Memorandum submitted
by Professor Anne West
Executive Summary
Two pieces of research on secondary school admissions
in England have recently been conducted by the Centre for Educational
Research (CER) at the London School of Economics and Political
Science in conjunction with the Research and Information on State
Education Trust (see West & Ingram, 2001; West & Hind,
2003).
¨ West
& Ingram (2001) investigated objections to school admissions
made to the Office of the Schools Adjudicator during the first
13 months of its operation. In the main, objections related to
such issues as partial selection, interviews and whether employees/children
of former pupils should have priority for places. The majority
of objections relating to partial selection were not upheld by
the schools adjudicator. Objections to priority being given to
children of former pupils of the school and to children with a
parent employed at the school were upheld; adjudicators reasoned
that these could discriminate against certain groups of pupils.
¨ Analysis
of secondary school admissions criteria[1]
carried out by West & Hind (2003) revealed variation in the
criteria used (see Annexes A and B). A number of
these can be construed as being broadly objective, clear and fair
(e.g. distance, feeder schools and siblings).
¨ Community/voluntary-controlled
schools were more likely than voluntary-aided/foundation schools
to include as oversubscription criteria pupils with medical/social
needs and pupils with special educational needs. Voluntary-aided/foundation
secondary schools on the other hand were more likely than others
to use criteria that enable them to 'select in' certain groups
of pupils and 'select out' others (e.g. priority to children of
employees, children of
former pupils, children with ability/aptitude in a subject area).
One in ten voluntary-aided schools interviewed parents and slightly
more interviewed pupils.
¨ Ongoing
analysis suggests that one in five secondary schools used overtly
selective criteria (e.g. partial selection on the basis of ability/aptitude,
primary school record) or potentially discriminatory criteria
(e.g. priority to children of school employees/former pupils/governors)
or subjective criteria/practices allowing for administrative discretion
(e.g. interviews, compassionate/pastoral factors). This means
that certain schools can effectively 'choose' particular pupils
and not others (e.g. the less able and the more challenging).
In short, certain parents are less likely to have their 'choice'
realised than others.
¨ City
Technology Colleges are intended to be representative of the full
ability range of pupils in the catchment area. However, the use
of various selection criteria mean that in practice such schools
cannot be considered to be genuine 'all ability schools'.
¨ It is
recommended that: (1) the Office of the Schools Adjudicator should
have a more pro-active role and be able to undertake investigations
of policy and practice of individual admission authorities; (2)
admissions policies should be audited by an outside body,
such as the Office of the Schools Adjudicator, OFSTED or the Audit
Commission; (3) the Department for Education and Skills (DfES)
should provide comprehensive guidance on acceptable criteria;
one possibility would be to provide a 'menu' of admissions criteria;
(4) the DfES should commission research to explore the characteristics
of successful and unsuccessful applicants for admission to secondary
schools of different types (community, voluntary-controlled, voluntary-aided,
foundation) in terms of such factors as key stage 2 results, known
free school meals eligibility and ethnicity.
1 Introduction
1.1 Research on secondary school admissions has
recently been carried out by the Centre for Educational Research
(CER) at the London School of Economics and Political Science.
This short submission provides an introduction to policy in relation
to school admissions and then describes two significant pieces
of research that have been carried out by the CER in conjunction
with the Research and Information on State Education Trust. The
first of these explored objections made about school admissions
to the Office of the Schools Adjudicator and the second examined
admissions criteria used in English secondary schools. The final
section concludes the memorandum and presents a number of policy
recommendations.
2 Policy context
2.1 The 1998 School Standards and Framework Act
and accompanying regulations set a new legal framework for admissions.
Associated with the legislation is a Code of Practice on School
Admissions. The first Code of Practice came into force on 1 April
1999 and applied to arrangements leading to admissions from September
2000 onwards; a new Code of Practice came into force on 31 January
2003 (DfES, 2003). Key aspects of the Code of Practice relate
to the provision of information for parents and guidance concerning
the admissions process. Information on oversubscription criteria
that admission authorities (LEAs, voluntary-aided and foundation
schools) should use is also provided: where more parents have
expressed a preference for a particular school in a given year
than it has places available, the admission authority must apply
the oversubscription criteria in its published admission policy
in deciding which parents' preferences it should meet.
