Wandsworth London Borough Council, R (on the application of) v The Schools Adjudicator

An adjudicator considering objections to school admission arrangements must address their substance, but remains confined by the objection actually made. A decision to modify arrangements must be rationally capable of addressing the unfairness identified. Where a school’s intake is already balanced, a speculative and indirect benefit to another school cannot rationally justify reducing that school’s selective places. The adjudicator may consider the cumulative effect of changes across several schools, but the reasoning must explain how the particular modification advances the identified objective.

Wandsworth London Borough Council, the admissions authority for Ernest Bevin College, sought judicial review of the Schools Adjudicator’s determination on objections to partial selection by ability at three Wandsworth schools. The adjudicator reduced Ernest Bevin College’s selective places from 33 per cent to 30 per cent, while also reducing the proportions at the other two schools.

The Council argued that the adjudicator had exceeded the substance of the objections, breached natural justice, relied on factual errors and adopted an irrational remedy. The central issue was whether the reduction at Ernest Bevin College was within jurisdiction and rationally supported by the findings.

1. Application granted. The adjudicator’s decision was flawed insofar as it reduced Ernest Bevin College’s selective intake. The judge’s provisional view was that only that part of the determination should be quashed.
2. An adjudicator is entitled to consider the substance of an objection. Lay objectors are not expected to formulate objections in the manner of pleadings. The objection prescribes the scope of consideration, but the precise boundary depends on the nature of the objection and the facts. Here, the substance included the alleged effect of partial selection across the three schools on the intake at Battersea Technical College and on local parents.
3. The adjudicator had jurisdiction to consider whether Ernest Bevin College’s intake would differ without partial selection, even though the principal complaint that its existing intake was unbalanced had failed. The Council had understood and answered the central objection, and there was no practical unfairness in the adjudicator not inviting further submissions before considering the implications.
4. The reduction was irrational. The adjudicator found that Ernest Bevin College’s intake was not significantly imbalanced and was broadly comparable with schools using fair banding. He also found that partial selection was not a sufficient or primary cause of the relevant unfairness, and that the small number of able pupils indirectly released from Ernest Bevin College were unlikely to attend Battersea Technical College. The proposed benefit was therefore speculative and could not meaningfully advance the objective of improving that school’s standards.
5. The adjudicator could consider the cumulative effect of changes at all three schools. That did not cure the absence of a rational connection between the reduction at Ernest Bevin College and the unfairness identified. Factual errors were not, individually or collectively, sufficient to invalidate the determination, and it was unnecessary to decide whether the unexplained figure of 3 per cent supplied an additional ground.

First-instance judicial review proceedings. The application was granted and the part of the adjudicator’s determination affecting Ernest Bevin College was to be quashed.