Skip navigation

Response from the Department (DfES)

The following is a reproduction of a letter received from the Department for Education and Skills in response to our Special Report.

Response to the Council on Tribunals' recommendations in their Special Report on School Admission and Exclusion Appeal Panels

On 28 May you sent a copy of the Council's Special Report on School Admission and Exclusion Panels to [Colleague] and Caroline Macready. [Colleague] has temporarily taken up a new position, and Alex Sevier has taken over her duties in Improving Behaviour and Attendance Division.

Your report has helpfully focussed on some important issues. Over the summer we have sought the opinions of our key partners including local educational authorities, teacher unions, admission authority schools and admission and exclusion appeal panel members and clerks on your recommendations. They agree with us that many of those recommendations are useful and practical and should enhance the operation of admission and exclusion appeal panels. But they disagree with the other recommendations, as do we.

  • Annex A to this letter responds to the 15 recommendations concerning Admission Appeal Panels only;
  • Annex B responds to the 6 recommendations concerning Exclusion Appeal Panels only;
  • Annex C responds to the 3 recommendations concerning training issues for both Admission and Exclusion Appeal Panels.

We hope that you and your colleagues will find our response helpful. As you will see, at a number of places in Annex A we envisage addressing recommendations through the new admission and exclusion appeals website we have set up jointly.

You can access it on http://www.dfes.gov.uk/schooladmissions/discussion//. We would be happy to have your comments, and work with the Council on future developments.

Yours sincerely,

  • CAROLINE MACREADY
    School Admissions, Organisation
    and Governance Division
  • ALEX SEVIER
    Improving Behaviour
    and Attendance Division

Annex A [ Admission Appeal Panels]

Recommendation 1 In order to increase their independence and improve the quality and consistency of services to parents, admission appeal panels should be organised and managed on a regional basis

We do not accept this recommendation. Legislative change would be necessary to make LEAs responsible for administration of all appeals in their areas, and we have no plans to amend admission or appeals legislation at present. 90% of external partner respondents supported our view that such panels would be expensive to set up and run and would be more inconvenient for parents to attend because of the distance and cost of travelling etc. Most LEAs are large enough to run a professional service on their own and smaller LEAs already collaborate with each other. Furthermore, there is likely to be a loss of local knowledge which could disadvantage appellants.

Recommendation 2 The disqualification criteria should be extended to exclude from membership of the panels all teachers from within the particular LEA area of the school which is the subject of the appeal(s) in question

We understand that there are very few teachers who actually serve on appeal panels and that many LEAs do not invite them to serve. Where they do, they must abide by the provisions in the Appeals Code which require them to withdraw from a case where they have or may be perceived to have a conflict of interest. Like some respondents, we believe that teachers can make a useful contribution to appeals with their direct experience of education; and we would not wish to aggravate local shortages of panel members.

Recommendations 3 and 6 Admission appeal panels should have either a legally qualified Chair or separate panels of lay Chairs, with special training in chairing skills; panel clerks should be legally qualified and specially trained if the chair is not legally qualified

We do not think that it is essential to have a legally qualified chair or clerk for panels to operate efficiently. We do, however, strongly support the view that chairs and clerks should be committed, undertake appropriate training and have access to legal advice when necessary.

As you know, being legally qualified is not a pre-requisite to applying the principles of natural justice efficiently, and legally qualified chairs or clerks might tend to make the appeal discussions more formal, which could put some appellants off. These recommendations would also add to costs.

Recommendations 4 and 5 The Code of Practice needs to include guidance on the selection of panel Chairs in advance of the hearing; The Code should include advice on the need for good preparation by panel members, and the benefits of identifying in advance the key issues for clarification at the hearing

Like most of our respondents, we agree that these recommendations would contribute to effective consideration of cases; and we understand that they are already applied as good practice by many panels across the country. We shall incorporate them next time we have occasion to revise the Admission Appeals Code.

Recommendation 7 the establishment of a specialist cadre of admission appeal clerks

We support this recommendation, but not in the context of a regionally or nationally-organised appeals system.

Like by the majority of our partners, we feel that a cadre of clerks could serve as a pool which would particularly be helpful to schools that run their own appeals and have difficulty finding sufficient numbers of panel members. There is no reason why such a pool of competent clerks could not be established on an LEA or inter-LEA basis, and this is already the case in some areas.

Recommendations 8, 9 and 10 promote the sharing of best practice and the work of EASI; information on the availability of advice and access to services for parents locally; and panel members to be given a copy of the Code of Practice as part of their induction

The vast majority of respondents supported our view that these proposals will help to make the operation of appeal panels more effective both for appellants and for panel members. We note that these recommendations are already applied by many admission authorities. The Department's Admission Appeals and Exclusion Panels Discussion Forum has recently gone live, and we intend to use this as a means of dispensing advice, sharing good practice and keeping members informed of relevant court rulings and changes in guidance.

Recommendation 11 group method for hearing multiple admission appeals

Although we agree that this proposal has merit, particularly as it offers better value compared to single appeals, some respondents felt that some parents would be less willing to discuss the details of their appeals at group rather that at single appeals. On balance, we take the view that it would be sensible to leave the choice to admission authorities to decide locally, taking account of their particular circumstances.

