DETERMINATION Case reference: ADA 2459-2474, 2478, 2487-89, 2495-2503, 2532, 2536 Objectors: Parents and other individuals Admission Authorities: Warrington Borough Council and the Governing Bodies of Great Sankey High School Warrington, University Academy Warrington, Beamont Collegiate Academy and Penketh High School Date of decision: 29 August 2013 Determination In accordance with section 88H(4) of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, I partially uphold the objections to the admission arrangements determined by Warrington Borough Council and Great Sankey High School. I have also considered the arrangements for Great Sankey High School in accordance with section 88I(5). I determine that they do not conform with the requirements relating to admission arrangements. By virtue of section 88K (2), the adjudicator’s decision is binding on the admission authorities. The School Admissions Code requires the admission authorities to revise their admission arrangements as quickly as possible. The referral 1. Under section 88H(2) of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, (the Act), 30 objections have been referred to the Adjudicator by parents and other individuals (the objectors), about the admission arrangements (the arrangements) for Great Sankey High School (the school), an academy school for boys and girls aged 11 to 18, for September 2014, and about the admission arrangements determined by Warrington Borough Council, the local authority (the LA) for community secondary schools in the LA’s area. 2. The objection concerns the removal of feeder school status from most of the primary schools in the borough, each of which was a feeder primary school to one of the secondary schools in the LA’s area for admissions in September 2013. Jurisdiction 3. The LA determined the arrangements for community schools for which it is the admission authority under section 88C of the Act on15 April 2013. 4. Great Sankey High School became an academy school on 1 January 2013. The terms of the academy agreement between the proprietor and the Secretary of State for Education require that the admissions policy and arrangements for the academy school are in accordance with admissions law as it applies to maintained schools. The proprietor, the admission authority for the school, determined the arrangements on that basis. 5. The objectors have submitted objections to these determined arrangements between 4 June 2013 and 8 July 2013. I am satisfied the objections have been properly referred to me in accordance with section 88H of the Act and they are within my jurisdiction. 6. I am also using my powers under section 88I to consider the arrangements as a whole for the school and the arrangements for 2014 for admission to The University Academy Warrington, Beamont Collegiate High School and Penketh High School. Procedure 7. In considering this matter I have had regard to all relevant legislation and the School Admissions Code (the Code). 8. The documents I have considered in reaching my decision include: a. objectors’ letters, emails and forms submitted between 4 June 2013 and 8 July 2013; b. the LA’s response to the objection and supporting documents; c. maps of the area identifying relevant schools; d. confirmation of when consultation on the arrangements last took place; e. copies of the minutes of the meeting at which the LA determined the arrangements for the schools for which it is the admission authority and of the meeting of the school governing body at which it did so for the school; f. copies of the arrangements determined by the LA and by the school, and g. correspondence with each of the four academy schools that became academy schools in 2013 and prior to 15 April. The Objections 9. Thirty individual objections, 27 of which were from parents, have been received. More than a third of these stated their objection to the removal of feeder primary schools (in general) from the admission arrangements for Warrington secondary schools for September 2014 without specifying why they believed this change to be contrary to the requirements of the Code. 10. However, a similar proportion stated that there had been inadequate, or no, consultation on the change prior to its adoption, and five objections made specific reference to the requirements on admission authorities concerning consultation which are set out in paragraph 1.44 (and elsewhere) in the Code. A petition with 430 signatories and an e-petition with 63 signatories were received. The former referred to the admission arrangements of “Warrington Borough Council and schools throughout Warrington”, and the latter specifically to the ending of the partner arrangement between Callands Primary School and Great Sankey High School. Both register objections to the arrangements on the grounds of inadequate consultation, and the former raises the fairness of some partnership arrangements remaining. The paper petition cites paragraph 15 of the Introduction to the Code and paragraphs 1.42 and 1.44 in support of its objection concerning inadequate consultation. 11. Five of the objectors were explicit in stating their belief that they were objecting to the admission arrangements of Great Sankey High School as determined by the LA. However, one further objector was aware that the school had determined arrangements itself and submitted their objection to the arrangements on that basis, stating that there had been inadequate public consultation, that the information which has been available to parents concerning admissions to the school had been unclear, and that the determined arrangements are not fair in continuing feeder school arrangements for some primary schools but not for others. Other Matters 12. As a result of the objections, the admission arrangements of all secondary schools in Warrington for September 2014 have been brought to my attention. In particular, I have considered those of the three other schools which became academy schools between 1 January 2013 and 15 April 2013 in addition to Great Sankey High School. 13. I therefore wrote to each of the four newly established academy schools asking them if they would provide me with a copy of their determined admission arrangements and a copy of the minute of the meeting at which they were determined. In addition, I asked these schools to respond to my concerns that their arrangements may not comply with the requirements of the Code and legislation, as follows: Great Sankey High School: that the condition for entry to the school’s sixth form in the requirements set out in its prospectus of “a successful application and interview” are unclear and not in accordance with the requirements of paragraph 2.6 of the Code, which forbids interviews. Beamont Academy: that the school has not have determined its arrangements appropriately. Penketh High School: (i) that the school has not have determined its arrangements appropriately, and (ii) that the school’s application form for sixth form places requests information not permitted by paragraph under paragraph 2.4 of the Code. University Academy Warrington: that the school has not determined its arrangements appropriately. Background 14. There are 12 secondary schools in the Borough of Warrington. Three of these are aided schools and two were academy schools prior to the current year. Four more, Great Sankey High School, University Academy Warrington, Beamont Collegiate Academy and Penketh High School became academy schools during 2013, prior to 15 April. Each of these previously had community status, and each therefore became for the first time its own admission authority and the body responsible for determining its admission arrangements for September 2014. The LA remains the admission authority for three community schools, one of which, Birchwood Community High School became an academy school on 1 July 2013. As its arrangements were determined while it was still a community school those arrangements stand for admissions in 2014. 15. Historically, a system of “partner” primary schools has operated in Warrington. Each primary school was a designated feeder school for one of the town’s 12 secondary schools. In the arrangements for September 2013, priority to children attending partner primary schools follows that for looked after and previously looked after children, siblings, and applications supported on medical or psychological grounds. In October 2012 the borough’s Executive Board received a report from officers outlining why it was believed that this practice needed to be changed, and in November 2012 the LA wrote to the chairs of governors and headteachers of all state funded schools in the borough, to neighbouring local authorities and to the relevant diocesan authorities to consult them on proposed changes to these arrangements. It informed them that its view was that the School Admissions Code which had been published on 1 February 2012 had the effect of making these universal partnering arrangements no longer tenable, and that it therefore proposed for admissions in September 2014 to end them in general, retaining only two partnering arrangements for which there was specific justification. The general effect of this proposal is that home to school distance, which had previously been a lower oversubscription criterion than the priority given to children from feeder primary schools, will replace it as the principal discriminator between applicants for places at oversubscribed secondary schools. 16. A report on this consultation was made to the Executive Board on 15 April 2013, when the arrangements containing the proposed changes to the pattern of feeder primary schools, were agreed. The LA told me that when the Executive Committee determined these arrangements, it did so in the belief that the schools to which they applied were the three community schools for which it is the admission authority and to the four former community schools which acquired academy status during 2013. The LA had mistakenly believed that since it had conducted a consultation on proposed admission arrangements for September 2014 for the four academy schools which had been started while each school was still a community school, that it would fall to the LA to determine the arrangements.