Memorandum submitted by Dr Bryan Slater,
Norfolk County Council (SA 21)
This evidence is submitted by Bryan Slater,
Director of Education for Norfolk LEA.
Norfolk is one of the largest LEAs in England
with a school population of about 100,000 attending 450 maintained
schools, of which 400 are primary schools. It is a mixed urban
and rural authority—the city of Norwich has an effective
population of about 300,000.
Education legislation in the last 25 years has
treated the issue of school admissions on the basis of "good"
being created by improvements in the satisfaction of parental
preference, and has de-emphasised the importance of the consequences
of that approach.
What has happened over the last 25 years is
a journey from an over-planned system to a purely market-driven
one. What is needed now is a mixed ecomony in which some planning
takes place that is in the interests of all children but where
parents can express a preference for a place at a school which
has spare capacity. Planning should be on the basis of enabling
every school to be a good school. The right for parents to express
a preference for a school was enshrined in the 1980 Education
Act. It is unfortunate that many parents, encouraged by the media
and, and I have to say, some government publications, still interpret
this as "having a choice" ie an absolute right to attend
any school they choose. The legislation was a sensible response
to the over-planned approach of some LEAs, who artificially held
the admission levels at some schools below their physical capacity
even though they were popular, so as to "force" children
to less popular schools. The present market-driven approach has
been intensified by firstly LMS which has in effect made a direct
link between funding and pupil numbers, so encouraging schools
to take as many children as possible. The emphasis on standards
and the "league table" approach has, in addition, encouraged
some schools to attempt to avoid those children whose special
needs may affect their performance.
In rural areas, it is generally true that competition
between schools is relatively weak, but where the effects of admissions
legislation are at their worst, they can be pernicious. The effect
of the Rotherham Judgement, whereby Authorities are prevented
from reserving places for anticipated future needs such as new
housing, can often result in popular schools close to urban centres
becoming "full". The consequence being that anyone subsequently
moving into the area cannot obtain a place at their local school.
The LEA is then obliged to provide transport to the nearest available
school place. Norfolk is currently transporting 800 children daily
in order to provide them with a school place because their local
school is full, at an estimated cost of £900,000 per anum.
The parents of these children are denied choice, and the taxpayer
is burdened with the very high cost of providing them with education
which does not meet their preference.
It is disappointing, therefore, that during
the recent consultations on the revised Code of Practice, the
DfES steadfastly refused to allow Admission Authorities to reserve
places even when additional numbers of pupils moving in during
the year could be anticipated. This would have enabled Authorities
to manage some of the difficulties caused to parents who move
into an area and find no place in the local school, especially
when the next nearest school could, in a County like Norfolk,
be several miles away. Such "casual admissions" are
an increasing problem.
In urban areas, it is very easy for a pattern
to be established which effectively results in a two (or even
three) tier system of schooling. Popular schools are full, with
generally more motivated pupils who have more motivated parents.
Such schools do well. The consequence can be the creation of "sink"
schools, struggling against the effects of declining pupil numbers
and low expectations.
The Norwich conurbation has 11 High Schools.
Of these, three have experienced a period in which they have been
judged by OfSTED to require Special Measures. Two of the three
had clearly suffered from the effect of parents choosing to send
their children across the city to more popular schools. All these
now have a clean bill of health, but this has required a sustained
effort by the schools and the LEA over periods up to two years
in order to lift their performance to an acceptable level. The
cost in human and financial terms has been significant. A purely
market-driven system created winners and losers. We cannot afford
an admissions system that reinforces this.
All societies need to strike a balance between
the needs and rights of the individual, and the needs of society.
Most developed societies see the need to ensure social equity
in access to education and the need to avoid the creation of a
stratified society as paramount considerations in arrangements
made for the provision of schooling to individuals. I would argue
that this basic consideration has been (consciously) ignored in
this country for a quarter of a century and that fundamentals
of our system of admissions to school remain damaging both to
society and therefore to all individuals as a result.
Recent changes have sought to modify the system,
and will have some beneficial results. All LEA's are about to
enter the September 2004 "admissions round" and Norfolk
has established new procedures based on the recent legislation
and guidance. Previously it has been the Authority's view that
parents could only have one expressed preference active at any
one time, and advised parents that they risked not having a place
at their local school if their (one) preference for another school
could not be met. While this may have discouraged ill-considered
actions by some, it also meant that children did in fact lose
out, because the LEA had no means of anticipating reserve choices
for local schools. The new system will operate on the basis of
three (ordered) preferences, and will enable the LEA to guarantee
places at local schools, in one of the preferences, in almost
every case.
Nevertheless, such changes are only cosmetic.
Norfolk LEA is one of 80 separate admissions authorities in the
county (the others being Foundation and Aided schools). The existence
of statutory Admissions Forums, and the exhortation to establish
mutually acceptable arrangements for local school admissions,
are welcome. These arrangements will do nothing to touch the underlying
principles and values of our current system—but they do
make it run more smoothly.
I start from the belief, based on experience,
that it is possible for all schools to be good schools—ie
schools which ensure that all their pupils maximise their potential.
It is not necessary to have a market-place approach to the delivery
of the education "commodity". Indeed I would argue that
the main effect of that is inherently damaging in that it is not
in the best interests of all children, creating winners and losers
and widening the already over-wide gaps in our society.
15 October 2003
| 
