THE GOVERNMENT have told Harris Academy in Chafford Hundred to change their admissions arrangements.
The decision comes after a complaint was made about the arrangements for September 2015.
The report discusses in full the catchment area conditions not only for Chafford but also surrounding areas and highlights the confusion that can happen when some schools have catchment areas and some do not.
The report also goes into detail regarding information that Harris Academy have requested for students applying for sixth form places. Fair to say that the government have asked the school to make a number of amendments.
The full decision is as follows:
"In accordance with section 88H(4) of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, I do not uphold the objection to the admission arrangements determined by the governing body of Harris Academy Chafford Hundred, the admission authority for the school, for admissions in September 2015
"I have also considered the arrangements as a whole in accordance with section 88I(5) of the Act and I determine that these do not conform with the requirements relating to admission arrangements.
"By virtue of section 88K(2) of the Act the adjudicator’s decision is binding on the admission authority. The School Admissions Code requires the admission authority to revise its admission arrangements as quickly as possible.
The report goes into full detail about the complaint and the subsequent investigation.
The report states
Under section 88H(2) of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, (the Act), an objection has been referred to the Office of the Schools Adjudicator by a parent (the objector), about the admission arrangements (the arrangements) for September 2015, for Harris Academy Chafford Hundred (the school), a secondary academy school for pupils aged 11 to 18 years. The school is situated in Grays, Essex, within the local authority (the LA) of Thurrock. The objection is to the catchment area of the school which the objector contends is not reasonable.
The terms of the academy agreement between the Harris Federation and the Secretary of State for Education require that the admissions policy and the arrangements for the academy school are in accordance with admissions law as it applies to maintained schools. These arrangements were determined by the governing body of the Harris Academy Chafford Hundred, which is the admission authority for the school, on 5 November 2013, on that basis.
The objector submitted the objection to these determined arrangements for 2015 on 26 June 2014 and I am satisfied the objection has been properly referred to me in accordance with section 88H of the Act and it is within my jurisdiction. I have also used my powers under section 88I of the Act to consider the arrangements as a whole.
In considering this matter I have had regard to all relevant legislation and the School Admissions Code (the Code).
The documents I have considered in reaching my decision include:
• the objection dated 26 June 2014 with supporting documents and further comments dated 18 July 2014;
• the school’s responses dated 16 July, 22 August and 19 September 2014; • the LA’s comments dated 2 July and further responses dated 14, 18 and
30 July 2014; • the LA’s “Pupil Place Plan 2014 to 2018”; • the minutes of the meeting of the full governing body held on 5 November
2013 at which the arrangements for 2015 were determined; • the determined arrangements for 2015; and • the master funding agreement for the Harris federation of South London
Schools dated 31 August 2007 and annex 1 of the supplemental agreement for Harris Academy Chafford Hundred dated 1 October 2011.
I have taken account of all information, maps and data received during the
6. meeting I convened at the school on 11 September 2014 attended by the objector and the school; and the further information that was requested at the meeting and which has been submitted subsequently by the school.
The objection is to the catchment area of the school which the objector contends is not reasonable. The objector says that the school’s catchment area includes 118 streets in Chafford Hundred; some of which are located as far as 1.3 miles east of the school. To the west of the school one area of West Thurrock is excluded although it is located only 0.7 miles away from the school. For this reason the objector contends that the current catchment area is unreasonable and unfair.
The objector states that if the school is to design the catchment area to address the needs of the local community, it should include the area of West Thurrock that is at issue and should exclude the area north-east of Chafford Hundred, located further from this school and already covered by the catchment area of other two schools. Paragraph 1.14 of the Codes says, “Catchment areas must be designed so that they are reasonable and clearly defined. Catchment areas do not prevent parents who live outside the catchment of a particular school from expressing a preference for the school.”
During my investigation of the complaint the objector also raised an issue concerning the adequacy of the school’s last consultation in 2013 and I considered the matter with the school and the objector at the meeting I convened at the school.
Having reviewed the arrangements as a whole for admissions in September 2015, I considered there were other issues which may contravene the Code. These include the publication of the arrangements for admission to the school in September 2015 on the school’s website; the requirement to state that the school will admit pupils who have a statement of special educational needs that names the school; a full definition of looked-after and previously looked-after children; clarity about the staff who are eligible to seek priority in the arrangements for their children; placing all admissions information together for parents; a final tie-breaker; and information about the waiting list.
