SECONDARY SCHOOLS ADMISSIONS PROCEDURES
AND
CURRENT LEGISLATION
The highs and lows of current practice
Mo Laycock - Headteacher, Firth Park Community
Arts College, Sheffield
For consideration by the Select Committee
12/11/03
Context of Firth park Community Arts College
43% Free school meals.
47% On the SEN register for learning and/or emotional
behavioural problems.
25% Black and ethnic minorities. A large percentage
of refugees/asylum seekers.
1995 School in serious weaknesses. Mo Laycock appointed
September 1995.
Indicators
77% attendance.
10% 5 + A*-C GCSES.
Falling rolls.
Deficit budget.
Poor community reputation.
Low expectations within the school and community.
Split site school. 1.5 miles apart. Students and
staff travelling 2-3 times daily.
No discussions on teaching and learning. "The
community is to blame".
Steady decline since the loss of the steel industry
in Sheffield in the early 1980's.
2003
· Full
with a waiting list and appeals into the school. 1,365 on roll
11-16 yrs.
· 88 teaching
staff. 61 appointed by Mo Laycock.
· 5+A*-C
GCSES 28% 2003.
· Specialist
School Status in Performing Arts 2002.
· Extended
School for Sheffield LEA 2003-06.
· One
site new building and refurbishment completed Sept. 2000.
· Rigorous
Self Review and a 'can do/will do' culture.
· Excellent
Ofsted inspections 1997 & 2001. "Leadership at Firth
Park School is inspirational"
Ofsted 2001.
· Independent
shared 6th Form College to open on our old school site
for community 16-19 years old students - September 2004.
Situated in Sheffield Brightside political ward the
6th most deprived ward in the country. David Blunkett
is our MP; "The Full Monty" was filmed in our area.
High unemployment, single parents etc. Parochial community attitudes.
Sex 'n' drugs and rock 'n' roll are alive and well in our community.
A whole school belief that "Firth Park is Fantastic"
and can only get more Fantastic.
1995-2001 we suffered massive turbulence as a result
of spare places. Statistics at their highest were 24% turbulence.
Now much reduced as we are full as a school.
As a school in Challenging Circumstances and from
1995 involved in HMI monitoring visits, LEA focused support etc.
the issues around admissions, spare places, being instructed to
take difficult turbulent and consistently failing students was
a massive challenge to us. In trying hard to improve and make
a difference to the lives of students we were constantly hit with
"critical mass" issues re the numbers of challenging,
at risk, off the wall, failing students from dysfunctional families
with low self esteem, low self confidence and no belief in education.
These students demand copious amounts of time which we give freely
and creatively. Yet many of their problems are outside of our
control. This further damaged the school, had a detrimental effect
on decent, hardworking students and have caused us nightmare situations/experiences
including aggressive/violent parents/students and high rates of
exclusion.
Having marketed the school well, improved results,
worked hard on primary liaison strategies we are now full and
not able to receive problem students. This means we are better
off, but we have pushed the problem on to 3-4 other Sheffield
Secondary schools in inner city areas with surplus places. This
is not the answer to these problems.
The City of Sheffield
Sheffield has huge socio-economic differences from
Sheffield Hallam political ward and 6 schools with 6th forms being
at the top of the league table and always full with waiting lists.
Hallam is the most advantaged political ward in Europe.
There are 27 Secondary schools in Sheffield and they
divide fairly easily into 3 groups of 9. Group I - the most advantaged
areas of the city, including two voluntary aided R.C. schools
with their own admissions and selections criteria.
Group 2 - The middle of the road schools of 9 in
total. Mostly white highland schools in stable communities.
Group 3 - The 9 inner city schools. Of these the
following factors pertain:
Special Measures x 3 schools
Serious weaknesses x 4 schools
Fresh Start x 2 schools.
All 9 inner city schools are now out of all categories
and are improving at 2-3 times ahead of national averages. All
have suffered/continue to suffer at the hand of current admissions
legislation and turbulence issues. Current admissions legislation
allows the other 18 schools to be full or nearly full and prevents
them from having to take problem pupils, but these problem pupils
also have potential and aspirations. It is quite unfair to expect
schools with surplus spaces to have to engage these damaged and
difficult students whilst also being expected to improve at an
annual rate. We should be looking seriously at a brokerage arrangement
to share the potentials and problems of such students across all
27 schools in Sheffield to ensure equanimity and inclusive education,
as well as reducing critical mass problems.
