Memorandum submitted by Professor John
Coldron (SA 2)
SUMMARY
1. Some of the main concerns and issues
around admission policies are parental satisfaction, equitability,
effects on school intake and composition, whether they help or
hinder collaboration, efficiency in the use of resources, and
effects of travel on the urban environment.
2. While in England as a whole the great
majority of parents receive offers for a place in a school with
which they are satisfied more problems are experienced in urban
areas and these can be very some in some hot spots with London
having particular problems.
3. Polarisation of parental perception of
schools is the main reason for the admission crisis in particular
hot-spots.
4. There are pressures towards segregation
especially in areas where there is polarisation of perception.
The fact that these pressures have not resulted in significant
segregation does not mean the pressures are not there.
5. For parents who engage in the choice
process the most important ingredient of choice (together with
practical considerations) is the intake of the school.
6. The majority of parents want their children
to go to a good local school.
7. It is still true in most areas that where
you live largely determines the school your child will attend.
8. Anxiety is generated when access to acceptable
schools is unpredictable and the process is complex or literally
unmanageable.
9. Some schools use admission arrangements
to manage their intake so as to increase their proportion of easier
to educate children.
10. Specialist school status in itself is
not likely to lead to a change in the intake of a school relative
to others in an area but the unilateral use of the option to select,
probably would.
11. School procedures for testing for aptitude
reflect a high level of control and a low level of accountability
on the part of schools.
1. Some of the concerns and issues around
admissions policies
1.1 Parental satisfaction: Parents
and their children may experience high levels of anxiety about
admission procedures to secondary school through unpredictability
and delay about final decisions. As to outcomes, the majority
of parents feel strongly about which school their children attend
and may feel desperate when their preferences are not met. Some
of the more powerful reasons for choice are fear about the quality
of education and about the moral and physical safety of their
children at particular schools; sincere beliefs about the need
for their child to be educated in accordance with religious or
moral principles; and practical issues of family organisation,
like childcare, that if disrupted by school admission can cause
great personal difficulty.
1.2 Equitability: A major dilemma
is whether an admissions policy should provide equality of opportunity
for parents to gain access to what are perceived to be unequal
schools or whether instead it should attempt to mitigate the unequal
educational performance of schools consequent on the social segregation
of intake by balancing intakes or in some other way. An unavoidable
problem is that choice for some parents (eg to attend a school
other than their nearest school) reduces the choice for others
(eg those who live close to the school).
1.3 School intake/composition: Admissions
policies directly affect the composition of the school intake
which in turn is closely associated with certain measures of school
performance. Because of the nature of their intake some schools
have a relatively difficult task in many ways (Thrupp 1999) including
to educate the same proportion of their pupils to similar attainment
levels. This is most obviously true of grammar and secondary modern
schools whose admissions criteria, despite other concerns, are
transparent, familiar and well understood. Some admission arrangements
may allow a less transparent form of selection of intake by schools
that results in segregation on the basis of socio-economic status
or ethnicity or attainment. This has currently focused on the
partially selective procedures such as the selective option of
Specialist schools but schools can also exercise selection in
other ways for example through catchment areas or religious criteria.
The way parents choose schools is also a significant pressure
towards segregation of school intake.
1.4 Collaboration and competition:
There is currently an emphasis on collaboration as a means of
spreading good practice and improving schools. Admission arrangements,
and the kinds of relations they encourage or discourage between
schools, may hinder or help the growth of collaboration. Particularly
salient is the level of competition in relevant areas to attract
easier to educate children.
1.5 Efficiency: Admission arrangements
can and do absorb a great deal of resource on the part of schools,
local authorities and central government. This includes spending
on managing the preference system and the school stock to accommodate
all preferences and the level of appeals that result. Some systems
may be more cost effective than others.
1.6 Concern for the urban environment:
there is an issue of wider environmental concern. Some admission
arrangements may lead to greater travel within already congested
urban areas. There is some responsibility to try, wherever possible,
to reduce rather than increase the problems caused by the "school
run".
