Select Committee on Education and Skills Memoranda


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)

CriterionEngland secondary schools

N=2862

Community

N=2023

Voluntary- controlled

N=81

Voluntary-aided

N=401

Foundation

N=357

Siblings96% 98%99% 85%96%
Distance86% 91%93% 51%93%
Medical/social need 73%80% 80%35% 70%
Catchment area61% 67%70% 41%44%
First preference41% 48%40% 26%18%
Special educational needs 39% 48%44% 11%20%
Feeder school28% 26%33% 37%25%
Religion13% 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%
Banding3% 2%4% 8%2%
'Other faiths'3% 0%0% 23%0%
Ability/aptitude in subject area 3% 0%0% 7%11%
Pupil interviews2% 0%1% 16%1%
Strong family connection 2% 1%1% 5%3%
Parent interviews2% 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


 
previous page contents

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2003
Prepared 16 September 2003