Examination of Witnesses (Questions 100
- 119)
WEDNESDAY 15 OCTOBER 2003
DR PHILIP
HUNTER
Q100 Mr Chaytor: Dr Hunter, in your
written evidence you imply that you have seen extensive abuse
by individual admissions authorities of the correct procedures.
Currently, you can only respond to complaints. Do you think the
system would be more effective if you had powers to investigate
where you had reasonable suspicion that an individual admissions
authority was not playing by the rules?
Dr Hunter: I do not think so.
I am not generally seeking more powers, I think I am powerful
enough, thank you very much. Certainly it is the case that if
somebody thinks there is something going wrong that should not
be going wrong then usually there is a route where they can object,
and at that point I can take that up.
Q101 Mr Chaytor: But if you have
received only 233 objections this year, are you saying that is
the sum total?
Dr Hunter: No, not at all.
Q102 Mr Chaytor: What about the missing
schools?
Dr Hunter: I believe it is for
local authorities, local education authorities, to get much more
involved in admissions in their area, whether or not they are
community schools or foundation schools or aided schools, or what
have you. I believe it is for admissions forums and local education
authorities to object, where they come across them, to start by
negotiating their way through, actually, and, having done that,
if they find they cannot do that, then to object. I think that
is happening in a number of authorities now. Where that happens
we are able to find our way through it, and I think that over
a period of time we will get to a stage where all local authorities
are taking on that responsibility, and I think that is the way
forward.
Q103 Mr Chaytor: In your opening
remarks, you said that you thought school governors should have
a stronger role and should express their views more. Did you mean
about the admissions policies of their own schools, where they
are the admissions authorities, or do you think that school governing
bodies should have a wider role in expressing a view on the admission
arrangements throughout the local authority?
Dr Hunter: No. I was saying, what
I believe is that all governing bodies should have a role, whether
or not they are at present their admissions authorities. I do
not believe that, in general, there is any good reason for some
schools being their own admissions authorities and some not being
their own admissions authorities. In the long term what I would
like to see is Government deciding that it has got some minimal
role in this, that local authorities at local authority level,
local authorities and admissions authorities should have some
role in that. I think rather I would strengthen that a little
bit, and that all governors have got a role in this and that all
three are involved and all three are involved equally, whether
the school happened to be a foundation school or an aided school,
or what have you. That is what I believe.
Q104 Mr Chaytor: In terms of central
government's role, do you think the powers that central government
has currently are about right, or, just as you feel that local
education authorities should play a bigger role, do you think
there is an expanded role for central government in determining
the shape of the system?
Dr Hunter: No, certainly I do
not believe there is an expanded role for central government.
I think that central government has a role. If, for example, the
Secretary of State, Parliament, whatever, decides that all "looked
after" children should be first on the list then that is
a very proper thing for central government to do, but I hope that
central government is quite sparing in its use of the powers it
has got. Certainly I do not believe there should be some grand,
national system, in the way I think that some people are suggesting
for admissions. I think that would be a total disaster.
Q105 Mr Chaytor: Between the local
authority level and the central government level, is there room
for greater co-ordination between local education authorities
in the major conurbations?
Dr Hunter: Yes, certainly, I think
there is, I think it is happening. One of the difficulties that
I think the education system in the country is faced with is that
there are too many local education authorities, but, given that
we have got what we have got, I think people are just getting
down to it and doing what they can. Certainly in the old counties
where a unitary has sprung up, I think relationships are generally
good between those people. It is happening in London. I go to
regional meetings of admission officers, and they get on very
well together and discuss things properly and professionally at
their level. So I think it is happening.
Q106 Chairman: Dr Hunter, do you
think you are accessible enough to parents objecting to the way
in which they have been treated by an admissions authority, or
are you a bit of a secret organisation for most parents?
