Memorandum submitted by Professor Anne
West (SA 17)
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[1]
criteria carried out by West & Hind (2003)[2]
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 (eg 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 (eg priority
to children of employees, children of former pupils, children
with ability/aptitude in a subject area). One in 10 voluntary-aided
schools interviewed parents and slightly more interviewed pupils.
— Ongoing analysis suggests that one
in five secondary schools used overtly selective criteria (eg
partial selection on the basis of ability/aptitude, primary school
record) or potentially discriminatory criteria (eg priority to
children of school employees/former pupils/governors) or subjective
criteria/practices allowing for administrative discretion (eg
interviews, compassionate/pastoral factors). This means that certain
schools can effectively "choose" particular pupils and
not others (eg 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" (s 3.15).[3]
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 (s A.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 children of employees,
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 (eg 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 (eg 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% of state-maintained secondary schools in England
was created and oversubscription criteria[4]
recorded on a school-by-school basis (see West & Hind, 2003).
Key findings are presented below.[5]
4.2 Our analysis revealed that some admissions
criteria can be construed as being broadly objective, clear, fair
and equitable (eg 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.[6]
However, voluntary-aided and foundation schools were far more
likely to select on this basis than community or voluntary-controlled
schools.[7]
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.[8]
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%
of voluntary-aided schools in our sample reported interviewing
parents and 16% reported interviewing pupils.[9]
4.6 Ongoing analysis suggests that one in
five secondary schools used overtly selective criteria (eg partial
selection on the basis of ability/aptitude, primary school record)
or potentially discriminatory criteria (eg priority to children
of school employees/former pupils/governors) or subjective criteria/practices
allowing for administrative discretion (eg interviews, compassionate/pastoral
factors).[10]
This means that certain schools can effectively "choose"
particular pupils and not others (eg 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.[11]
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 (eg 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% of schools.[12]
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 (eg parents' occupations, child's primary
school record[13])
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.
— West, A & Hind, A (2003) Secondary
Schools in London: Admissions Criteria and Cream Skimming. www.risetrust.org.uk/admissions.html
1 Excluding grammar schools. Back
2
See 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 Back
3
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
4
For admission in September 2001 in the majority of cases. Back
5
These findings, except where stated otherwise, refer to admissions
to non-grammar schools. Back
6
5.9% of specialist schools versus 1.7% of non-specialist schools. Back
7
6.5% voluntary-aided schools, 11.2% foundation schools, 0.3%
community schools and 0% voluntary-controlled schools. Back
8
The distinction between aptitude, ability and achievement is
not clear. For example, one school selected up to 10% 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
9
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
10
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
11
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
12
Virtually all were community schools. Back
13
Our research found that the child's school record/headteacher's
report was used by a small proportion (1%) of schools. Back
| 
