Two grammars 'mishandled appeals'

Would-be grammar school pupils have to take the 11-plus exam

Two leading Kent grammar schools have been criticised for failing to operate fair admissions appeals procedures.

The Judd School in Tonbridge and The Skinners' School in Tunbridge Wells, were found guilty of maladministration.

The Local Government Ombudsman found some members of the panel deciding appeals against refusal to admit pupils had links to the school in each case.

This was a "conflict of interest" and meant the ombudsman could not be sure that the appeals were heard properly.

Ombudsman Tony Redmond considered complaints from four sets of parents in two separate reports - one relating to each school.

'Inappropriate links'

All four parents complained they had been "deprived of their entitlement to have their appeals considered in a fair and impartial manner".

Mr Redmond heard complaints from two parents whose children had passed the 11-plus entrance exam, but failed to obtain places at the Judd School.

He also heard complaints from two other parents whose children were refused places at the Skinners' School - one had passed the test, the other had not.

With regard to the Judd School, Mr Redmond said: "I have serious concerns about the independence of some of the panellists and their staff".

He added: "There were in this instance inappropriate links between those involved in the consideration and administration of the appeals and in the school and its governance".

One of the members was a former long-standing employee of the Skinners' Company who dealt with school issues, one was a long-standing school governor and another was linked to Judd School's old boys' association.

'Significant injustice'

The clerk who served on the appeals panel was also clerk to the governing body which had made the original decision to refuse admission.

In the Skinners' case, the ombudsman also complained about inappropriate links between the running of the school and appeals against its decision to refuse pupils a place.

The main issue related to the fact that the clerk to the governors and the clerk to the appeals panel was the same person.

Mr Redmond described the resulting conflict of interest as "too great".

But there were also concerns about the lack of training given to panellists and the lack of awareness of the Appeals Code.

As a result of the ombudsman's ruling all four pupils were offered new hearings, with one appeal being upheld.

Giving his decision, Mr Redmond ruled that all four applicants were denied the opportunity to have their appeals considered in a "fair and objective manner".

"The denial of this opportunity amounted to a significant injustice," he added.

The schools were ordered to pay each complainant £350 in compensation.

However, the ombudsman acknowledged that admissions authorities could find it difficult to find suitable people to serve on appeals panels.

The report added that the governors of both schools had agreed to separate from next year the functions of the clerk to the appeal panel from those of the clerk to the governors