2.2 Specific reference is made to partial selection,
which is permitted in some circumstances but not others. The first
Code of Practice addressed the issue of interviews stating that
schools or admission authorities should not interview parents
as any part of the application or admission process, although
church schools may do so, but only in order to establish a person's
religion, including religious denomination or practice. It is
significant that the revised Code of Practice (DfES, 2003) states
that for the admission round leading to September 2005 intakes
and subsequently 'no parents or children should be interviewed
as any part of the application or admission process, in any school
except a boarding school' (s3.15).[2]
2.3 Turning specifically to oversubscription
criteria, the Code of Practice (DfES, 2003) states that the admission
authority has a fairly wide discretion in deciding what these
oversubscription criteria should be, provided that the criteria
are not unlawful; the admission authority has considered the factors
which it believes to be most important in ensuring that children
receive an efficient and suitable education and has had regard
to guidance in the Code; and the criteria are clear, fair and
objective and are published (sA.51).
2.4 One of the mechanisms introduced by the Labour
Government was the 'schools adjudicator', designed to resolve
local disputes in relation to, amongst other issues, school admissions.
Objections can be made to adjudicators by admission authorities
and in the case of certain existing partially selective arrangements,
by parents (from 2003, community and voluntary-controlled schools
can also object). The Centre for Educational Research has carried
out research on the objections made to the Office of the Schools
Adjudicator.
3 Objections made to
the Office of the Schools Adjudicator
3.1 West & Ingram (2001) investigated objections
to school admissions made to the Office of the Schools Adjudicator
during the first 13 months of its operation (July 1999 to the
end of July 2000). During the period in question, there were rulings
on 57 objections relating to admissions. These related to admissions
policies in different parts of the country, but the vast majority
were in London and the South East of England. In almost all cases
they were in LEAs with a variety of school types co-existing -
such as foundation schools, voluntary-aided schools, fully selective
schools and partially selective schools.
3.2 Objections to the Office of the Schools Adjudicator
related, in the main, to issues such as partial selection by ability/aptitude,
interviews, whether employees/children of former pupils should
have priority for places, concern about the testing procedures,
and feeder schools to named secondary schools (West & Ingram,
2001). The majority of objections relating to partial selection
were not upheld by the schools adjudicator; in some cases the
objection was partially upheld (e.g. by partial selection being
reduced) but in only two cases was the objection upheld (in both
these cases the partial selection by ability was deemed unlawful,
as it had been introduced after the 1997/98 school year).
3.3 Across all the examined adjudications, none
of the objections to priority being given to children of former
pupils of the school provided evidence showing specific examples
of adverse effects, but each time the adjudicator decided that
such admissions criteria were unfair and objections were thus
upheld. In several additional cases an admissions criterion referred
to priority being given to children with a parent employed at
the school; this, it was also reasoned, could discriminate against
traveller and refugee children who had moved to the area and was
thus contrary to the Race Relations Act 1976.
3.4 Our analysis of the 'quasi-regulation' of
school admissions (West & Ingram, 2001) revealed that the
new legislation and accompanying Code of Practice has had some
impact on admissions to secondary schools. Some inequitable admissions
criteria have been removed for some schools. This is more apparent
with some criteria than others (e.g. children of employees having
priority). In other cases, and particularly in relation to partial
selection by ability or aptitude, adjudicators reduced partial
selection in some, but not all cases.
4 Secondary schools
admissions criteria
4.1 Research on admissions criteria has also
been carried out by the Centre for Educational Research. A database
of 95 per cent of state-maintained secondary schools in England
was created and oversubscription criteria[3]
recorded on a school-by-school basis (see West & Hind, 2003).
Key findings are presented below.[4]
4.2 Our analysis revealed that some admissions
criteria can be construed as being broadly objective, clear, fair
and equitable (e.g. distance and siblings). However, in a significant
minority of schools, notably those that were their own admission
authorities (voluntary-aided and foundation schools) a variety
of criteria were used which appeared to be designed to 'select
in' certain groups of pupils and 'select out' others. These 'selective'
criteria included giving priority to children of employees; to
children of former pupils
and the use of partial selection by ability/aptitude in a subject
or by general ability (see Annex A and Annex B).
4.3 We found that specialist schools were more
likely than non-specialist schools to report selecting a proportion
of pupils on the basis of aptitude/ability in a particular subject
area.[5]
However, voluntary-aided and foundation schools were far more
likely to select on this basis than community or voluntary-controlled
schools.[6]
The issue of partial selection by aptitude/ability is thus more
a function of whether schools are in control of their own admissions
than of specialist school status.[7]
4.4 It is noteworthy that criteria giving priority
to children with medical or social needs were given for nearly
three-quarters of schools; however, community/voluntary-controlled
schools were far more likely to include this as a criterion than
voluntary-aided/foundation schools. Turning to special educational
needs, nearly two-fifths of schools mentioned this as an oversubscription
criterion. Again, these were predominantly community/voluntary-controlled
schools as opposed to voluntary-aided/foundation schools (see
Annex A).