In relation to the separate arrangements for admission to the sixth form, matters include the requirement for a published admission number (PAN) for year 12; the clarity of the arrangements overall; and a number of issues relating to the application form.
The school which is in located in Thurrock converted to academy status on 1 October 2011 replacing its predecessor school, the Chafford Hundred Campus. The planned capacity of the school is 1320 places for pupils aged 11 to 18 years. There are currently 900 pupils on roll in years 7 to 11 plus a sixth form of 250. The school is significantly oversubscribed each year and data indicate that there were 630 preferences in 2013 of which 264 were first preferences.
These figures increased in 2014 when there were 743 applications including 299 first preferences. In each year, after the admission of children with statements of special educational need, looked after and previously looked after children, places were allocated on the basis of catchment sibling priority and to other children living in the school’s catchment area. Not all children living within the school’s catchment area who had expressed a first preference for the school were able to gain admission.
The Resource Base provides places for an additional 20 for pupils who have a full statement of special needs for speech, language and communication impairment. These pupils are not included in the school’s PAN of 180, although they are largely integrated into mainstream lessons.
I was advised that the Harris Federation has received approval to open a new secondary Free School which will have specialisms in Science and Enterprise. Current plans are for it to open on a temporary site in the vicinity of the school until a permanent site is secured. The principal of the school will become the executive principal for both schools.
The new Free School due to open in September 2015 in Chafford Hundreds will eventually admit up to its PAN of 180 but as there is surplus capacity in the wider LA area it has been agreed that initially the new school will admit only 120 pupils into year 7. It is proposed that one of the oversubscription criteria will be based on distance from home to school or to a fixed point in the area, rather than having a fixed area catchment. Meetings are scheduled for September and October 2014 to provide information to the community and a website for the new school invites parents and interested parties to give their views on admission arrangements and a range of other issues.
At present there is a joint governing body for the Chafford Hundred Primary Academy and the school. However, a new Harris Academy primary Free School (Harris Primary Academy Mayflower) opened in September 2014 in order to meet the significant need locally for new places and I was advised that it is likely that there will be a joint governing body for the two primary schools and a further joint governing body for the two secondary schools. A sixth form is planned in 2017 for the secondary phase Free School and it will be federated with the school.
Consideration of factors
The LA describes Thurrock as “the largest regeneration area in the UK” and it has five main urban areas including West Thurrock, Purfleet and Grays plus the adjacent recent development at Chafford Hundred. Thurrock is a compact area and a significant majority of pupils attend schools that are local and easily accessed. Most primary pupils attend schools within two miles of their homes and most secondary school pupils attend schools within three miles of their homes. According to the LA’s ‘Pupil Place Plan for 2014 to 2018’, pupil numbers are projected to decline to their lowest level in the current academic year, that is, September 2014 when overall numbers for year 7 fall to 1704. There is capacity in the system to admit 1956 pupils and therefore a surplus of 252 places. However, as numbers are forecast to rise, plans are in place for the Gateway Academy to increase its PAN from 210 to 240 in September 2015.
The LA’s plan also records that the school is the only secondary provision within the Chafford Hundred development and that demand is forecast to outstrip the number of available places each year until at least 2018. In order to meet the projected shortfall of places in the interim period it was agreed that all residents in Chafford Hundred would be eligible to apply for secondary school places, not only at the school but also at William Edwards School and Hathaway Academy, two schools that are within reasonable distance of the development. In my opinion this is a pragmatic solution to deal with the interim period before the new secondary opens in 2015.
In its response to the objection the school explained that the catchment area was defined and agreed in 2001 when the original school was built to serve the population of the Chafford Hundred housing development and in my opinion this decision was entirely reasonable. With the current high level of oversubscription the school is no longer able to admit all the children who live in its current catchment area and wish to attend the school. The school says it remains committed to meeting the needs of families in its traditional and long standing catchment area and has allocated its places according to its oversubscription criteria which it believes to be fair and balanced.
Although parents have the right to express preferences for any schools, in some circumstances not all of those preferences will be met, as in this case, where the school is significantly oversubscribed from families living within the catchment area. It is unlikely then that applications from families living outside the catchment of this oversubscribed school will be successful.
I was advised by the school that children living in the neighbouring area of West Thurrock that is included in the school’s catchment area are often allocated places before families in Chafford Hundred due to their natural proximity to the school.
