Examination of Witnesses (Questions 371
- 379)
MONDAY 10 NOVEMBER 2003
DR IAN
BIRNBAUM AND
MR PAUL
ROBINSON
Q371 Chairman: May I invite Dr Ian
Birnbaum and Mr Paul Robinson to join us? Thank you very much
for joining us and thank you for spending your time listening
to the earlier evidence session. Thank you very much for giving
up your time. This Committee is looking at admissions. Although
in the last batch of evidence we did roam very widely, we do really
want to focus on the admissions area. In a sense, what we are
trying to get under the skin of, is that if there is any indicator
at all—and there is a group of indicators—the people
who are least happy about the admissions policy in our country
are those who live in London. This is your expertise and you come
up with a very exciting proposal, the Pan-London Co-ordinated
Admissions Project, which you are going to enlighten us about.
May I start by asking whether you would like to say anything to
kick us off? Could you encompass in part of what you have to say
what you think is at the heart of the unhappiness about London's
education at the moment? We have two leading parliamentarians
who expressed deep unhappiness about the state sector in London
just recently. What is going on in London that you would like
to tell the Committee about?
Dr Birnbaum: That is a big question.
You want us to focus on admissions, but obviously there are plenty
of other issues to do with London schools. What we are about is
trying to make access to schools in London as fair and open as
possible. One of the features of London, partly a consequence,
I guess, of some dissatisfaction with some schools in some areas,
is that people are willing to move around quite a bit in order
to send their kids to schools. We have a lot of cross-border applications.
This makes for a very complicated system, a system where it is
actually very difficult for parents, particularly those who are
not used to dealing with complex systems, to predict what the
outcomes are. So you have a situation where some parents are playing
the system quite well and are ending up with perhaps as many as
half a dozen offers and other parents, who are less able to play
that system, end up with none at all. Ultimately the thing evens
out and offers are made, but the anxiety which is involved for
those parents who do not get any offers is very considerable.
There is also the issue about the exercise of choice or preference
and some parents do not seem to understand or expect that they
will be able to apply for any school other than their local one.
That may be true, but we want to provide a system which eradicates,
as far as possible, those multiple offers I mentioned and also
encourages parents to express their preferences. It does not solve
the bigger London problem; an admissions system could not do that.
It does provide a more equal playing field on which parents can
make their choices.
Mr Robinson: It is a very complicated
question and we could spend a lot of time talking about it. Least
a perception of there being great choice, because schools are
so accessible in London because of the transport network. You
can get to many schools without it being too difficult a journey.
There is a real hierarchy of schools in the minds of parents,
if they cannot get their first choice school, even if their second
or third happen to be a very good schools, there is always going
to be a degree of dissatisfaction. The accessibility of the schools
combined with the reality when admission criteria are applied
to over-subscribed schools means that a lot of parents are going
to be disappointed. It means that a function of living in a conurbation
is that there could be dissatisfaction, especially when, in terms
of pupil performance, there is such a wide variety from very high
performing schools, which is partly reflected in the quality of
the education they get, but also partly a function of the ability
of the youngsters, to schools which serve some of our most deprived
estates and which have large numbers of casual admissions, including
asylum seekers and where pupil performance is a lot lower. If
you happen to be a parent whose child can only secure a place
in that school, when you have ambitions to go to another one,
you will be unhappy.
Q372 Chairman: The evidence suggests
that most parents have a high choice; even in London quite a high
percentage get the school of their choice, do they not?
Dr Birnbaum: There is no evidence
for that in terms of admissions across boundaries, because parents
at the moment do not rank their preferences across boundaries.
At most what they do, if there is a co-ordinated system within
their own locality, is rank them within that locality. Actually
in many cases they are forced into a position where they have
to say which is their most preferred school because that is the
only one basically which will look at them. If they do not put
that one first, then they will not get the next one. One of the
features of the system we are going to talk about is that it does
not do that, it removes that. It allows parents genuinely to say
the one they most want. Okay their chances of getting it might
be slim, but it is the one they most want so they put it first.
The system we are proposing and in fact most of the local authorities
in London have now signed up to this, would allow them to do that.
Effectively, if they do not get their first preference, their
second preference is treated as their first preference. That is
very important.
Q373 Mr Chaytor: In view of the issues
you have identified which characterise the situation in London
specifically, given that you have both listened to the previous
witness, is there anything in the evidence given by Sir Peter
Lampl which you think helps resolve the London problem?