4.5 The practice of interviewing parents and/or
pupils as part of the admission process will not be permitted
under the new Code of Practice; at the time of our study, 10 per
cent of voluntary-aided schools in our sample reported interviewing
parents and 16 per cent reported interviewing pupils.[8]
4.6 Ongoing analysis suggests that one in five
secondary schools used overtly selective criteria (e.g. partial
selection on the basis of ability/aptitude, primary school record)
or potentially discriminatory criteria (e.g. priority to children
of school employees/former pupils/governors) or subjective criteria/practices
allowing for administrative discretion (e.g. interviews, compassionate/pastoral
factors).[9]
This means that certain schools can effectively 'choose' particular
pupils and not others (e.g. the less able and the more challenging).
In short, certain parents are less likely to have their 'choice'
realised than others.
4.7 Some grammar schools, which are by definition
academically selective, also used a range of practices which make
such schools even more 'exclusive' than would otherwise be the
case by using as oversubscription criteria such factors as aptitude/ability
in a subject area or giving priority to the children of former
pupils (see West & Hind, 2003).
4.8 City Technology Colleges are intended to
be representative of the full ability range of pupils in the catchment
area. We found that whilst some attempt was made to obtain a balanced
intake in terms of pupils' cognitive ability, other selection
criteria - including, for example, school reports, tests of 'aptitude',
a writing test to assess 'motivation' to succeed, and questions
relating to parents' occupations - mean that in practice such
schools cannot be considered to be genuine 'all ability schools'.
4.9 In short, for some types of schools, there
are clear opportunities for schools to 'select in' and 'select
out' pupils; given the links between social background, prior
attainment and later examination performance, it seems likely
that these practices enable some such schools to obtain higher
positions in examination 'league tables' than others.[10]
5 Conclusions and policy
recommendations
Conclusions
5.1 Despite attempts by the government to reform
school admissions, the evidence reported in this submission reveals
that there is considerable room for improvement. Admissions criteria
that are not objective, clear or fair continue to be used. The
situation should improve with the new Code of Practice (DfES,
2003).
5.2 The new Code of Practice reiterates the concerns
about oversubscription criteria that are potentially discriminatory,
but were nonetheless in operation at the time of our study (e.g.
giving preference to children whose parents or older siblings
had previously attended the school, or to children with a parent
employed at the school).
5.3 One issue raised in the Code of Practice,
but addressed by very few admission authorities relates to children
in public care, who are a particularly disadvantaged group. The
Code recommends that 'all admission authorities give these children
top priority in their oversubscription criteria'. Our analysis
of admissions criteria revealed that this was a criterion for
only 2 per cent of schools.[11]
5.4 Another issue that is mentioned in the Code
of Practice relates to children with statements of special educational
needs; where a school is named in the statement, pupils are required
to be admitted to that school. This is an area where current practice
could be improved. The admissions criteria and brochures we analysed
were not consistent in terms of what information was provided.
It would be in the interests of parents, especially those with
children with special educational needs, to have information about
this issue.
5.5 The majority of schools use admissions criteria
that are not overtly or covertly selective. However, the policies
adopted by a minority of schools are likely to have a negative
impact on the intake to other schools, especially in certain parts
of the country. It appears likely that more regulation is needed
to prevent a continuation of policies and practices that are inequitable
and contrary to the principles of social justice.
5.6 The research reported here focused on admissions
criteria; however it is not known whether admissions authorities
adhere to their stated policies. This is an area that needs further
investigation. A related point is that parents may have to fill
in application forms for schools that are their own admission
authority; it is important that application forms do not seek
information (e.g. parents' occupations, child's primary school
record[12])
that would enable them to 'select in' and 'select out' certain
groups of pupils.
Policy recommendations
5.7 The Office of the Schools Adjudicator should
have a more pro-active role and be able to undertake investigations
of individual admission authorities. Such investigations should
include a detailed examination of both policy and actual practice.
5.8 Admissions policies of individual
admission authorities should be audited by an outside body, such
as the Office of the Schools Adjudicator, OFSTED or the Audit
Commission to ensure that they are in accordance with DfES guidance.