At the meeting however, there was a discussion about whether or not any part of West Thurrock was included in the school’s catchment and there was a lack of consensus about how local residents refer to different neighbourhoods in the area.
Despite the disagreement about the naming of certain areas as being in or out of West Thurrock, the school provided a very clear map, with defined boundaries and confirmed that no areas have been removed from the catchment area since it was designed. With such a high level of oversubscription there has been continual pressure from parents around each of the four boundaries for the school to ‘remove’ streets in other parts of the catchment area, in order to provide them with a greater chance of making a successful application.
In a later submission the school confirmed that the only change that has been made since 2001 has been to add four roads to form a more practical southern boundary in 2014. The objector raised the point that families living in the four streets that have now been included were likely to be in the catchment area of Hathaway Academy as well.
The LA commented on the objection stating that not all of the ten Thurrock secondary schools, all of which are own admission authority schools, use catchment areas as part of their arrangements.
Where in the past it would have been possible for a LA to organise its area so that every part had its own separate catchment area and families had an identified catchment area school, this is no longer the case.
The Code does not prohibit admission authorities from setting a catchment area with boundaries that overlap those of other local schools and thus it is inevitable that some families may find that they have more than one ‘catchment area school’ that gives them priority for admission and other families may find they have no designated school. With an increasing number of in-catchment children who live at the eastern edge of the catchment failing to gain admission to the school it seems reasonable in my view for other local schools also to have been designated as catchment area schools, until additional secondary provision can be established.
A difficulty can arise when one admission authority decides either to change the boundaries of its catchment area or to remove it altogether. In the area under consideration, to the west of the western boundary of the school’s catchment area, the academy that had been named as the catchment area school for families living in that area has decided to change its oversubscription criteria from catchment area to priority based on distance from home to school.
The LA provided minutes of a meeting of the Admissions Forum held on 28 September 2010 which says that “With the exception of Purfleet, West Thurrock and Aveley which is Ormiston Park Academy, all other areas in Thurrock are covered by a school that the parent’s address would fall into as a priority that would be catered for within.” The forum considered the need to analyse the distribution of pupils and places in the secondary sector as two academies no longer operated catchment areas.
One of these schools was Ormiston and this is significant because when I referred to the LA’s road by road catchment area list which parents can access on the LA’s website I noted that parents are advised that “Some roads do not indicate a catchment school. This reflects schools that do not use a catchment area as part of their admissions arrangements.”
Several streets in the area of West Thurrock that is of concern to the objector have no catchment area school listed, but instead a note states that the catchment area “was Ormiston”.
That school now admits pupils largely on the basis of proximity to the school using straight line measurement from the school to a child’s home. At the time of the forum meeting it was not recruiting up to its admission number and so space remained available for all parents who stated a preference for the school.
As the area in West Thurrock under consideration lies outside the catchment of the school and was previously within the catchment of Ormiston, I reviewed admission data for that school to assess whether or not parents’ chances of gaining admission had been adversely affected by the removal of its catchment area. Information provided in the LA’s annual prospectus for 2013 indicate that 126 preferences were expressed of which 41 were first preferences.
The school admitted 70 pupils, 54 based on distance from home to school and 16 to siblings of pupils on roll. In September 2014 there were 176 preferences expressed of which 86 were first preferences. Eighty places were allocated on the basis of distance and 22 on the basis of siblings, a total of 102. I must conclude therefore that there has been no reduction in the chances of parents gaining admission to that school which has previously been listed as the catchment area school.
The school confirmed that the catchment area for the school has remained stable and unchanged between 2001 and 2013 when the governing body consulted about a minor change to the southern boundary to add four streets.
According to evidence provided by the school the area under consideration has never formed part of the catchment. It became apparent during my consideration of the objection that the range of the consultation in 2013 did not include all parents of children aged two to eighteen and I will consider this matter further in ‘Other Matters’ below.
It is my view that an appropriate catchment area will encompass natural communities whenever possible and in this instance the catchment of the school has been designed specifically to meet the needs of families in the Chafford Hundred housing area.
Paragraph 1.14 of the Code states, “Catchment areas must be designed so that they are reasonable and clearly defined. Catchments areas do not prevent parents who live outside the catchment of a particular school from expressing a preference for the school.” The arrangements in this regard do not contravene the Code and for the reasons detailed above I therefore do not uphold the objection.
