This workshop looked at the background to admissions policies and the Office of the Schools Adjudicator's position on this, what MATs must do to comply with the code and some key points to consider.

1. March 2017, London
Admissions criteria
Education law conference

2. Admissions criteria
Getting it right for your MAT
1st March, London
Richard Freeth, Partner
Join the conversation #BJ_EDC

3. This session
1. Background and the OSA position
2. Complying with the Code
3. Determination one - TSAT
4. Determination two – Rivers
5. What should your MAT consider?

4. 1. Background and the OSA
position

5. Background and the OSA position
• Multi Academy Trusts (MATs) is the direction of travel
• As more are created and others grow, they consider changing the
academies’ admissions criteria to suit the MAT
This can involve:
• Changing feeder schools
• Changing sibling preference
• Scrapping catchment areas

6. Background and the OSA position
• Shan Scott, the Chief
Adjudicator at the Office of the
Schools Adjudicator commented
upon MATs in the November
2016 annual report
• Four broad issues covered

7. Background and the OSA position
1. Confusion exists in MATs re who determines admissions
arrangements

8. Background and the OSA position
Determining arrangements in MATs:
There are a number of different ways that admission arrangements
for academies in MATs are determined. The MAT may:
• determine the arrangements for all schools in the trust centrally
• set parameters within which governing bodies of individual schools
determine arrangements locally; or
• delegate the determination of arrangements to individual LGBs
Roles of the trust and LGBs are not always clearly set out in the
scheme of delegation or understood by the parties concerned.

9. Background and the OSA position
1. Confusion exists in MATs re who determines admissions
arrangements
2. Naming MAT primary schools as feeders
3. Giving priority to siblings of pupils in any MAT school in criteria
for a MAT secondary
4. Impact of 2 and 3 on other local children

10. Background and the OSA position
• OSA has stated that, as a matter of principle, there is nothing
inherently unreasonable about a secondary school within a MAT
naming primary schools within the same MAT as feeder schools.
• So if it can be done in principle, what do we need to do in
practice?

11. This session
1. Background and the OSA position
2. Complying with the Code
3. Determination one - TSAT
4. Determination two – Rivers
5. What should your MAT consider?

12. 2. Complying with the Code

13. Complying with the Code
The School Admissions Code was
issued under Section 84 of the
School Standards and Framework
Act 1998
Current version in force since 19
December 2014

14. Complying with the Code
• There are four key parts of the Code to know when considering
changing admissions arrangements within MATs to favour feeder
schools and/or siblings within the trust:
• Paragraph 14 and 1.8
• Paragraph 1.12
• Paragraph 1.15

15. Complying with the Code
Paragraph 14 and 1.8 – Reasonable, fair, clear and objective
14. In drawing up their admission arrangements, admission authorities
must ensure that the practices and the criteria used to decide
the allocation of school places are fair, clear and objective.
Parents should be able to look at a set of arrangements and
understand easily how places for that school will be allocated

16. Complying with the Code
Paragraph 14 and 1.8 – Reasonable, fair, clear and objective
1.8. Oversubscription criteria must be reasonable, clear,
objective, procedurally fair, and comply with all
relevant legislation, including equalities legislation.
Admission authorities must ensure that their arrangements will
not disadvantage unfairly, either directly or indirectly, a child
from a particular social or racial group, or a child with a disability
or special educational needs…

17. Complying with the Code
Paragraph 1.12
Some schools give priority to siblings of pupils attending another
state funded school with which they have close links (for example,
schools on the same site, or close links between two single sex
schools). Where this is the case, this priority must be set out clearly
in the arrangements

18. Complying with the Code
Paragraph 1.15
Admission authorities may wish to name a primary or middle school as
a feeder school. The selection of a feeder school or schools as an
oversubscription criterion must be transparent and made on
reasonable grounds.

19. Rest of the session
Look at two determinations:
• TSAT – MAT was successful
• Rivers – MAT was unsuccessful
Finish with what we can take away from those determinations to
successfully change MAT admissions

20. This session
1. Background and the OSA position
2. Complying with the Code
3. Determination one - TSAT
4. Determination two – Rivers
5. What should your MAT consider?

