The contentious ruling had permitted a school to implement the method.
The contentious ruling had permitted a school to implement the method.
A debated judgment permitting a school to adopt fair banding has been rescinded by the admissions authority following allegations that crucial evidence was overlooked.
The Office of the Schools Adjudicator (OSA) determined last week to dismiss Bradford council’s challenge to prevent Carlton Bolling secondary from implementing the controversial method.
However, Schools Week has learned that the authority has now opted to retract its previous ruling, which has since been removed from its website.
The Department for Education stated that the ruling will “either be reissued with notifications to the involved parties or reassigned to a different adjudicator to assess the relevance of the overlooked evidence.”
Under Carlton Bolling’s proposal, students would undergo testing on Saturdays, resulting in division into nine ability bands. The intake from each band would correspond to the percentage of applicants in that category.
The ‘outstanding’ school claimed its existing admission system “unfairly favored those residing close to the school,” leading to a lower enrollment of disadvantaged students. They argued that fair banding would rectify this issue.
Conversely, Bradford council contended that the arrangements would “not necessarily” reflect the local population, but the ability levels of applicants.
As the school was rated ‘outstanding’, a larger number of high-achieving pupils could apply compared to those in the local area, raising concerns among neighboring school leaders, who asserted that these changes “disadvantage specific groups” and compel others in the vicinity to handle more complex student needs.
OSA had opted to dismiss the appeal
Nonetheless, adjudicator Philip Lloyd, in his previous ruling, stated that the school has “ensured that the banding system is accessible for all students.”
He further noted that there was “no evidence indicating that children within the catchment area would be disadvantaged.”
Additionally, he highlighted that Bradford failed to provide any evidence to back concerns that the assessments might deter vulnerable applicants.
Guidance from the DfE states that “adjudicator’s decisions are binding, enforceable, and can only be contested through judicial review in the High Court.”
Trish D’Souza, a legal director at Browne Jacobson, observed that whilst the OSA’s “published process does not express an ability to annul its own determination and reassess the situation, all public entities must make their decisions justly and reasonably.”
If a public organization thinks its decision was irrational or unreasonable, that would, in public law practice, justify a re-examination of its decision.
A spokesperson from Bradford council confirmed that they had been “notified by the schools adjudicator’s office of the withdrawal of the decision.” The authority reported having “no further information at this time.”
Carlton Academy Trust, which oversees the school, chose not to comment.