2. The management of admissions in England
2.1 In England the local management of admissions
has led to a great variety of arrangements (Williams et al 2001;
White et al 2001). Although all publicly maintained schools (and
this includes Foundation and Voluntary Aided schools) are bound
by a common code of practice determined by central government
(DfEE 1999; and, from 2004-5 DfEE 2003), the history, geography
and politics of different locations have had a considerable effect
on the adoption of particular admission arrangements in an area.
2.2 There has been a sense of seasonal crisis
concerning school admissions (O'Reilly and Ludlow 2002). Some
schools are inundated with applications while others cannot fill
the places they offer (Coldron et al 2002). Appeals for secondary
school places are rising year on year (DfES 2001).
Table 1
ADMISSION APPEALS SECONDARY SCHOOLS: APPEALS
LODGED AND HEARD AGAINST NON-ADMISSION OF CHILDREN TO MAINTAINED
PRIMARY SCHOOLS IN ENGLAND 1995-96—1999-2001
|
| 1995-96
| 1996-97 | 1997-98
| 1998-99 | 1999-2000
| 2000-01 |
|
Appeals lodged as a % of total
admissions
| 6.0 | 6.7
| 7.6 | 8.7
| 9.6 | 10.3
|
Appeals heard as a % of total
admissions
| 4.3 | 4.9
| 5.5 | 6.3
| 7.0 | 7.5
|
|
However looking at the figures for England as a whole, talk
of crisis seems like an exaggeration. In a recent project on which
we worked with the Office for National Statistics it was found
that 92% of parents gained a place in the secondary school for
which they had expressed first preference (Flatley and Williams
2001). Ninety six per cent of parents are offered a place in a
school for which they have expressed some preference. A third
of unsuccessful parents gain entry on appeal (DfEE 2002). In addition,
the study found that once their children had been at secondary
school for nearly a year a third of these previously dissatisfied
parents said they were more satisfied. Therefore the evidence
strongly suggests that somewhere between 3% and 4% of parents
each year are left lastingly dissatisfied with the outcome of
the admission process. A greater proportion is dissatisfied with
the process (about 15%).
2.3 However the global picture glosses over the problem
of local hot-spots. Problems of school admissions are not evenly
spread over the country. Taking appeals for secondary places as
an indicator, rural areas have relatively few problems with only
5% of appeals heard, while metropolitan areas have 9% and London
nearly 14% (see Table 2 for an estimate on 2001 figures). Discontent
about admissions is much more an urban phenomenon and the bigger
and more dense the population the bigger the problem.
Table 2
APPEALS HEARD AS A PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL ADMISSIONS 2000-01
|
| Rural
| Metropolitan
(inc. London)
| Metropolitan
(exc. London)
| Inner
London |
Outer
London | All
London
|
|
| Primary | 2.5
| 3.8 | 3.8
| 3.3 | 4.0
| 3.7 |
| Secondary | 5.0
| 10.5 | 9.1
| 16.2 | 13.5
| 14.3 |
| Combined | 3.9
| 7.1 | 6.6
| 8.5 | 8.7
| 8.6 |
|
2.4 There is indeed a crisis in school admissions not
globally but in particular localities. There is a crisis for those
parents who are not successful in gaining a place at a school
to which they believe they can safely send their child but for
whom the private sector is not an option. It is a crisis for the
schools which are so unpopular that their difficult job is made
much harder, and a (albeit less fateful) crisis for the schools
which are so popular that they spend a great deal of time and
energy managing the process of admissions and appeals. For LEA
admissions managers in deeply polarised areas it presents extreme
difficulties in achieving coherent regional schools provision.
3. Admissions in urban areas
3.1 A relatively large proportion of parents in urban
areas take the opportunity to apply for schools other than those
closest to home. The ONS survey (Flatley et al) found that four
in 10 parents (40%) who lived in London boroughs did not apply
to their nearest state school compared with about two in ten (21%)
of parents who live in Shire authorities (see Table 3).