Dr Hunter: Certainly we try not
to be secret. We go to a great deal of trouble in publishing on
our website every decision we make, and all of those things, and
putting out press releases, and the rest of it. I would guess
that 98%, 99%, of parents in the country do not know we exist,
and possibly they ought to. I think there might be a case, in
due course, for giving parents more access to us. They have got
access to us, as you know, in partial selection, they have got
access to us where an admissions authority has reduced the admission
number below the capacity, and they are using that, from time
to time. Perhaps.
Q107 Chairman: It just seems that
the number of parents who actually end up bringing an objection
to you is small?
Dr Hunter: Yes, that is right.
Q108 Chairman: One would have thought,
the 10% of parents who actually appeal against the decision of
the admissions authority, it is strange that such a small number
then end up on your side of it?
Dr Hunter: Most individual appeals
are about the individual circumstances of an individual child,
that is the admissions criteria, and I would guess that it is
quite difficult to get a number of parents who have been turned
down for the same reason, if you like. It might be helpful, at
some stage, to give some parents more access to us, but I would
not advocate it as a pressing priority.
Chairman: Thank you for that. We are
now going to move on to school admissions criteria, and Jeff Ennis
is going to open the questions.
Q109 Jeff Ennis: Dr Hunter, how widespread
is the use of admissions criteria that are contrary to the guidance
in the Code of Practice?
Dr Hunter: Clearly, in terms of
the number of objections we uphold, it is quite common. I think
there has been a particular problem this year because the new
Code of Practice came in at the end of January. By that time,
a number of school admissions authorities had moved into deciding
what they were going to do, and I do not think really there was
time for them to adjust to the new Code of Practice. I would hope
that next year there will be fewer cases.
Q110 Jeff Ennis: Are there any particular
categories of admissions authorities where you are getting the
largest numbers of problems?
Dr Hunter: Yes. It is the school
admissions authorities, the foundation schools and aided schools,
and so on. Most local authorities have got the thing pretty clear,
there are one or two that have not, I have got to say, and that
is worrying, particularly, I guess, some of the smaller unitaries.
The trouble in local authorities comes from the smaller ones that
have got only one, or perhaps two admissions officers, and often
they are super people who really have got the thing sorted out,
but if that officer goes ill, or something, then there is a problem,
and they do go down from time to time.
Q111 Jeff Ennis: Looking at the individual
schools admissions authorities, is it the ones where we are having
problems which are not co-operating with the local education authorities,
or is that too much of a generalisation to see?
Dr Hunter: I think probably it
is too much of a generalisation. Clearly, it is where relationships
are not good, for historic or other reasons, that things are going
wrong, and that is where we get the difficulties. Whether that
is due entirely to the school, whether it is due sometimes to
the local authority, I think that is a different matter.
Q112 Jeff Ennis: You said, in response
to an earlier question, that for certain criteria, for example,
the one to do with the children of staff in a particular school,
which currently is outside the Code but it is not outlawed, you
feel, with the passage of time, this will disappear as a problem,
as news of the Code is spread around the admissions authorities.
If it does not disappear, do you think there ought to be a mechanism
to remove a criterion like that, which is constantly working outside
the Code?
Dr Hunter: Of course, the mechanism
is you. You are in a position to change the law, and that is the
only way it can be done, through making something against the
law.
Q113 Jeff Ennis: Going back to the
Chairman's earlier question about the Greenwich ruling, when you
said that, obviously, because of the time factor, it has been
here since 1989, it is here to stay, given that you feel it is
here to stay, do you see it as a barrier to an effective admissions
policy across all authorities?
Dr Hunter: In a sense, it has
been around for so long it is part of the fabric of the thing,
and I would not regard it as a barrier. Looking back, it was a
problem when it first happened, in a number of areas. I do not
think it was a particular problem in most of the county areas,
frankly. It would have been a problem had it come in—the
establishment of the new unitaries in the middle of counties,
where there is a lot of cross-border traffic, I think it would
be impossible to go back now on that, really I do.
Q114 Jonathan Shaw: I wonder if I
can talk about specifics, rather than generalities. The Chairman
said that there were not very many parents contacting you, but
perhaps there might be a disproportionate number of parents from
Kent contacting you. I know that is an area of the country with
which you have had a number of dealings. Can I ask you about the
admissions criteria and how that can seem then to contradict rulings.