Recommendations 12 and 14 parents should receive better information about the special case of infant class size appeals; and the Code of Practice should include model decision letters to be used by clerks

We agree with these recommendations in principle. The large majority of respondents supported our view that, on the issue of class size appeals, parents as well as other parties could benefit from even more simple and straightforward guidance than is currently offered. When we last consulted on having model letters in the Code, respondents' views were mixed. But this time, the great majority of respondents agreed they would be helpful. So we will develop simpler class size guidance model letters, and display them on our internet Discussion Forum. We will also consider incorporation into the Appeals Code when we next have the opportunity to update it.

Recommendation 13 The new school admission arrangements should include a common cut-off date for acceptance of all offers of school places by parents

We agree in principle that a common cut-off date would be of benefit to admission authorities, and for those applicants who apply during the normal admissions round. Most of our respondents also agreed, though a significant minority did not. Co-ordinated admissions schemes will, however, address the issue that concerned you, in another way. The co-ordinated admission schemes we have seen so far do include a date by which offers of places in an area's schools should have been accepted.

Recommendation 15 Admission appeals, including for VA and foundation schools, should be managed and run by LEAs regionally

This recommendation closely relates to recommendation 1. Neither we nor the majority of our respondents agreed to it. Had the recommendation been for VA and foundation school appeal to be handled by LEAs at LEA level, it would have found majority support from these particular respondents. But there is still significant opposition from those schools and their representatives so, even this move would require controversial legislation, for which we have no plans.

^ top

Annex B [ Exclusion Appeal Panels]

Recommendation 1 Exclusion appeal panels should always have a legally qualified chair

Recommendation 3 In the absence of a legally qualified chair exclusion panels should have the services of a legally qualified clerk

We do not accept these recommendations. The majority of the respondents that commented on them supported our view. Being legally qualified is not a pre-requisite for applying the principles of natural justice. Making legal qualifications a requirement for chairs or clerks would tend to make proceedings more formal, which could alienate or intimidate some parents. The change would require legislation and there would be no guarantee of an adequate supply of legally-qualified volunteers.

We agree that chairs and clerks need good-quality training. We are therefore commissioning on-line tutor-led training materials for chairs and clerks. These should be available in April 2004.

Recommendation 2 Exclusion appeals should be heard by the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal (SENDIST)

We do not accept this recommendation. A majority of the respondents that commented on it agreed with our view. The great majority of excluded pupils do not have statements of SEN. Local panels are intended to provide parents with an accessible and rapid mechanism for appealing against the exclusion of their child. SENDISTs are organised on a regional basis and their average disposal time for cases is over four months. Transferring exclusion appeals to SENDISTs would therefore mean longer journeys and higher travel costs for parents and longer delays in determining the outcome of appeals. It could also transmit the misleading message that all bad behaviour was the result of some condition beyond the child's control.

Recommendation 4 The Secretary of State's guidance to exclusion appeal panels needs to include more comprehensive guidance on the role of the clerk

We accept this recommendation, as did the majority of respondents. We are reviewing our current guidance with the intention of producing revised guidance next year

Recommendation 5 The guidance to exclusion appeal panels should emphasise the benefits of holding a pre-meeting before the hearing to clarify the issues under appeal and agree the panel's strategy for the hearing

We accept this recommendation, as did the majority of respondents. Our revised guidance will cover this issue.

Recommendation 6 The guidance to exclusion panels needs to include better and more detailed advice about accommodation for appeal hearings

We do not accept this recommendation. The law prescribes a short time scale within which independent appeal panels must be convened. We do not believe it would be right to make this more difficult by banning the use of council premises which, for some hearings, may be the only accommodation available at short notice. We will remind local authorities that, when they communicate with parents, they should make clear that appeal panels are independent of the authority. We will emphasise this in our revised guidance.

^ top

Annex C Training

Recommendation 1 There is need for a specific requirement in the Secretary of State's respective guidance to admission and exclusion appeal panels to the effect that it is mandatory for all panel members to receive full induction training before being allowed to hear appeals

We believe that making training mandatory may increase burdens and may result in less willingness for volunteers to work in this capacity. However, it is our intention to recommend that LEAs should provide induction training to new exclusion appeal panel members in our proposed guidance.

As for admission appeals, the School Admission Appeals Code recommends admission authorities to ensure that all panel members receive appropriate training before hearing appeals. We understand that in almost all cases members have been on induction training before sitting on a panel. We will of course continue to promote the need for new members to receive induction training as soon as practicable.

Recommendation 2 There is a need to remedy the lack of training in chairing skills for the Chairs of admission and exclusion panels, having regard in particular to the JSB's Framework of Competence for tribunal chairs and members

We accept that there is a need to address the lack of suitable training in chairing skills for chairs of admission and exclusion appeal panels. For admission appeal panels, a new training package has recently been developed by the Information for School and College Governors which includes specific components on chairing skills. The package will be available before the end of the year. As for exclusion appeals, we intend to address this through the on-line tutor-led training material which is being commissioned.

Recommendation 3 The training function for admission and exclusion panels should be organised regionally, and proper systems put in place within LEAs and admission authorities for estimating and earmarking resources for future training needs

We are concerned that this would slow down the system and render some volunteers unable to fulfil their duties as appeal panel members. This recommendation may also extend the time it takes appeal panels to organise and deliver training compared to local training events.

For both admission and exclusion appeal panels we believe that the way training is organised should be for local decision according to local circumstances and resources. That said, we are aware that some LEAs already work closely together and co-operate on a regional basis to provide training.

|
^ top