Examination of Witnesses (Questions 80
- 99)
WEDNESDAY 15 OCTOBER 2003
DR PHILIP
HUNTER
Q80 Jonathan Shaw: I think the prejudice
that I might be accused of, with regard to this issue, in the
manner that I have put the questions to you, is borne out, that
prejudice is correct?
Dr Hunter: Yes.
Q81 Jonathan Shaw: The poorest kids,
the ones who leave without qualifications, the ones that we, the
public, have got a responsibility for, who have been abused in
every manner, are not getting into the best schools, effectively.
These best schools do not even want to put in criteria. That is
the bottom line, is it not?
Dr Hunter: I think, given the
Code of Practice, given the fact that people can complain to us,
given the fact that it is getting around what we decide, that
will change.
Q82 Jonathan Shaw: If you are a child
in care, in terms of it being a priority, are the priorities all
equal, ie sibling, near the school, kid in care?
Dr Hunter: Yes.
Q83 Jonathan Shaw: The admissions
criteria that I have looked at, there is the top one, you live
round the corner, the next one, you have got a sister or a brother,
and that is the way it works, in terms of the cut-off point in
terms of an available place, is it not?
Dr Hunter: My reading of the Code
of Practice is that children in public care should go at the top,
they should get in first.
Q84 Jonathan Shaw: So the Chief Adjudicator
is sending this message to all schools in England and Wales, that
kids in care should be top of the list, over and above everyone
else?
Dr Hunter: Yes.
Q85 Mr Turner: Is the Code of Practice
guidance?
Dr Hunter: In our legal terms,
we have to have regard to it. It is more than guidance, but it
is not instructions, it is not law. So that we are able to say,
"This bit of the Act says . . ." this, "but there
are other factors around, somewhere else, which point in a different
direction, and therefore we do not agree with it," but we
do have to be extremely careful with it.
Q86 Mr Turner: So where you say,
to quote, "kids in public care should get in first,"
you are expressing a view, you are not expressing the law?
Dr Hunter: I am expressing the
view expressed in the Code of Practice, which is quite clear.
Q87 Mr Turner: To which admissions
authorities have to have regard?
Dr Hunter: Yes.
Q88 Mr Turner: Having had regard,
they are entitled, if they have done so honestly, to come to a
different view. Is that the case?
Dr Hunter: Yes, that is the case,
but they should do that only in circumstances in which they have
got a very, very clear set of evidence that having regard to this
would put them in grave trouble somewhere else.
Q89 Chairman: Sorry. Could you repeat
that, Dr Hunter?
Dr Hunter: If an admissions authority,
or an adjudicator, looks at what the Code of Practice says and,
having had regard to it, decides to do something else, I believe
there has got to be very strong evidence that would not be in
the interests of the children in the area, or what have you, in
order for them to be able to do that. In other words, they are
very easily challenged.
Q90 Mr Turner: In the interests of
all of the children in the area?
Dr Hunter: Yes, in the legal position
in which they are. If I ended up in court defending a decision,
that I had regard to what the Code said and decided to do something
else, I would be on a pretty shaky wicket, I think.
Q91 Mr Turner: Just as a matter of
interest, how much does it cost to run your office?
Dr Hunter: About a million pounds
a year.[2]
Q92 Mr Turner: The reason I ask is
because, clearly, nobody wants to end up in court, and that applies
to schools about which you make decisions, as well as you, in
respect of decisions you have made. Have you any examples of cases
where admissions authorities, in your view, have had regard to
the Code of Practice and come to conclusions which, to some extent
or other, run counter to the Code of Practice but which either
you have challenged and have been found to be wrongly challenging
them, or which you have chosen not to challenge because you felt
that the school was right, broadly, in coming to that conclusion?
Dr Hunter: Just off the top of
my head, I cannot think of one. I suppose they must be around,
but the fact that I cannot bring one to my mind immediately says,
I think, that this Code of Practice is a very powerful animal,
that it is a very powerful piece of writing here. In my experience,
all admissions authorities, once they have had it drawn to their
attention, of course, and certainly all adjudicators and local
authorities read this very carefully, and almost always, I would
say, do what this recommends.
Q93 Mr Turner: One example is interviewing
children, and if you want to establish that a child is a practising
Anglican, one way obviously is to see how many times they go to
church, which is an objective measure. Is a school justified in
finding out how the child feels its faith?
Dr Hunter: According to the Code
of Practice, no, and according to me, no, because that is what
the Code of Practice says. As I understand it, there was a big
debate about that before this piece of the Code of Practice was
drawn up, and it ended up with the churches recommending that
they should not be interviewing, and it ended with a political
decision, if you like, by the Secretary of State that that should
go in the Code of Practice. That was agreed in the way it is by
Parliament. So there it stands, there shall be no interviewing.
That being the case, I work to the Code of Practice, so it is
not for me to have a different view. I work to the Code of Practice.
Q94 Mr Turner: The admissions authority
is entitled to come to the conclusion that it is easy to turn
up at church but it is very much more difficult to be a Christian,
and that they are entitled to interview to establish whether a
child is a Christian. Would you agree with that?