If one of the criteria is to maximise, to every possible extent,
parents' wishes and many people in Kent would not wish to send
their child to a grammar school so they would want to send them
to a school that had a wider mix of ability, therefore what we
have seen is some admissions authorities, individual schools,
saying to parents, "Well, if you want to come to this school,
we don't want your child to take the 11 plus, in order that we
can have as wide a mix of ability as possible." If you are
looking across the piece, at somewhere like Kent, trying to please
everyone is very difficult, but surely is it not reasonable for
admissions authorities to do that, given that is a criterion?
Dr Hunter: I hope you will forgive
me but really I would find it very, very difficult to get into
questions about Kent just at the moment. To explain. We have an
objection from the local authority to, I think it is, 45 schools
in Kent, some of which involve just the questions arising here.
About three weeks ago, because of the timing, we put out what
we call a `minded' letter, which said that although we had not
been able to reach a decision yet—and, incidentally, the
reason we could not reach a decision was that so many of the individual
authorities had not done their processes correctly and we had
to wait until that had finished—the two adjudicators who
are dealing with it "are minded to reach the following decisions."
Having put out that letter, we said to the local authority and
to the schools, and we had a meeting down there, "Here is
our minded letter, this is what we are minded to do, but please
give us other views, other information, other evidence, if you
have got it." The two adjudicators concerned are writing
their determinations at this moment. They will come out in about
ten days' time, and it would be extremely difficult if I were
to comment.
Q115 Jonathan Shaw: I appreciate
that, but you could tell the Committee what the minded letter
said, because you talked about generalities, and here is an opportunity
for members of the Committee to understand the specifics of your
task?
Dr Hunter: The minded letter said
the following, and it is public so we can discuss it, it said
there were a number of objections, there were objections on children
of staff, there were objections on `looked after' children, and
we upheld all of those objections. That is the first point. The
second point was, the minded letter said there was an objection
about conditionality, which is the point you are raising. Conditionality
is where an admissions authority says "We will give priority
to people who do not enter the 11 plus." The minded letter
said "We are minded" (the two adjudicators) "to
uphold that objection" on the grounds that it did not seem
fair, it did not seem fair, to some parents, to say, no matter
who you are, no matter where you live, no matter what your child
is like, "the fact that your parent has decided to enter
you for a test should be a factor in whether or not you get into
that school." So the minded letter said "We are minded
to uphold that." The other ground, the other objection, was
on preference. The objection was that schools should not be allowed
to give priority to parents who expressed a preference for that
school. I will not go into all the ins and outs of that. The minded
letter said "We are minded not to uphold that objection."
Having said all of that, as I say, the adjudicators have gone
away to consider not only what the minded letter said but also
the response to that minded letter from the local authority and
from the schools themselves.
Chairman: Thank you for that extended
answer, Dr Hunter. It is most useful.
Q116 Jonathan Shaw: Chairman, if
I may just wind back the clock to pick up something that we have
talked about, children in public care, something which has occurred
to me. The Green Paper, "Every Child Counts",[3]
are you part of that consultation process?
Dr Hunter: No. I am sorry, perhaps
I should have seen it but I have not.
Q117 Jonathan Shaw: I am wondering,
if you are considering children in public care, might something
that you would consider be children who were at risk, in terms
of a priority?
Dr Hunter: As I say, children
in public care, I think, got a good deal out of the Code. It is
very clear, and we are very clear, about what it says and how
to react to this.
Q118 Jonathan Shaw: I am wondering
about children on the "at risk" register, whether you
had a view as to whether children on the "at risk" register
should be a priority?
Dr Hunter: I confess, I am not
an expert on that matter.
Q119 Jonathan Shaw: You are not aware
of the recent Green Paper?
Dr Hunter: I think I am aware
of it, but I have not studied it in the way you have.
3 Note: see www.dfes.gov.uk/everychildmatters. Back
|