5.9 The Department for Education and Skills should
provide comprehensive guidance on acceptable criteria, ideally
with a 'menu' of acceptable admissions criteria included in the
Code of Practice.
5.10 The Department for Education and Skills
should commission research to explore the characteristics of successful
and unsuccessful applicants for admission to secondary schools
of different types (community, voluntary-controlled, voluntary-aided,
foundation) in terms of such factors as key stage 2 results, known
free school meals eligibility and ethnicity.
References
Department for Education and Skills (1999) Code of
Practice on School Admissions. London: DfES.
Department for Education and Skills (2003) Code of
Practice on School Admissions. London: DfES.
West, A. & Hind, A. (2003) Secondary school admissions
in England: Exploring the extent of overt and covert selection,
London: Research and Information on State Education Trust. www.risetrust.org.uk/admissions.html
West, A. & Ingram, D. (2001) Making school admissions
fairer? Quasi-regulation under New Labour, Educational Management
and Administration, 29, 4, 459-473.
Annex A Admissions
criteria used
Table A1 England: secondary schools admissions
criteria (excluding grammar schools)
| Criterion | England secondary schools
N=2862
| Community
N=2023
| Voluntary- controlled
N=81
| Voluntary-aided
N=401
| Foundation
N=357
|
| Siblings | 96%
| 98% | 99%
| 85% | 96%
|
| Distance | 86%
| 91% | 93%
| 51% | 93%
|
| Medical/social need |
73% | 80%
| 80% | 35%
| 70% |
| Catchment area | 61%
| 67% | 70%
| 41% | 44%
|
| First preference | 41%
| 48% | 40%
| 26% | 18%
|
| Special educational needs
| 39% |
48% | 44%
| 11% | 20%
|
| Feeder school | 28%
| 26% | 33%
| 37% | 25%
|
| Religion | 13%
| 0% | 16%
| 92% | 0%
|
| Children of employees |
9% | 5%
| 3% | 13%
| 28% |
| Difficult journey |
6% | 7%
| 9% | 2%
| 6% |
| Children of former pupils
| 5% |
3% | 1%
| 10% | 12%
|
| Banding | 3%
| 2% | 4%
| 8% | 2%
|
| 'Other faiths' | 3%
| 0% | 0%
| 23% | 0%
|
| Ability/aptitude in subject area
| 3% |
0% | 0%
| 7% | 11%
|
| Pupil interviews | 2%
| 0% | 1%
| 16% | 1%
|
| Strong family connection
| 2% |
1% | 1%
| 5% | 3%
|
| Parent interviews | 2%
| 0% | 0%
| 10% | 0%
|
Note: This table does not provide an exhaustive listing
of admissions criteria/practices used.
Annex B Examples of
criteria used by schools
Voluntary-aided secondary school
Group A
1. Children of worshipping members of the Church
of England including those worshipping at the Cathedral (up to
58 places).
2. Cathedral day choristers (up to 8 places).
3. Children of staff currently at the school
at the time of application.
4. Brothers and sisters of children attending
the school at the time of application.
5. Children of other worshipping members of other
Christian denominations and faiths.
6. Children of any other applicants to the limit
of the places available, according to proximity to the school.
Group B
Pupils selected by ability as measured by the school's
assessment procedures in merit order for a maximum of 15 places.
1. 12 of these places will be selected on overall
academic ability.
2. 3 of these places will be selected on musical
ability.
Voluntary-aided secondary school
Category A1
(i) Children of families…actively involved
in local RC communities (max 118 places).
(ii) Children of families…actively involved
in Anglican Church Communities (min 40 places).
Should the numbers in any one sub-category exceed
the number of places the following criteria will be applied.
(a) evidence of significant involvement…in
the church…
(a) evidence of some involvement…
(b) number of years the family has been involved…
Category A2
Children of families who are members, but not active
members of the local RC and Anglican Church communities…with
reasons…which deserve priority.
Should the numbers in this category exceed the number
of places the following criteria will be applied
(a) evidence of some involvement...
(b) number of years family involved…
(c) weight of reasons…
Category A3
Notwithstanding all of the above…special consideration…child
with special educational needs, medical problems, or exceptional
domestic or social problems…with appropriate evidence.
Category A4
…applications from parents of other Christian
denominations…supported in writing ..
