Search:
Complaints to the Ombudsman against The Judd School & Skinners School
The Ombudsman has published Reports dated 31st October 2007 into complaints against the Admission Appeals arrangements of these two schools, both Voluntary Aided Grammar schools run by the Skinners Company. A summary appears on the Ombudsman's website at Reports.
An indication of the seriousness of these complaints is that the Ombudsman has only published seven other reports on school admissions nationally in the past year (including Queen Elizabeth's Grammar School, Faversham, where I represented eight complainants).
Most of the complaints below refer to maladministration by the Governors (the Ombudsman has no jursidiction over the Skinners Company). Individual Appeal Panel members, who give up their time freely to support the process, appear to have followed the advice given them and errors on their part are due to lack of awareness, rather than flouting the rules. We must hope that next year, Governors follow the Ombudsman's recommendations to ensure that Clerks and Panellists are properly trained and manifestly indpendent of the schools or any bodies connected with them.
The complaints refer to appeals relating to 2006 entry. The main issues in the two Reports have consderable similarities, and are combined below for convenience:
1) A number of Panellists had too close connections with the schools: One member of both Panels was a previous employee of the Skinners Foundation who had worked under the Clerk to the Governing Body of both schools (an employee of the Skinners Company) for a number of years, including educational matters relating to Skinners School; one on the Judd Panel was a long serving Governor of Skinners; another was connected with the Judd School Old Boys Association, a third had been a governor of a Skinners Foundation School.
2) The Governors of the two schools had not advertised for Panel members for some years, as required.
3) The Clerk to the Governors was also the Clerk of one Appeal Committee, a clear conflict of interest. Another Appeal Panel Clerk had worked for the Clerk to the Governors.
4) Panellists had received no training, but had guidance prepared by the Clerk to the Governors which was therefore not independent. The Chairman of one Panel was not aware of the Code of Practice for Appeals which Panels are required to have regard to and it appears unlikely that other panellists had such awareness - they did not respond to the Ombudsman's enquiries.
5)The Panel, but not parents, were supplied with Kent test results of other successful applicants to guide them. Information may not be shared with one party (the Panellists) to the Appeal.
6) One Governors' case contained irrelevant information that appeared to seek unnecessarily to restrict the scope of appellants' appeals. It referred to waiting lists, which Panels are not allowed to take into account.
7) The Clerk to the Governing Body was present as an observer at an appeal and at the decision making as an observer with the Skinners Company. The Skinners Company has no role at appeals and he should not have been present.
8) The Panel reached decisions on whether the Governors had correctly applied admission arrangements during the meeting, rather than after it. As the Governors representative was still present this would not be seen as independent.
9) Notes of appeal hearings are described as "thin and inadequate" - there were no notes for one appellant.
10)The decision letters were faulty.
11) When the ombudsman proposed a rehearing as a remedy, the Governors took a long time to respond to respond.
There also were other issues.
All four complainants were offered fresh appeals, and a financial award of £350 each.
I have had reports that the Skinners School Appeals Panels appear to have committed further serious errors this year, although I have had no concerns expressed about The Judd School.
I receive feedback on a large number of Appeal Panels across the County, and am happy that parents can rely on the overwhelming majority conducting appeals fairly and independently. However, I can think of one group of non selective school Governing Bodies about whom I would have equal concerns.
Ther is no doubt that these two cases have already led to extensive media debate about the case against selective schools, although the complaints have no relevance to this issue - not one on which I comment.
An indication of the seriousness of these complaints is that the Ombudsman has only published seven other reports on school admissions nationally in the past year (including Queen Elizabeth's Grammar School, Faversham, where I represented eight complainants).
Most of the complaints below refer to maladministration by the Governors (the Ombudsman has no jursidiction over the Skinners Company). Individual Appeal Panel members, who give up their time freely to support the process, appear to have followed the advice given them and errors on their part are due to lack of awareness, rather than flouting the rules. We must hope that next year, Governors follow the Ombudsman's recommendations to ensure that Clerks and Panellists are properly trained and manifestly indpendent of the schools or any bodies connected with them.
The complaints refer to appeals relating to 2006 entry. The main issues in the two Reports have consderable similarities, and are combined below for convenience:
1) A number of Panellists had too close connections with the schools: One member of both Panels was a previous employee of the Skinners Foundation who had worked under the Clerk to the Governing Body of both schools (an employee of the Skinners Company) for a number of years, including educational matters relating to Skinners School; one on the Judd Panel was a long serving Governor of Skinners; another was connected with the Judd School Old Boys Association, a third had been a governor of a Skinners Foundation School.
2) The Governors of the two schools had not advertised for Panel members for some years, as required.
3) The Clerk to the Governors was also the Clerk of one Appeal Committee, a clear conflict of interest. Another Appeal Panel Clerk had worked for the Clerk to the Governors.
4) Panellists had received no training, but had guidance prepared by the Clerk to the Governors which was therefore not independent. The Chairman of one Panel was not aware of the Code of Practice for Appeals which Panels are required to have regard to and it appears unlikely that other panellists had such awareness - they did not respond to the Ombudsman's enquiries.
5)The Panel, but not parents, were supplied with Kent test results of other successful applicants to guide them. Information may not be shared with one party (the Panellists) to the Appeal.
6) One Governors' case contained irrelevant information that appeared to seek unnecessarily to restrict the scope of appellants' appeals. It referred to waiting lists, which Panels are not allowed to take into account.
7) The Clerk to the Governing Body was present as an observer at an appeal and at the decision making as an observer with the Skinners Company. The Skinners Company has no role at appeals and he should not have been present.
8) The Panel reached decisions on whether the Governors had correctly applied admission arrangements during the meeting, rather than after it. As the Governors representative was still present this would not be seen as independent.
9) Notes of appeal hearings are described as "thin and inadequate" - there were no notes for one appellant.
10)The decision letters were faulty.
11) When the ombudsman proposed a rehearing as a remedy, the Governors took a long time to respond to respond.
There also were other issues.
All four complainants were offered fresh appeals, and a financial award of £350 each.
I have had reports that the Skinners School Appeals Panels appear to have committed further serious errors this year, although I have had no concerns expressed about The Judd School.
I receive feedback on a large number of Appeal Panels across the County, and am happy that parents can rely on the overwhelming majority conducting appeals fairly and independently. However, I can think of one group of non selective school Governing Bodies about whom I would have equal concerns.
Ther is no doubt that these two cases have already led to extensive media debate about the case against selective schools, although the complaints have no relevance to this issue - not one on which I comment.