Table 3
PARENTS NOT APPLYING FOR PLACE IN NEAREST STATE SECONDARY
SCHOOL BY PARENTAL LEA TYPE
|
| % not applying to nearest state school
| % | Base = N
|
|
| All parents | 28
| 2170 |
| London borough | 40
| 286 |
| Metropolitan authority | 31
| 535 |
| Unitary authority | 29
| 386 |
| Shire authority | 21
| 963 |
|
3.2 This, in addition to the greater incidence of appeals
in urban areas is evidence of greater choice activity and levels
of dissatisfaction. Simple diversity of choice or the availability
of transport are not enough wholly to explain the greater activity
and associated dissatisfaction observed in large urban areas.
Discontent as measured by numbers of appeals is highly localised
and is often to be found at its most intense in specific areas
within boroughs. The real culprit is polarisation. I mean by polarisation
the diverse reputations of schools as perceived by the parents.
The perception that some schools are, at best, not even to be
considered, and at worst, must be avoided at all costs, while
others are highly desirable.
3.3 There has been considerable academic debate about
the impact of marketisation of admission policies on the segregation
of school intakes. Gorard et al (2002) have shown that the predictions
of some commentators (eg Gewirtz et al 1995; Lauder et al 1999)
that segregation would increase have not been fulfilled but it
does not follow that the latter's analysis of how parents choose
and the claim that there is pressure towards social segregation
was wrong. Market models do provide an added pressure for segregation
but it hasn't happened to any statistically significant degree.
Predictions in social contexts are, unlike predictions in the
physical sciences, hardly ever borne out because of the confounding
effects of multiple factors in open systems and people's responses
(eg the counter-activity of LEAs in the interests of the children
in their areas).
3.4 It is important to make a distinction between segregation
of intakes and the polarisation of parental perception concerning
schools in a particular area. It is perfectly possible to have
segregation without polarisation of perception and polarisation
of perception without segregation. However, segregation has an
effect on the performance and reputation of schools and where
parents and schools have the means, polarisation of perception
is likely to lead to greater segregation (Lauder et al 1999).
Although there is measurably greater segregation between rural
schools (Gorard 2002) in the absence of polarisation of perception
or the practical option of other schools (other than opting for
private education) there is not the same anxiety associated with
school allocation. Indeed admission officers in rural areas have
little difficulty in managing admissions and consider it to be
a problem mainly for metropolitan areas (Gorard et al 2002).
3.5 The existence of local occurrences of polarisation
is beyond doubt. This is what parents, schools and admission officers
tell us consistently. What is more a number of distinguished academics
(I am thinking here of the work of Stephen Ball, Pierre Bourdieu,
Hugh Lauder among others) have developed a sophisticated model
of parental choice that is consistent with these field accounts
and provides strong explanations for how parents make choices.
In addition to the major concerns about its effects on equity
of provision and outcomes for all children polarisation of perception
creates an imbalance in the provision of places in most preferred
and least preferred schools, high levels of dissatisfaction and
anxiety on the part of parents and children, high levels of appeals,
the vilification of some schools compared to others and a sense
of desperation on the part of some parents. Once a stampede mentality
takes hold it is very difficult for the admissions authorities
in an area to manage. Transaction costs are high and relations
between all parties are put under strain. This is a scenario repeated
in many urban areas of the country not just London (Coldron et
al 2002).
4. The importance of intake to parents
4.1 School choice decisions are based on a complex mixture
of reasons, but the evidence is overwhelming that the driver for
polarisation of perception is the difference in the social status
of the intake of schools. For parents who engage with the choice
process the most important ingredient of choice (together with
practical considerations) is the intake of the school (Ball 2003
for an overview of the evidence; Lauder et al 1999). Performance
tables, the ethos of the school, fear of bullying, fear of a drugs
culture, the quality of discipline—all reasons cited by
parents when asked about how they choose a school (Flatley et
al 2001) are either directly associated in parents minds or highly
correlated with intake (Coldron 2002) and in this sense are proxies
for the kind of people with whom their child will spend their
formative years.
