Education law conference, March 2017 - Nottingham - Admissions criteria: getting it right for your MAT

Education law conferenceMarch 2017, NottinghamAdmissions criteria

Admissions criteria

Getting it right for your MAT

22nd March, NottinghamDai Durbridge, Partner

Join the conversation #BJ_EDC

This session

1. Background and the OSA position

2. Complying with the Code

3. Determination one - TSAT

4. Determination two – Rivers

5. What should your MAT consider?

1. Background and the OSAposition

Background and the OSA position

• Multi Academy Trusts (MATs) is the direction of travel

• As more are created and others grow, they consider changing theacademies’ admissions criteria to suit the MAT

This can involve:• Changing feeder schools• Changing sibling preference• Scrapping catchment areas


• Shan Scott, the ChiefAdjudicator at the Office of theSchools Adjudicator commentedupon MATs in the November2016 annual report

• Four broad issues covered


1. Confusion exists in MATs re who determines admissionsarrangements


Determining arrangements in MATs:

There are a number of different ways that admission arrangementsfor academies in MATs are determined. The MAT may:

• determine the arrangements for all schools in the trust centrally• set parameters within which governing bodies of individual schools

determine arrangements locally; or• delegate the determination of arrangements to individual LGBs

Roles of the trust and LGBs are not always clearly set out in thescheme of delegation or understood by the parties concerned.


1. Confusion exists in MATs re who determines admissionsarrangements

2. Naming MAT primary schools as feeders

3. Giving priority to siblings of pupils in any MAT school in criteriafor a MAT secondary

4. Impact of 2 and 3 on other local children


• OSA has stated that, as a matter of principle, there is nothinginherently unreasonable about a secondary school within a MATnaming primary schools within the same MAT as feeder schools.

• So if it can be done in principle, what do we need to do inpractice?

This session







Complying with the Code

The School Admissions Code wasissued under Section 84 of theSchool Standards and FrameworkAct 1998

Current version in force since 19December 2014


• There are four key parts of the Code to know when consideringchanging admissions arrangements within MATs to favour feederschools and/or siblings within the trust:

• Paragraph 14 and 1.8• Paragraph 1.12• Paragraph 1.15


Paragraph 14 and 1.8 – Reasonable, fair, clear and objective

14. In drawing up their admission arrangements, admission authoritiesmust ensure that the practices and the criteria used to decidethe allocation of school places are fair, clear and objective.Parents should be able to look at a set of arrangements andunderstand easily how places for that school will be allocated


Paragraph 14 and 1.8 – Reasonable, fair, clear and objective

1.8. Oversubscription criteria must be reasonable, clear,objective, procedurally fair, and comply with allrelevant legislation, including equalities legislation.

Admission authorities must ensure that their arrangements willnot disadvantage unfairly, either directly or indirectly, a childfrom a particular social or racial group, or a child with a disabilityor special educational needs…


Paragraph 1.12

Some schools give priority to siblings of pupils attending anotherstate funded school with which they have close links (for example,schools on the same site, or close links between two single sexschools). Where this is the case, this priority must be set out clearlyin the arrangements


Paragraph 1.15

Admission authorities may wish to name a primary or middle school asa feeder school. The selection of a feeder school or schools as anoversubscription criterion must be transparent and made onreasonable grounds.

Rest of the session

Look at two determinations:

• TSAT – MAT was successful• Rivers – MAT was unsuccessful

Finish with what we can take away from those determinations tosuccessfully change MAT admissions

This session







Determination one - TSATBackground:

• 10 school Trust – 4 secondary, 6 primary

• 2 secondary and 4 primary in Medway

• The 2 secondary are Chatham GS for Boys and Victory

• 1 of the proposed primary feeders shares a site with Chatham GS

• Proposed feeders are 3 miles away from the secondary schools

• 30+ primary schools closer to the secondary schools than the

proposed feeders

Determination one - TSAT

PAN:

• Victory: 2014/15 240 PAN 146 NOR2015/16 240 PAN 169 NOR

• Chatham: 2014/15 120 PAN 81 NOR2015/16 120 PAN 81 NOR


Local need:

• Local secondary numbers projected to increase andoversubscription may be an issue in the future

Trust ethos:

• “Thinking Toolkit” used across the trust in all schools and sameethos shared. Evidenced in Trust submissions


Proposed new criteria:

ii. children who have a sibling in any Thinking SchoolsAcademy Trust academy in Medway

iii. children who attend New Horizons, All Faiths or Gordon(primary or junior schools in the MAT)


Objection:

Priority to children who have attended a trust primary and to childrenwith siblings in any of the trust schools will disadvantage localchildren who live near the schools


• Why did the OSA not uphold the objection to these arrangements?

• What were the relevant factors?

(Remember Paragraph 14 and 1.8 (fair, reasonable etc.), 1.12(siblings at other schools) and 1.15 (transparent feeder schools)


Determination:

1.15 – help to be transparent and to be reasonable

• Transparent – Clearly stated in criteria AND set out that theMAT wishes to offer a particular approach to learning

• Reasonable – the selection of the feeder schools was based onshared approach to learning, evidenced by the MAT


Determination:

1.12 – permits schools to give priority to other schools with whichthey have close links and this is satisfied by the schools beingmembers of the same trust

Does this mean all MATs can adopt this approach without fear of asuccessful challenge?


Determination:

Paragraph 14 – arrangements were fair because the OSA remit allowedthem to look at the 2017 arrangements only. As the secondaryschools were undersubscribed at the moment, it was difficult to showunfairness. Further, the OSA accepted that the numbers of pupilsjoining the secondary as a result of this change in priority was low.


Questions:

Would the outcome have been different if:

• the NOR was higher?• there was greater pressure for school places in the area?• the MAT ethos point had not been accepted?

This session






4. Determination two - Rivers

Determination two - Rivers

A more complicated set out of facts dealing with the same point –MAT primary schools as feeders for the secondary.

• Schools in the area were oversubscribed• There were primary schools closer than the proposed feeders to

the secondary schools• Ethos/MAT approach was not accepted• Determined that others would be disadvantaged, specifically when

travelling distances were considered

Determination two - Rivers

What were the key differences between the two cases?

• PAN –v- NOR• Ethos/MAT approach• Children disadvantaged by the change (pressure on local places a

factor)• Parental expectation (pressure on local places a factor)

This session






5. What should your MATconsider?

What should your MAT consider?

Local factors will heavily influence the determination to anyobjection to your arrangements:

• Is the relevant MAT secondary oversubscribed?

• How many additional MAT secondary places the new arrangementsclaim?

• What is the local demand for places like now?


Local factors will heavily influence the determination to anyobjection to your arrangements:

• Do other nearby secondary schools have spaces?

• Would pupils who fail to get in to the MAT secondary because ofthe new arrangements have far to travel?

• Do you have an ethos you can evidence to the OSA?


Where will objections come from:

• Parents?• Other schools?• The LA?

• What steps can you take before you consult to minimise the risk ofan objection or the risk of an objection being upheld?

Any questions?

Find out more

www.brownejacobson.com/education

Talk to us

Dai Durbridge | 0330 045 2105 | [email protected]

Please note

The information contained in these notes is based on the position at February2017. It does, of course, only represent a summary of the subject matter coveredand is not intended to be a substitute for detailed advice. If you would like todiscuss any of the matters covered in further detail, our team would be happy todo so.

© Browne Jacobson LLP 2017. Browne Jacobson LLP is a limited liabilitypartnership.

Law

Education law conference, March 2017 - Nottingham - Admissions criteria: getting it right for your MAT