During the course of my enquiries about the catchment area I was advised that the school had consulted on minor changes to its arrangements in January 2013, but the objector says that the school had only consulted with colleagues and had not met the full requirement set out in paragraph 1.44 to consult with parents of children between the ages of two and 18 years. The objector contends that he was unable to express an opinion on the proposed arrangements.
After the meeting at the school, documents were submitted by the head teacher that provided evidence about the content and scale of the consultation
process in spring 2013, in relation to the arrangements for 2014.
These indicate that all neighbouring local authorities and local primary and secondary schools were consulted but I cannot find evidence that the requirements laid out in paragraph 1.44 of the Code were fully met, in particular, 1.44a) “parents of children between the ages of two to eighteen” and 1.44c) “all other admission authorities within the relevant area.” When admission authorities consult on changes they must make genuine attempts to reach all parties who have a legitimate interest in those proposed changes.
For parents of children aged two to eighteen, there are a number of ways to attract their attention and responses including for example, asking local head teachers to draw parents’ attention to changes, or by placing information in local newspapers, health centres, libraries, nurseries and local supermarkets.
In my opinion the school did not consult widely enough and some parents of younger children may not have been aware of the proposal to add four streets to the catchments area and did not have an opportunity to express their opinions before the school made changes to its arrangements for 2014. This contravenes the mandatory requirements of the Code.
Having reviewed the arrangements as a whole for admissions in September 2015, I considered other issues which may contravene the Code, the first of which is a requirement for admission arrangements to be published on schools’ websites as soon as possible after they are determined.
Parents seeking information from the school’s website can easily follow the route ‘Information and Admissions’ to find arrangements for several years including 2012/13, 2013/14 and 2014/15. However, when I made my final check of school’s website on 1 October for the published arrangements there are no arrangements for 2015 for either relevant age group.
Paragraph 1.47 of the Code says, “Once admission authorities have determined their admission arrangements, they must notify the appropriate bodies and must publish a copy of their determined arrangements on their website displaying them for the whole of the offer year…” The school must publish the arrangements for 2015 without any further delay so that parents can access them.
The second matter relates to the requirement to state that the school will admit pupils who have a statement of special educational needs that names the school. Paragraph 1.6 of the Code says, “All children whose statement of special educational needs (SEN) names the school must be admitted.” It is also important to advise parents that any such children count towards the school’s PAN.
In a draft of the changes that the school proposes to make in order to meet the mandatory requirements of the Code, I note that additional text has been included as a new criterion 2, but reference to the admission of children with statements of SEN should not form part of the oversubscription criteria and must be removed and placed before the oversubscription criteria, as the process for identifying the school to be named for a child is a separate statutory process.
The arrangements already contain a clear statement about the admission of children with statements of SEN into the Resource Base and parents are advised that this group of children do not count towards the school’s PAN.
The third area of concern is that criterion 1 requires a full definition of looked after and previously looked after children so that parents can fully appreciate who this group of children are. The school has readily agreed to this change and criterion 1 of the oversubscription criteria now says, “Looked after children and previously looked after children will automatically be given first consideration above all categories of priority. A ‘looked after child’ is a child who is (a) in the care of a local authority, or (b) being provided with accommodation by a local authority in the exercise of their social services functions (see the definition in Section 22(1) of the Children Act 1989) at the time of making an application to a school. Previously looked after children are children who were looked after, but ceased to be so because they were adopted (or became subject to a residence order or special guardianship order).”
The next issue is the need for greater accuracy in the description of which staff are eligible to seek priority in the arrangements for their children. At present the arrangements for 2015 state, “The children of Employees of Harris Academy Chafford Hundred, provided that the said Employee has been employed by Harris Academy Chafford Hundred for two or more years at the date of the application for admission to the school is made.” The Code says in paragraph 1.39 that priority may be given to children of staff in the following circumstances, “a) where the member of staff has been employed at the school for two or more years at the time at which the application for admission to the school is made, and/or b) the member of staff is recruited to fill a vacant post for which there is a demonstrable skills shortage.” The school has already changed this criterion to reflect the wording and thus the requirements of the Code.
I also noticed that the arrangements provide detailed information to parents about which roads form the boundaries of the catchment area but parents who are new to the area might be better served by being able to refer to a map as well. At the meeting in the school the head teacher provided an excellent map of the catchment and I commented that as it forms an important aspect of the arrangements it should be published with them. Paragraph 14 of the Code says that parents should be able to look at a set of arrangements and understand easily how places will be allocated. In my opinion an awareness of the parameters of the catchment area is vital for parents who wish to make an application to the school.