4.2 There is an increased concern at the transition to
secondary with the moral and educational careers of their children,
and this is articulated with their thinking about particular areas
and their populations (Gewirtz et al 1995; Coldron and Williams
2002). This is not just snobbery. Parents really are afraid (whether
justifiably or not) for their children's moral, educational or
physical welfare.
4.3 Anxiety is generated when access to the most reassuring
and therefore popular schools is unpredictable and the admission
process is complex and unmanageable. Open enrolment, the right
of parents to state a preference, and the existence of a number
of admission authorities in an area increases unpredictability.
Prior to open enrolment, in non-selective areas, the catchment
area principle meant schools' composition reflected the local
community. In this sense the advantaged and disadvantaged nature
of different communities was reproduced and thereby reinforced
selection by mortgage. It is still true in most areas that where
you choose to live largely determines the school your child will
go to and therefore the social status of the peer group of your
son or daughter (Williams et al 2001).
4.4 The desegregation found by Stephen Gorard and John
Fitz may be considered marginal in that only a minority benefit
from it. Because of other considerations parents still want their
children to go to the local school. Nationally 28% opted for schools
other than their nearest state school and 40% opted for schools
that were not the higher performing schools in the area (Flatley
et al 2001). Without residential desegregation socially unsegregated
school intakes imply increased travel.
4.5 Having been encouraged to act as consumers those
parents who are alert, skilled and with sufficient resources (Willms
and Echols 1992; Gewirtz et al 1995; Flatley et al 2001) will
more frequently opt away from their local school and will more
frequently opt for the most popular schools with consequent oversubscription,
a greater risk of rejection and a higher level of anxiety.
4.6 The causes of polarisation are deeply rooted in our
highly stratified society and the way in which schools reflect
and perpetuate that stratification. The question is whether the
benefit to some children and their parents of opting out of their
residential communities offsets the difficulties experienced by
many others in the schools with bad reputations.
5. The importance of intake to schools
5.1 Not only do parents choose largely on the basis
of intake so do schools. There is considerable evidence (Gewirtz,
Ball, and Bowe 1995) (Glatter, Woods, and Bagley 1997; Coldron
2001) that some schools use admission arrangements to manage their
intake so as to increase the proportion from more desirable social
groups and decrease those from less desirable. To give two vivid
illustrations of this from our own work; one school officer on
the edge of a large Northern city explained:
. . . We were trying to get rid of this group, because years
and years ago the school when it first formed had this bad reputation
and up until about seven years ago, about 30%, 35% of our intake
was from [the city] and we felt that was part of the problem,
that bringing sort of [city] pupils into a school like this, to
some extent they drag it down to their tone . . . they tend to
drag it down rather than us drag them up. The parents want to
send them to a nice school, but they don't want the school rules
to apply to their son or daughter. And we were committed with
the siblings [the interviewee means the sibling over-subscription
criterion] to a vicious circle and quite often . . .another terrible
intake. A lot of working class families had large families and
you were committed to them sort of . . . And that's one of the
reasons why they decided to get rid of the sibling link two years
ago.
Another school, this time an oversubscribed Foundation in
outer London, took 45 out of an intake of 300 (15%) on the basis
of a general ability test, something it will still be allowed
to do under the new Code (DfES 2003). It also deliberately avoided
taking harder to educate children:
What we do is always try and end up . . . with about 305,
306, 310 . . . What we don't want to do is to be falling below
300 because clearly then the local authority would ask us to take
on pupils and there are two categories that they might ask us
to take. One would be children in trouble from other schools,
which would be a bad risk . . . Or they are going to be children
who are refugees who have significant learning and social problems.
Such attempts at intake management in particular contexts
can contribute to greater polarisation of perception even though
as Gorard et al have shown it does not seem to have resulted in
significantly greater segregation on their measures.
