community secondary school
should be reduced.
In quashing the adjudicator's determination, partly on the
grounds that provisions in the Code of Practice and the School
Standard and Framework Act 1998 on which the adjudicator had relied
did not come into force until shortly after the date of his determination,
the Court concluded that when what was or was not the substance
of an objection was disputed it was for the Court not the adjudicator
to decide on the matter.
Regina v John Clark ex parte Weights et al (27.3.2000)
The adjudicator had determined that the proportion of the
intake selected for three subjects at one secondary school should
be reduced to a total of 10%.
The Court set aside the adjudicator's determination and remitted
the matter for determination, by an alternative adjudicator, within
14 days. The particular point at issue here was that, in reaching
his decision, the adjudicator was held to have been influenced
by information which did not arise directly from the submissions
of either the objector or the admission authority. The judgment
here stressed that where an adjudicator seeks to rely on such
information in framing his determination he should first ensure
that the objector and the respondent are given an opportunity
to comment on its accuracy or relevance.
At all three judicial reviews, the Judges commented on the
importance of dealing with an adjudication with all reasonable
speed. While matters remained undecided, parents and their children
were left uncertain as to their prospects and administrative problems,
arising from already published timetables for each stage of the
admissions process, which became increasingly complex.
Regina v The Schools Adjudicator ex parte Metropolitan Borough
of Wirral (20.12.1999)
The adjudicator had determined that selection tests for designated
grammar schools in Wirral should follow rather than precede the
opportunity given to parents, under the LEA's arrangements to
express a preference for a school at which they wish education
to be provided for their child.
Several issues arose which affect the work and responsibilities
of adjudicators:
— The adjudicator reached his decision after considering
the "fairness" of alternative admission arrangements.
He did so with the provisions of the Code of Practice on School
Admissions in mind. These call for arrangements to be clear, fair
and objective. As the judge pointed out, a view on what is or
is not fair, as in this instance, "is plainly a view over
which people can legitimately disagree strongly". But once
unfairness has been found "the fairness of the corrective
mechanism to be applied is for the adjudicators".
— It is the statutory duty of an adjudicator, as
it is for any admission authority, to have regard to the guidance
provided by the Code of Practice on Admissions. A question arose
as to whether it was for the court to assess whether adequate
regard had been given by the adjudicator to the statutory guidance
given in the Code. In dealing with this point the judge confirmed
that the statutory duty: ". . . is to have regard to the
Code. It is not a duty to apply the Code." He went on to
say that: it was not for the Court to assess the "weight
to be given to the Code or to say whether the adjudicator gave
it adequate weight".
— The question arose as to whether an adjudicator
could reasonably be expected to have regard to matters that had
not been put to him in the evidence he was considering. In summary,
the judge concluded, in relation to an adjudicator that "unless
particular consequences are drawn to his attention, he is only
required to consider those which any reasonable adjudicator would
regard as obvious and significant in the sense of being fundamental
to his decision or at least ones which, upon being considered,
would lead to a real possibility of a different decision".
(The judge's conclusions on this point, as on those mentioned
above, need to be read in full and in context.)
Arising from these proceedings, adjudicators have been careful
to ensure that parties to adjudication are aware that it is for
them to provide the adjudicator with the evidence they wish to
have considered. Adjudicators will have a general understanding
of the issues involved in any adjudication but essentially have
to rely on the evidence presented to them by parties concerned.
Regina v The Schools Adjudicator ex parte Watford Grammar School
for Boys and Watford Grammar School for Girls (to be heard 3.10.2003).
The adjudicator determined that the level of partial selection
by ability at both schools should be reduced and that the schools'
were using unlawful aptitude selection tests.
The claimants argue:
— that the adjudicator's decision to reduce the
percentage of children selected by ability from 35% to 25% was
irrational, because there was no evidence that this change would
increase the places available for "local" children;
— that the adjudicator was unfair or irrational
in concluding that admission by aptitude in the field of music
should be deleted. Also, that it was unfair for the adjudicator
to seek advice from three experts in testing methods without giving
either the schools or the LEA an opportunity to comment upon that
evidence.
Regina v The Schools Adjudicator ex parte Wandsworth Council
(to be heard sometime in October)
The adjudicator determined that the level of partial selection
at two foundation and one community secondary school should be
reduced. Wandsworth Council is the admission authority for the
community school.
The claimants argue that:
— the adjudicator found that partial selection was
not a "relevant cause" of any unfairness and should
therefore have dismissed the objections;
— that the remedy arrived at by the adjudicator
was not rationally connected with any unfairness found, nor supported
by a coherent reasoning process.
2. PETITIONS TO
THE COURT
In addition, there have been three petitions for judicial
review which have not been allowed by the courts. These are as
follows:
The Queen on the application of Janette Smith v the Schools
Adjudicator
The adjudicator approved a statutory proposal by Newcastle
City Council to discontinue a Middle School. The claimant argued
that there was a lack of consultation, that the decision was made
on a factually inaccurate basis and that the decision was irrational.
The application for permission was refused on the grounds
of delay in submitting the claim. However, the claimants are appealing
against this decision.
The Queen on the application of Indro Sen v the Schools Adjudicator
The adjudicator approved a proposal by Hackney Council to
discontinue a secondary school. The claimant argued that the adjudicator
did not have jurisdiction to determine the proposal because the
notice was defective, that the adjudicator did not have full regard
to the statutory guidance given by the Secretary of State or to
the race relations Act and that the adjudicator's procedures were
defective.
The application for permission was refused on the grounds
of delay in submitting the claim, standing of the claimant and
no prospect of success.
The Queen on the application of Tracy Bradley v the Schools
Adjudicator
The adjudicator approved a proposal by Bury Council to discontinue
a primary school. The claimant argued that the decision was flawed
in the light of the LEAs unlawful decision to close the school.
The claim was refused on the grounds of delay and that there was
no prospect of success.
ADMISSION ARRANGEMENTS REFERRED TO THE ADJUDICATORS 2002-03
(UPDATED NOVEMBER 2003)
OBJECTORS
|
| Objector | Upheld
| Partially Upheld |
Not Upheld | Total
|
|
| LEA | 30 |
32 | 12
| 74 |
| Admission Authority School | 11
| 11 | 18
| 40 |
| Community Schools | 7
| 9 | 4
| 20 |
| Parents | 5
| 0 | 0
| 5 |
| TOTAL | 53
| 52 | 34
| 139 |
|
SUBSTANCE OF
OBJECTIONS
|
| Subject | Upheld
| Partially Upheld |
Not Upheld | Total
|
|
| Partial Selection | 18
| 14 | 9
| 41 |
| Catchment/ Feeder | 7
| 0 | 3
| 10 |
| Children of Staff | 29
| 0 | 0
| 29 |
| Looked After Children | 25
| 0 | 0
| 25 |
| Admission Numbers | 7
| 7 | 15
| 29 |
| Other | 40
| 0 | 39
| 79 |
| TOTAL | 126
| 21 | 66
| 213 |
|
Notes:
1. The totals in these tables do not agree since the
first table of the whole objection and table 2 is a breakdown
of the substance of the objection—covering more than one
area.
2. There were 33 "variations to admission arrangements"
not covered by these tables.
3. Some cases referred in July have not been resolved
on 5 September 2003.
1
Updated table, November 2003. Back
| 
