3
(1)
Every local authority shall make arrangements for enabling a parent—
(a)
on whom a copy of a proposed statement has been served under paragraph 2,
(b)
on whom a copy of a proposed amended statement has been served under paragraph 2A, or
(c)
on whom an amendment notice has been served under paragraph 2A which contains a proposed amendment about —
(i)
the type or name of a school or institution, or
(ii)
the provision made for the child concerned under arrangements made under section 319,
to be specified in the statement, to express a preference as to the maintained school at which he wishes education to be provided for his child and to give reasons for his preference.
(2)
Any such preference must be expressed or made within the period of 15 days beginning—
(a)
with the date on which the written notice mentioned in paragraph 2B was served on the parent, or
(b)
if a meeting has (or meetings have) been arranged under paragraph 4(1)(b) or (2), with the date fixed for that meeting (or the last of those meetings).
Cases considering Schedule 27, paragraph 3 16
[2014] EWCA Civ 397 · 2 April 2014Interprets
Paragraph 3 concerns the initial expression and implementation of parental preference for a maintained school. Its structure is compared with paragraph 8 to support the availability of section 324(4)(b). (see paras [9]-[10], [22]-[23])
Paragraph 3(1) requires arrangements enabling a parent to express a preference for the maintained school at which the child is to be educated. The provision forms part of the comparison with a later change of named school. (see para [9])
Paragraph 3(3) requires specification of the parent’s preferred school unless a statutory exception applies. Its equivalent structure is used to support applying section 324(4)(b) to paragraph 8. (see paras [9]-[10], [22]-[23])
Paragraph 3(3)(b) uses the efficient-use-of-resources criterion. The court applies the reasoning in B v Harrow London Borough Council to conclude that the relevant resources are those of the authority performing the statutory functions. (see para [13])
[2014] EWCA Civ 398 · 2 April 2014Limits
The efficient-use-of-resources limb concerns the responsible local authority’s own resources. It does not determine the meaning or scope of the separate section 9 inquiry into public expenditure generally. (see paras [9]; [14]-[16]; [27]; [39]-[40])
The suitability limb forms part of the preliminary school-naming inquiry. If the preferred school is not unsuitable to the child’s needs, the authority must proceed to consider the remaining statutory qualifications. (see para [40])
The efficient-education and efficient-use-of-resources qualifications apply to the authority’s decision whether to name the preferred school. The efficient-use-of-resources question is confined to the authority’s own resources. (see paras [9]; [14]-[16]; [40])
[2012] EWCA Civ 346 · 21 March 2012
The Court applied paragraph 3 as requiring the parental preference and the statutory exceptions to be considered in deciding which school should be specified. Transport costs could form part of that inquiry where the local authority put them in issue (see paras [39]-[48]).
1 more judgment, and what each says about Schedule 27, paragraph 3, are in the
case-law panel in the full Act.