Mr Robinson: The commitment of
people who are willing to invest time and money in state education
is very positive. People have ideas about how we might improve
education and enhance the links between the maintained sector
and the independent sector and that must be a good thing. We must
try to learn from one another. Where I guess I disagree with Sir
Peter is that the problem, as I see it, is not with the high achieving,
most able youngsters. They tend to thrive in most settings and
when you can look at various pieces of research evidence, it is
difficult to draw conclusions about which setting is best. Its
possible that bright youngsters in grammar or independent schools
may do marginally better than if they went to a good comprehensive
school, though it is hard to be certain. The children the state
has to look after and the children who are the most challenging
tend to be the ones that are least wanted. These are the ones
who are going to display challenging or bizarre behaviour, youngsters
whose parents are perhaps not going to be supportive, pupils who
are going to be difficult, the youngsters with special educational
needs. By the way, there are some children with special educational
needs who are wonderful to teach. If they have a hearing impairment
or are partially sighted or if they are wheelchair-bound, everybody
would like to educate those children, particularly if they are
reasonably bright. The children folk do not want are the ones
who are going to be awkward, cause disruption to lessons, children
perhaps who have had a very damaged upbringing, those are the
children we should measure the success of our education system
by.
Q374 Mr Chaytor: How does the Pan-London
Co-ordinated Admissions Project tackle that issue? Is it deliberately
designed to distribute those children more evenly between a larger
number of schools?
Dr Birnbaum: No.
Q375 Mr Chaytor: If not, are we not
still stuck with the same problem of large concentrations of challenging
children in certain schools?
Dr Birnbaum: It is perhaps just
worth saying a little bit about what the project is trying to
do.
Q376 Mr Chaytor: Before we move on
could I just ask you, Dr Birnbaum, about Sir Peter Lampl's evidence
as well? Do you think there is anything specific in what he has
proposed, not just the fact that he has lots of millions to spend?
Is there any single specific idea which would address the issues
you have identified?
Dr Birnbaum: Like Paul, I think
any degree of collaboration we can have across sectors is a good
thing and indeed if, within the co-ordinated system, which we
will talk about, we had independent schools as well, that would
be even better. The issue is that you have high concentrations
of pupils which most schools do not want in certain schools. That
clearly affects their ambiance, affects their outcomes and it
is solving that that matters. Going back to the Chairman's question
right at the beginning, there are what used to be called sink
schools, schools like that who for no fault of their own find
themselves in circumstances where to be a high achiever is very
difficult. They are a big problem and I did not actually hear
anything in Sir Peter's evidence which would lead me to believe
he had a solution to that and that is a big issue. You asked whether
our scheme can do that. It is not designed to do that, to be honest.
I guess what we are trying to do is limited, although that limited
outcome is pretty complex. In essence, what we are trying to do
is to encourage as much flexibility as possible in terms of the
preferences parents can make within the legal framework we currently
have. We are trying to avoid the situation where at the point
of offer some parents get a number of offers and others do not
get any. To achieve that is quite a complex business. It sounds
very simple. To achieve it just within a single authority is quite
complex, to achieve overall is very complex. It is well worth
doing because it is those parents who are more socially disadvantaged
who generally find themselves with no offer, or what they do is
just put down their local school. It is to get away from that,
that this scheme is there. Its outcomes are limited, but nevertheless
they are very beneficial.
Q377 Mr Chaytor: From those parents
who have been used to having three or four offers, do you anticipate
some backlash when, on 1 March next year, they realise they only
have one offer?
Dr Birnbaum: Obviously careful
preparation will be necessary. Parents who used to get three or
four offers would still in the end have to choose one. What we
are asking them to do effectively is to choose in advance. Rather
than wait to see how many they get, we are asking them to say
up front which they most want and to put that first; what they
second most want and put that second and so on. Having done that,
having made that commitment, that then goes into the system and
that is used. Those parents who used to get three or four offers
arguably are still getting the highest offer that they wanted,
it is just that they are making a commitment to what they want
in advance.
Q378 Mr Chaytor: Will parents who
wish to apply for a selective school as well as a non-selective
school be able to get the result of the test for the selective
school and if their child does not pass the test, will they then
be able to insist on their first priority for a non-selective
school?
Dr Birnbaum: Yes.
Q379 Mr Chaytor: How will that work
between the date of the results of the test and 1 March?
Dr Birnbaum: Let me assure you
first that we already have a limited version of what we are proposing
in Sutton where I work. We have had co-ordinated admissions within
Sutton for four years and we have one of the largest degrees of
selection in the country with five grammar schools out of 14.
It works and it works because if parents put down a grammar school
first, it is because that is what they most want. They do not
know at that stage whether their son is going to pass the test.
Then they put the other schools they want. Later on their son
or daughter takes the test or tests. If they do not get through,
their second choice then becomes their first choice because they
have not got their first choice. So they are not disadvantaged
in any way by having put a grammar school down first or the other
way round. If they want to put a comprehensive school first, they
can do that. They do not have to second guess what the outcome
is going to be and that is very important.
|