A note to criterion 4b “Pupils living closest to the Academy” explains how distance will be measured from the school to the front door of the home address. We discussed the fact that some children will live in homes located in a block of flats or in a multi-occupancy dwelling and that a final tie-breaker is required in order to deal with the eventuality that it is not possible to separate the last two applications, which in every other regard are equal. The school has changed the arrangements to include information that, “In the case of a tie breaker involving flats or home(s) of multiple occupancy, random allocation will be used to separate the last two children for consideration.”
Missing from the arrangements was a statement explaining how the waiting list will be maintained and for how long. Paragraph 2.14 lays out the detail of the requirement for admission authorities to maintain a waiting list for at least the first term of the academic year of admission, “…..stating in their arrangements that each added child will require the list to be ranked again in line with the published oversubscription criteria. Priority must not be given to children based on the date their application was received or their name added to the list…” A draft of the revised arrangements includes this information for parents.
I will now consider the arrangements for admission to the sixth form, which state that there will be 150 places available. However, there is no PAN for the admission of external students, so applicants will not be able to gauge their chances of gaining admission. Paragraph 14 says that parents should be able to look at a set of arrangements and understand easily how places will be allocated. Paragraph 1.2, states “Published admission Number (PAN) –
As part of determining their admission arrangements, all admission authorities must set an admission number for each relevant age group.” So there must be a PAN for both Year 7 and Year 12. The sixth form PAN is the minimum number of external students that will be admitted. Since the meeting the school has changed the arrangements for admission to the sixth form to state that there is a PAN of 20 for external applicants to the sixth form and that if other places remain after the admission of students on roll in year 11 of the school, additional places will be offered to external applicants.
I considered the sixth form arrangements in detail with the school at the meeting pointing out the aspects which currently contravene the Code and providing the paragraph references which I have included below. Matters included:
Information about how students on roll at the school could apply for admission to Year 12. Paragraph 2.6 says that students are not required to use an application form if they are already on roll.
A statement that a reference is required for internal students which the school agreed was an error.
The statement that external students must “state if they are currently on the SEN register and provide information about their special educational need” and must “Grant permission for the academy to contact their present school with regards to academic suitability, attendance, behaviour and attitude.” Paragraph 1.8 says that an admission authority must not discriminate on the grounds of disability. Paragraph 1.9a says that conditions cannot be placed on an application, other than those in the oversubscription criteria and paragraph 1.9g prohibits admission authorities from taking account of reports from other schools.
There are several references to attendance at interviews at various stages of the admission process but paragraph 1.9m forbids interviews.
In a further submission from the school after the meeting the sixth form
documents showed clear evidence that arrangements have been significantly rewritten to remove aspects that had contravened the Code.
I will now move the final aspect of the arrangements that caused concern. The sixth form application form appropriately asks for some basic information, for a list of examination subjects with outcomes if known and for subject preferences,
however, there are many aspects of the form that require revision.
These include requests for information about the applicant and their family which is not permitted by the Code.
Paragraph 1.9 states, “It is for admission authorities to formulate their admission arrangements but they must not: a) place any conditions on the consideration of any application other than those in the oversubscription criteria published in their admission arrangements;”
It is quite possible in my opinion that applicants may read the form and interpret certain aspects as ‘conditions’ and I discussed this with the school.
Page 1 contains a grid marked, “For school use only” which has sections to record whether references have been received; to record attendance in each year from 7 to 11; that refers to a trial at the Chelsea Football Academy and to record whether an interview is required. Paragraph 1.9g prohibits admission authorities from “…. taking account of reports from previous schools about children’s past behaviour, attendance, attitude or achievement, or that of any of any other children in the family” and paragraph 1.9h says that admission authorities must not interview parents or children. Inclusion of a request for information about whether or not an applicant has had a trial with the Chelsea Academy and whether this has been successful should play no part in an application to study in the school’s sixth form and could lead applicants to think the school might take account of an application for a trial and the success or otherwise of that trial. All information about attendance, school references and football trials must be removed.
Page 2 asks for “…….details of all persons who have parental responsibility and anyone else you wish to be contacted in an emergency. Place them in the order you wish them to be contacted.” The form refers to “Parent 1 and Parent 2” but paragraph 2.4a) prohibits admission authorities asking for any personal details about parents and 2.4e says that both parents should not be asked to sign the form.