6. Specialist schools procedures for assessing relative
aptitude
6.1 We have already noted the motivation of some schools
to manage their intake to maximise admission of children from
higher socio-economic status families. The selective element of
the specialist programme provides another instrument for such
intake management. Specialist school status in itself does not
lead to a change in the intake of a school relative to other schools
in an area. The unilateral use of the option to select does. Where
all the schools in an area are specialist this may work to mitigate
the problem. A minority of schools are presently using the option
to select by aptitude. In general the admission criteria for specialist
schools which use the option to select 10% of their intake are
diverse, largely unaccountable and sometimes obscure. The selective
places we looked at in this study (n=61) were by definition competitive
and most were in schools that were over-subscribed.
6.2 We looked at the details of admission procedure to
see how these schools tested for aptitude in the particular subjects.
In some there was a clear statement, in others a general statement
about there being a test and in the majority it simply referred
parents to the school for details. In general what was revealed
was a great diversity in methods of testing which reflected the
high level of control and low level of accountability schools
have for these procedures. These schools in 2000 were operating
under the Code of Practice on School Admissions (DfEE 1999) which
set some general criteria for methods of assessment but left admission
authorities to find their own method of establishing relative
aptitude. The new Code (DfES 2003) has not changed this.
REFERENCES
Coldron, J and Williams, J (2002) Parents who appeal against
school admissions: Who are they and why do they appeal? BERA
Exeter.
Coldron, J, Stephenson, K, Williams, J, Shipton, L, Demack,
S (2002) Admission Appeal Panels: Research Study into the Operation
of Appeal Panels, Use of the Code of Practice and Training for
Panel Members. School of Education, Sheffield Hallam University
for the DfES, Research report RR344.
DfEE (1999) School Admissions Code of Practice London:
Department for Education and Employment.
DfES (2003) School Admissions Code of Practice. London:
Department for Education and Employment.
DfES (2001). "Statistical First Release: Admission Appeals
for Maintained Primary and secondary Schools in England 1999-2000."
DfES.
Flatley, J, Williams J, Coldron J, Connolly H, Higgins V,
Logie A, Smith N, Stephenson K (2001). Parents' Experience
of the Process of Choosing a Secondary School. Office for
National Statistics and Sheffield Hallam University. DfES Research
Report RR278.
Glatter, R, Woods, P A and Bagley, C (1997) Diversity, differentiation
and hierarchy: school choice and parental preferences, in R Glatter,
P A Woods and C Bagley (eds.) Choice and Diversity in Schooling:
Perspectives and prospects (London: Routledge).
Gewirtz, S, Ball, S, Bowe, R (1995) Markets, Choice and
Equity in Education Buckingham, Open University Press.
Gorard, S, Taylor, C, Fitz, J (2002) Measuring Markets:
the impact of twelve years of school choice. Cardiff University
School of Social Sciences.
Lauder, H, Hughes, D, Watson, S, Waslander, S, Thrupp, M,
Strathdee, R, Simiyu, I, Dupuis, A, McGlinn, J and Hamlin, J (1999)
Trading in Futures; Why markets in education don't work.
Buckingham: Open University Press.
O'Reilly, J and Ludlow, M (2002) Thousand pupils adrift
in secondary school limbo Sunday Times August 4 2002.
Thrupp, M (1999) Schools making a Difference: Let's Be
Realistic! School Mix, School Effectiveness, and the Social Limits
of Reform. Taylor and Francis.
White, P, Gorard, S, Fitz, and Taylor, C (2001) Regional
and local differences in admission arrangements for schools, Oxford
Review of Education, 27, 3, pp 317-337.
Williams, J, Coldron J, Stephenson K, Logie A, Smith N (2001).
"An analysis of policies and practices of LEA admission authorities
in England." in Parent's Experience of the Process of
Choosing a Secondary School, edited by J Williams and J Flatley:
Department for Education and Skills.
August 2003
| 