Tie break:
(i) brother or sister attending
(ii) greater number of years the siblings would
be part of the same school
(iii) weight of reasons…
Voluntary-aided secondary school
The governors consider that it is reasonable to ensure
that prospective pupils can demonstrate their clear wish to be
educated within an environment that has clear and strong emphasis
on nautical activities and seafaring traditions. The criteria
to be applied in rank order are:
1. Demonstration of a clear commitment to [the
school's] nautical ethos, and a wish to pursue a nautical career.
(The Governors would assess this through an interview
in which prospective pupils are given the opportunity to demonstrate
their interests and ambitions with regard to the school, and express
how they would take full advantage of the specialist education
offered. The assessment criteria used for the interviews will
be available from the school.)
2. Sibling links.
3. Geographical distance.
Foundation secondary school
1. Residents within [three named] parishes.
2. Children with a brother or sister attending
the school.
3. Children who have benefited from a period
of residence outside the UK leading to experience of a language/culture
other than English.
4. Children influenced by the culture/language
of another country as a result of residence there of one or more
parents.
5. Children influenced by the culture/language
of another country as a result of work/interests of one or more
parents.
6. Children with a proven interest in language/culture
outside the UK.
7. Children whose parents work/interests are
connected with other countries.
8. Proximity of home to school, those living
closest being accorded higher priority.
Foundation secondary school
Allocation of places will follow the criteria in
order as published:
· Siblings
of pupils at present on roll at the School
· 10%
places for pupils by aptitude for Music by audition
· 5% places
for pupils by aptitude for Dance by audition
· 10%
places for pupils with Technological Aptitude
· Pupils
whose parent works at the School
· Remaining
places allocated by geographical proximity to the School
Foundation secondary school
In applying for admission at [name of school] the
governing body assumes that parents are seeking a school which
provides:
a) an all-round education which has enhancements
in science and technology and which stresses enterprise skills.
b) post-16 courses.
b) an ethos which encourages learning and which insists
upon the highest standards of behaviour, commitment to work, attendance
and dress.
These points, therefore, are explicitly stated on
the admissions form.
Conscious that the school was specifically set up
to provide enhanced opportunities for pupils throughout the city
and the surrounding area and that additional funding is provided
to the school for this purpose, the governing body has determined
that admission to the school, in the first instance, must ensure
that all interested parents/pupils should have a reasonable expectation
of admission. In consequence, therefore, each primary school within
the defined area will be allocated a number of places determined
by size and relative accessibility to the school and the absence
of otherwise of a viable alternative.
In the event of oversubscription the following criteria
are used, in order:
(i) the child with the lower level of unauthorised
absence in year 5 having priority.
(ii) the child with the higher overall attendance
in year 5 having priority.
September 2003
1 Excluding grammar schools. Back
2
However, the Code notes that 'auditions which are part of objective
testing for aptitude conducted by a school with a specialism in
a prescribed subject' may be carried out in accordance with its
published admission arrangements. Back
3
For admission in September 2001 in the majority of cases. Back
4
These findings, except where stated otherwise, refer to admissions
to non-grammar schools. Back
5
5.9 per cent of specialist schools versus 1.7 per cent of non-specialist
schools. Back
6
6.5 per cent voluntary-aided schools, 11.2 per cent foundation
schools, 0.3 per cent community schools and 0 per cent voluntary-controlled
schools. Back
7
The distinction between aptitude, ability and achievement is not
clear. For example, one school selected up to 10 per cent of
pupils on the basis of 'proven aptitude in music'; children applying
under this criterion needed to have 'achieved at least Grade III
of the Associated Board…in an instrument or voice'. This
can be construed as a measure of ability or aptitude or achievement
- or all three. Back
8
27 Roman Catholic schools, 11 Church of England schools and 4
schools of other religions or denominations reported interviewing
parents; the comparable figures for schools interviewing pupils
were 45, 13 and 11 respectively. Back
9
This is likely to be an underestimate as some schools used idiosyncratic
criteria (see examples in Annex B). It is important to
note that not all voluntary-aided and foundation schools provided
their admissions criteria (see West & Hind, 2003). Back
10
An analysis of the percentage of pupils gaining five or more GCSEs
at grades A* to C between 1997 and 2000 found an increase of 3.6
percentage points across all types of maintained secondary schools
in our database. However, this figure was only 2.8 for voluntary-controlled
schools and 3.4 for community schools, whilst for voluntary-aided
schools it was 4.3 and for foundation schools 4.4 percentage points
(both of these types of school are in control of their admissions).
Back
11
Virtually all were community schools. Back
12
Our research found that the child's school record/headteacher's
report was used by a small proportion (1 per cent) of schools. Back
| 