There is space to list the names and ages of brothers and sisters and whether either parent is a university graduate. This is prohibited by paragraph 1.9g detailed above and by 1.9f which prohibits admission authorities from taking account of parents’ educational status.
Applicants are asked to provide both home and work telephone numbers. This should be amended to remove the word ‘work’, as this refers to the occupational status of parents.
Paragraph 1.9f says that, “…. admissions authorities must not give priority to children according to the occupational, marital financial or educational status of parents applying…’”
Page 4 states, “Please may we have your permission to consult your son/daughter’s present school about a transfer, particularly in relation to possible subjects in the Sixth Form?” I have covered the prohibition on references above.
There is a section about the special educational needs. This does not refer pupils who have a statement of SEN but to applicants who may be on a school’s SEN register. Applicants are asked to provide detail of the type of special need and whether they have qualified for access arrangements. Paragraph 1.9h says that, “……… admission authorities must not discriminate against or disadvantage disabled children or those with special educational needs.”
Page 5 asks for information about the ethnic origin, home language and religion of applicants and also for the detail of likely travel arrangements, meal arrangements, for example if the applicant will require a free school meal, bring a packed lunch or have a paid meal. Paragraph 2.4b) says that parents cannot be asked about the first language of parents or the child. The school accepted at the meeting that none of this is relevant to an admission application and would be removed.
The same page also seeks permission for the student’s photograph to be displayed on the school’s website and in other publications. It is not clear at what point in the process a photograph may be required but the school has to take account of the prohibition in paragraph 1.9o) that admissions authorities must not request photographs.
On page 6 applicants are asked to write a personal statement to indicate the reasons for wishing to study at the school along with a statement about the extra-curricular activities that they hope to participate in. It is suggested that mention might be made of hobbies and out of school interests and proposed career or higher education intentions. This information does not relate to the oversubscription criteria and must be removed.
The Code says that in some case an admission authority may need to use a supplementary form in order to process applications but it states, “…they must only use supplementary forms that request additional information when it has a direct bearing on decisions about over subscription criteria……..They must not ask, or use supplementary forms that ask, for any of the information prohibited by paragraph 1.9 above…..” So although the school may require some of the information that is requested in order to assist the student or for organisational purposes, this should be gathered after a place has been offered and accepted. It can have no place in consideration given by the admission authority to applications for places in the sixth form.
Following the meeting the school sent revised documents that indicated it had acted readily and promptly to rectify a number of issues that contravene the Code.
The objector contends that the current catchment area of the school is not reasonable or fair in that it includes streets that are as far as 1.3 miles east of the school while excluding streets that are as close as 0.7 miles from the western boundary.
The outer boundary of Chafford Hundred does not form a regular shape and there are areas in the western section that are over a mile from the school. The Code requires that catchment areas are reasonable and the school’s catchment area was specifically designed to meet the needs of families in the community which in my view is reasonable.
The Code requires that catchment areas are clearly defined and the school has defined the boundaries of the area very clearly for parents. This is a popular school and there is considerable pressure from high levels of oversubscription by local families living within and outside the school’s catchment area; and those families who are unable to gain admission to the school may consider that the arrangements are unfair.
However, in my opinion the catchment area was designed to meet the needs of families in the development of Chafford Hundreds and that decision was not inherently unfair. I have concluded therefore, for the reasons provided above, that the catchment area is both reasonable and fair in the way the Code intends a catchment area to be.
I have also considered the arrangements as a whole for admission to the school in September 2015 and have concluded that several aspects of the arrangements detailed above, do not comply with the Code. With regard to these other issues of non-compliance the Code requires the admission authority to revise its admission arrangements as quickly as possible.
In accordance with section 88H(4) of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, I do not uphold the objection to the admission arrangements determined by the governing body of Harris Academy Chafford Hundred, the admission authority for the school, for admissions in September 2015.
I have also considered the arrangements as a whole in accordance with section 88I(5) of the Act and I determine that these do not conform with the requirements relating to admission arrangements.
By virtue of section 88K(2) of the Act the adjudicator’s decision is binding on the admission authority. The School Admissions Code requires the admission authority to revise its admission arrangements as quickly as possible.
Date: 2 October 2014
Signed: Adjudicator: Mrs Carol Parsons