In Wales, Education is devolved to the Welsh Government. We have written to the first minister Mark Drakeford, we have written to the Welsh Education minister, Mr Jeremy Miles, and Alfie's local Senedd member, Ms Jayne Bryant. We have had either no response, a stock response or even a delegated stock response. In each case, either nothing or nothing that indicates any interest.
We are meeting today with Alfie's MP Ms Ruth Jones, who thankfully has taken an interest.
Just to re-cap for anyone interested: (please sign and share the petition if you can).
Background:
Alfie was a year 6 pupil at Marshfield Primary School, near Newport in South Wales. He applied with the rest of his year to go up to Bassaleg Comprehensive in September 2021. He has lived in the Bassaleg catchment all his life and his application for Bassaleg was on time.
On 03.03.21 the LA wrote to say that Alfie didn’t have a place at the school. It transpired that not only was Alfie the only in catchment child out of 291 in catchment children not to get a place, but the Local Authority (LA) proposed to send him on his own, not to the next nearest school but to a school on the opposite side of the city, by taxi.
The travel time alone would compromise Alfie’s current after school activities. There is also an unnecessary cost to the environment and a taxi bill of over £8,500 for the LA.
Alfie was obviously first on the waiting list for any places that became available at Bassaleg.
An appeal was lodged and heard on 14.05.21, which was vigorously opposed by the LA. Shortly before the appeal, one of Alfie’s parents was diagnosed with a potentially life limiting disease and in fact came out of hospital the day before the appeal. The appeal panel were aware of the diagnosis.
On 20.05.21 we heard that the appeal had nevertheless been refused by a majority of 2 to 1.
Legal advice was sought. There was ongoing correspondence with the LA. Over the following months more and more issues with the process have come to light.
Currently, the LA are refusing to acknowledge that there are any issues. Alfie hoped to get a place on the waiting list as it is common for a few places not to be taken up at the start of term. He was first on the waiting list. He was told he would have to wait until the end of September to see if he had a place on the waiting list.
Five places did become available at the before the start of term, but they were given to late applicants who had moved in closer to the school. These places were allocated to the late applicants as they became available, not at the end of September.
Alfie is now second on the waiting list but there are as likely to be new applicants as people leaving the school, so the waiting list is now something of a long shot.
Alfie is being home schooled for the moment until the matter is resolved.
The solution is that Alfie should be given a fresh appeal as there are a list of issues with the first appeal.
The most striking issue with the first appeal is that the LA vigorously opposed Alfie’s appeal on the grounds that there wasn’t the capacity to take one additional pupil. They gave the appeal panel incorrect figures that understated the capacity of the school. This is by no means the only issue.
The LA are refusing to accept that there is anything wrong, even though a number of issues are clear from their own correspondence. We can go to the Local Government Ombudsman, but that can apparently take 6 to 12 months. The ombudsman can only recommend a new appeal, the LA could still refuse.
Issues:
1. It is a particularly nasty thing to do to a child, to isolate him and only him from his lifelong peer group and send him on his own to a distant school for the whole of his school career. Even more so in light of his parent’s recent diagnosis. This will do lasting damage and it is simply inexplicable that the LA would oppose the appeal and the appeal panel exercise their discretion as they did for the sake of one child out of 291. The potential damage to Alfie was highlighted to the appeal panel in letters, among others, from Alfie’s GP and primary school. The thrust of the appeal was that the prejudice to Alfie of being excluded is greater than the prejudice to the school of accepting one additional pupil. The appeal panel’s decision is frankly inexplicable.
2. In opposing the appeal, the LA said that the school did not have the capacity to take a single additional child. The LA provided figures to the panel which understated the capacity of the school. The decision was based on incorrect evidence. This is admitted in a letter from the LA’s solicitor on 10.06.21. But bizarrely, despite being referred to the letter, the Director of Education at the LA persists in denying that the information was wrong.
3. We say that the fact that one of Alfie’s parents was diagnosed with a potentially life limiting disease is a relevant factor that the appeal panel should have taken into account. Not only because isolation in this way would make dealing with the issue unnecessarily more difficult for Alfie, but because there could be practical issues such as travel. The School Admissions Appeal Code require that the relevant factors considered MUST be recorded in the summary letter. The summary letter says nothing about the diagnosis. However, the panel were aware of the diagnosis as the parent in question was in hospital and arrangements were made for that parent to participate from hospital. The Chair of the appeal panel offered his sympathies at the beginning of the appeal. The summary letter makes no reference to the diagnosis and so we must conclude, in the light of the School Admissions Appeal Code, that the diagnosis was not considered a relevant factor by the appeal panel.
4. The LA made clear to the appeal panel that Alfie was first on the waiting list. This could have influenced the decision so that it was not considered solely on its merits. We say this was prejudicial to the proper function of the appeal panel.
5. The School Admissions Appeal Code says that the clerk who assists the appeal panel should be independent of the LA. Newport LA use their own in-house solicitor as clerk. The same in-house solicitor who has been fighting the case on behalf of the LA. When challenged, the LA have not given any explanation as to why they chose not to follow the guidance.
6. The local authority’s solicitor told us in a letter on 10.06.21 that the local authority did not have the discretion to order a new appeal. This turns out to be untrue. And it was why the ombudsman route was not previously pursued. To save the time that we have lost due to their inaccurate advice, we asked the LA to order a fresh appeal themselves rather than force us to take 6 to 12 months to get a decision from the ombudsman that the LA can ignore if they choose in any event. The have refused.