Update:

The Welsh Education Minister looked at Alfie's case yesterday.  He seems sympathetic to Alfie's situation but is unable to intervene directly.  The minister provided some advice that may be useful though. 

So next stop, the Ombudsman!

If you are not familiar with the background to Alfie's situation, there is a brief outline below.

New Issue:

Given all the issues outlined in the petition and updates, is it possible that there is anything else?  Oh yes!

Newport City Council vigorously opposed Alfie's appeal.  In so doing they gave evidence which included telling the Appeal Panel that Alfie was first on the waiting list for the school.

There are a set of rules governing how appeals are conducted called the Appeals Code, which clearly states that the Appeals Panel "must" take no account of an applicant's place on the waiting list.  So why was the information provided to the Appeal Panel?  It is completely irrelevant except to potentially prejudice the appeal by making it easier for an appeal to be refused. 

Alfie's appeal is a good example.  There were twenty-five appeals, all except Alfie were from out of catchment.   There were three successful appeals, all out of catchment children who did not have a statement of special needs, nor were they local authority looked after children.  Yet they were considered by the Appeal Panel to be more deserving of a place than the only in catchment child to be rejected; which is interesting.

The successful appeals were the three immediately before Alfie, at least two of which (possibly all three) were decided by the same Appeal Panel on the same morning as Alfie's appeal.  The panel would be under pressure not to grant too many appeals, and particularly conscious of granting four on the trot.  The "independent" clerk advising the Appeals Panel was the authority's own in-house solicitor, The very same solicitor whose job is to oppose Alfie's appeal. 

The fact that Alfie was first on the waiting list for the school anyway may well have made it easier to avoid granting another appeal in quick succession.  In any event, the information should not have been provided and was prejudicial. 

Background

Alfie was a year 6 pupil refused a place at his catchment high school on the grounds of capacity.  He has lived in catchment all his life.  Alfie is the only child out of his sixty classmates at primary school to be turned away from the catchment high school.  He is the only child out of 291 in catchment applications to the school to be refused a space.  He is the only child in the entire Local Education Authority area to be declined a space at their catchment high school.

We say that it is clearly damaging for an 11-year-old to be singled out for rejection in this way.  Alfie has a parent recently diagnosed with cancer which exacerbates the problem.  The school proposed by the local authority is on the opposite side of the city which further exacerbates the problem by imposing long travel times across the city at rush hour.  This will hamper the formation of new relationships and compromise Alfie’s existing relationships by curtailing at least some of his after-school activities.

As the only child in the LEA area excluded in this way, Alfie’s situation is unique, and he clearly suffers prejudice as result of being singled out for exclusion.

The original decision to refuse Alfie a space was appealed but the appeal failed by a majority of 2:1.

We believe that the decisions by both the LEA and Appeal Panel were flawed.  A significant number of procedural issues are also coming to light, every one of which prejudices Alfie.

Thank you, each and every one who has supported Alfie by signing the petition.  Having your eyes on the situation really makes a difference.  As do the many kind and encouraging comments and helpful advice that we receive through the petition.

Amazingly, it looks as though Alfie’s petition will pass 100,000 supporters in the next week or so.