Such a brokerage arrangement re admissions into schools
is within current legislation and could be possible via local
agreements to go above standard number dependent on school size.
Alternatively the legislation could be altered to improve equity
of admissions i.e.:-
School A - To go over standard nos. x 3 students
per year group. )
School B - 5 students per year group )
dependent on school size
" C - 6 students per year group )
In so doing all schools would share the burden, potential
and problems of turbulent students. The latter individuals would
get a better deal and the arrangement would be a more fair and
just one for all concerned.
The current situation re school admissions
I believe this to be a hot potato for any political
party and electorate votes. The Labour Government has introduced
an admissions Code of Practice. But there remains considerable
scope for schools, particularly for those responsible for their
own admissions policies and procedures and those in advantaged
and over subscribed areas to select. This can be seen to operate
at a covert and overt
level. I strongly believe that if education is ever
to move to an even playing field that these anomalies need to
be reduced.
All headteachers in urban areas should be seen to
be jointly responsible for an effective education of all Secondary
age students in an equitable way.
The educational reforms introduced in 1988 led to
the development of a 'quasi market' place in school education
system. Allowing voluntary aided schools and GM (Foundations schools)
to manage their own admissions arrangements equates to a selection
process by creaming off the best. This also maximises their league
table positions and is a self fulfilling prophecy, which says
little about the quality of teaching and learning but more about
positive/aspirant critical mass issues re students.
In 1998 the School Standards & Framework Act
set a new legal framework for admissions, associated with a code
of practice. This provided the LEA with an adjudicating responsibility
but little else changed.
This Code of Practice allowed a pecking order of
admission into a school based on parental preferencing and criteria
i.e. sibling, catchment, SEN, feeder schools etc.
Such admission arrangements allow selection via voluntary
aided, foundation schools and specialist schools where students
and sometimes parents are interviewed re suitability for placements
in the school.
Current legislation allows schools to select students
in order to gain a balanced intake of ability known as "banding".
This legislation encourages certain schools to select a skewed
cohort representation of higher ability students. This is not
comprehensive education in relation to the ideal and equanimity.
Students with SEN issues, refugees and asylum seekers
tend to be banded into certain schools with no selection criteria.
The criteria in relation to religious beliefs is another anomaly
for the comprehensive ideal.
In essence admission criteria are not objective or
fair and some would contravene current legislation in relation
to the Race Relations Act 1976.
In short, for some types of schools, there are clear
opportunities to select certain students, assume the links between
social background, prior attainment and exam performance, these
practices enable certain schools to obtain higher league table
positions than others (see West & Hind 2003). This has nothing
to do with effective teaching and learning but is based on socio
economic positions and a self fulfilling prophecy re League Tables.
Current legislation in relation to admissions criteria
allows divisive practice and some schools "doing well"
at the expense of others. This is not fulfilling the comprehensive
education ideal and is not about teaching and learning, but rather
more a self fulfilling inequitable prophecy which says more about
where pupils live than the quality of education.
Other issues for some schools in more challenging
areas who also have extra difficulties in relation to admitting
asylum seekers and refugees and the unpredictability of these
admissions whether students are able or otherwise. The funding
to support such students via EMAS grants is woefully poor and
does not meet the needs of such students. Schools have to make
choices about mainstreaming such students, funding the budget
resources to support them or alternatively ghettoising such young
people in a separate contained pathway and provision. This again
does not by any means meet the aims of the comprehensive school
ideal.
I believe that legislation should change to ensure
that community youngsters attend their community Secondary school
only. I also believe that extra funding should be allocated to
schools where levels of deprivation, turbulence, asylum seekers/refugees
are high, to allow access to an even playing field. I believe
all Secondary schools should take responsibility for all turbulent
and difficult Secondary age students to share this potential.
The current admission process and legislation
is fraught with anomalies and opportunities for some schools to
exploit the system and be advantaged by these opportunities, whilst
ensuring that other schools work under enormous and unfair pressures
to ensure a process of improvement.
Mo Laycock
Headteacher
5/11/03
| 