Dr Hunter: I would agree with
the sort of legal interpretation, that this is guidance and it
is having regard to it, and the discussion we have just had. I
have to say that if a case came to us—one should not be
too hypothetical about these things—it is conceivable that
they could advance some reasons and evidence somewhere why they
should be able to interview. It is conceivable. In practice, I
think I would find it very difficult to work out what those circumstances
would be.
Q95 Chairman: In terms of how you
operate in terms of the Code of Practice, and the way in which
you operate, what seems to be lacking is, in a sense, because
you react only to people approaching you who are discontent with
the process, then you make a decision, but that decision does
not become generalised. Each school, every admissions authority,
I think you have a particular one which involves the children
of teachers in a school, where consistently you are making a particular
judgment on that but still it keeps coming back because you have
no power really to say, "These are the rules." When
you started talking to the Committee just now, you said that you
thought that would all settle down. Do you think it will settle
down, or do you think there is still a problem?
Dr Hunter: We will see, is the
answer. There were two very sharp changes, three, including the
interviewing, in this Code of Practice. One was children of teachers
and the other was children in public care, where there is a clear
message in this Code of Practice that it is not something that
ought to be happening. We have upheld consistently objections
on those grounds since the Code of Practice came in at the end
of January. I believe it is getting out there that this is likely
to happen if objections come to us, and I guess that in a couple
of years it will disappear. We will see. It may not be a terribly
efficient way of doing it, but that is the system we have got.
Chairman: That is a fair point. Dr Hunter,
we want to move on and look at school admissions authorities,
and Val Davey would like to put some questions on that.
Q96 Valerie Davey: I was genuinely
surprised to realise just how many admissions authorities there
are, well over 5,000. If I were a parent reading the Code, I think
I would be really pleased to feel that we had a national Code
of Practice of such calibre, and yet, with over 5,000 admissions
authorities, should I still be as confident, as a parent, that
is going to be the criterion that genuinely is used in all of
those admissions authorities?
Dr Hunter: Clearly, it is not,
because we have upheld so many objections. Clearly, it is the
case that many of these admissions authorities are not abiding
by the Code at present. Really, there are two points. The first
is the criteria they are using and whether they are in line with
the Code on that. Clearly, as this new Code has come in, it is
going to take some time, at least, before all of those admissions
authorities know what the Code says and are abiding by it, and,
as I say, we will find out in two years' time whether that has
happened or not. The other aspect of that I think is probably
a little bit more worrying, and that is, it is quite clear that
many admissions authorities, many of the school governing bodies
that are admissions authorities, are not following the processes
correctly. The processes are laid down very clearly here. You
are supposed to consult about your criteria, you are supposed
to meet to determine what they are, you are supposed to inform
people what those are and allow people to object to them. We have
come across many, many, many admissions authorities that are not
doing that properly, and that is a problem.
Q97 Valerie Davey: That indicates
that you have taken a proactive role in trying to ensure that
these processes are being carried out. Is that part of your job,
in fact?
Dr Hunter: No. These are objections
we have received. We receive an objection, the first thing we
ask is, "Let us see your determined arrangements, let's see
the minutes of the governing body in which you've made them?"
The answer comes, "Well, we didn't bother." So you have
to go into the processes, too.
Q98 Valerie Davey: Do you think somebody
should be taking that proactive role, because it is clear from
what you are saying, I think, that parents who are not perhaps
as aware of some of these nuances, or some of these issues, are
going to be less able than others to exert their right, as parents,
to have the choice, which everyone assumes this new Code will
give them?
Dr Hunter: I think they should,
and I believe it is for local authorities to get in there. Where
it works properly is where a local authority and the admissions
authorities within its area have got an agreement that the local
authority should do the processes on their behalf. Where that
is happening, on the whole, it is working properly. Where it is
not happening is where there has been a poor relationship between
ex-GM schools, or what have you, and the LEA, and where there
is no agreement about who is doing what. I think that there is
a role for local authorities there, and when I meet chief education
officers I am telling them that.
Q99 Valerie Davey: As a former chief
education officer, I would expect you to do no less. Can I just
say though that you seem to be reasonably confident, with the
umbrella collaboration established by a local authority, that
individual schools will not end up choosing the children, as opposed
to what clearly we are identifying as the policy of parents, as
far as is humanly possible, having the right of choice?
Dr Hunter: You are raising another
question there, which is an interesting one. The fact is that
wherever you have got an oversubscribed school it is the school
that is choosing the children, that is the fact, it is the admissions
authority that is choosing the children, and that happens wherever
you have got oversubscription. We cannot stop that. Coming back
to your general point, I am interested to see, and I think I would
expect, given time to settle down, with the new systems, the new
schemes, the new admissions forums, and so on, that certainly
things will get better, and in a couple of years' time we will
be able to see whether actually it has worked properly and whether
it needs tweaking.
2 Note: See Ev 223 (SA 42) Back
|