21. 3. Determination one - TSAT

22. Determination one - TSAT
Background:
• 10 school Trust – 4 secondary, 6 primary
• 2 secondary and 4 primary in Medway
• The 2 secondary are Chatham GS for Boys and Victory
• 1 of the proposed primary feeders shares a site with Chatham GS
• Proposed feeders are 3 miles away from the secondary schools
• 30+ primary schools closer to the secondary schools than the
proposed feeders

23. Determination one - TSAT
PAN:
• Victory: 2014/15 240 PAN 146 NOR
2015/16 240 PAN 169 NOR
• Chatham: 2014/15 120 PAN 81 NOR
2015/16 120 PAN 81 NOR

24. Determination one - TSAT
Local need:
• Local secondary numbers projected to increase and
oversubscription may be an issue in the future
Trust ethos:
• “Thinking Toolkit” used across the trust in all schools and same
ethos shared. Evidenced in Trust submissions

25. Determination one - TSAT
Proposed new criteria:
ii. children who have a sibling in any Thinking Schools
Academy Trust academy in Medway
iii. children who attend New Horizons, All Faiths or Gordon
(primary or junior schools in the MAT)

26. Determination one - TSAT
Objection:
Priority to children who have attended a trust primary and to children
with siblings in any of the trust schools will disadvantage local
children who live near the schools

27. Determination one - TSAT
• Why did the OSA not uphold the objection to these arrangements?
• What were the relevant factors?
(Remember Paragraph 14 and 1.8 (fair, reasonable etc.), 1.12
(siblings at other schools) and 1.15 (transparent feeder schools)

28. Determination one - TSAT
Determination:
1.15 – help to be transparent and to be reasonable
• Transparent – Clearly stated in criteria AND set out that the
MAT wishes to offer a particular approach to learning
• Reasonable – the selection of the feeder schools was based on
shared approach to learning, evidenced by the MAT

29. Determination one - TSAT
Determination:
1.12 – permits schools to give priority to other schools with which
they have close links and this is satisfied by the schools being
members of the same trust
Does this mean all MATs can adopt this approach without fear of a
successful challenge?

30. Determination one - TSAT
Determination:
Paragraph 14 – arrangements were fair because the OSA remit allowed
them to look at the 2017 arrangements only. As the secondary
schools were undersubscribed at the moment, it was difficult to show
unfairness. Further, the OSA accepted that the numbers of pupils
joining the secondary as a result of this change in priority was low.

31. Determination one - TSAT
Questions:
Would the outcome have been different if:
• the NOR was higher?
• there was greater pressure for school places in the area?
• the MAT ethos point had not been accepted?

32. This session
1. Background and the OSA position
2. Complying with the Code
3. Determination one - TSAT
4. Determination two – Rivers
5. What should your MAT consider?

33. 4. Determination two - Rivers

34. Determination two - Rivers
A more complicated set out of facts dealing with the same point –
MAT primary schools as feeders for the secondary.
• Schools in the area were oversubscribed
• There were primary schools closer than the proposed feeders to
the secondary schools
• Ethos/MAT approach was not accepted
• Determined that others would be disadvantaged, specifically when
travelling distances were considered

35. Determination two - Rivers
What were the key differences between the two cases?
• PAN –v- NOR
• Ethos/MAT approach
• Children disadvantaged by the change (pressure on local places a
factor)
• Parental expectation (pressure on local places a factor)

36. This session
1. Background and the OSA position
2. Complying with the Code
3. Determination one - TSAT
4. Determination two – Rivers
5. What should your MAT consider?

37. 5. What should your MAT
consider?

38. What should your MAT consider?
Local factors will heavily influence the determination to any
objection to your arrangements:
• Is the relevant MAT secondary oversubscribed?
• How many additional MAT secondary places the new arrangements
claim?
• What is the local demand for places like now?

39. What should your MAT consider?
Local factors will heavily influence the determination to any
objection to your arrangements:
• Do other nearby secondary schools have spaces?
• Would pupils who fail to get in to the MAT secondary because of
the new arrangements have far to travel?
• Do you have an ethos you can evidence to the OSA?

40. What should your MAT consider?
Where will objections come from:
• Parents?
• Other schools?
• The LA?
• What steps can you take before you consult to minimise the risk of
an objection or the risk of an objection being upheld?

41. Any questions?

42. Find out more
www.brownejacobson.com/education

43. Talk to us
Richard Freeth | 0121 237 3961 | richard.freeth@brownejacobson.com
Please note
All information correct at time of production.
The information and opinions expressed within this document are no
substitute for full legal advice. It is for guidance only and illustrates the law
as at the published date. If in doubt, please telephone us on 0370 270 6000.
© Browne Jacobson LLP 2017 – The information contained within this
document is and shall remain the property of Browne Jacobson. This
document may not be reproduced without the prior consent of Browne
Jacobson.