Examination of Witnesses (Questions 560
- 579)
WEDNESDAY 12 NOVEMBER 2003
DR SHEILA
LAWLOR, MR
MARTIN JOHNSON
AND MR
NICK SEATON
Q560 Mr Chaytor: Is not the logic
of your argument the abolition of ability and aptitude as admissions
criteria?
Dr Lawlor: It would be for the
school admissions bodies, the governing body and the head teacher.
That, again, I think is a problem with your code of admissions.
The deliberate express exclusion of the head from any decision
seems to me an attack on the professionalism of the head. No,
it would be for the school and the head to decide. I know many
schools which went grant maintained after 1988, and they took
a deliberate decision, but even after the five years allowed within
the law to change character they would not. Their mission was
to educate all children. I am sorry to disagree and go on to say
that there is a case for every sort of school, but the issue between
us is who takes the decision as to what sort of school it should
be.
Q561 Mr Chaytor: Would you accept
that the more schools which take a decision to admit on grounds
of ability or aptitude, the greater the denial of choice to more
parents?
Dr Lawlor: I think if we let the
system, the heads and governing bodies decide, you would find
that the system would even out, probably more in line with what
parents wanted than what we have now. We do not know because this
country, uniquely, has not done it.
Q562 Jonathan Shaw: You are saying
that it is the teachers and the governors who should make the
decisions. We hear from teachers, from governors, and they are,
not always but generally, saying, "We want the LEA to be
the admissions authority." Schools have choices at the moment—to
become foundation, voluntary aided, community schools—and
most schools choose to be community schools.
Dr Lawlor: Yes.
Q563 Jonathan Shaw: So there is that
choice. What are you so worried about?
Dr Lawlor: I was asked about admissions
policies and whether there should be choice. Your question is
why am I worried that schools do not have the choice of admissions
policy. You have brought up the point that schools do not want
that choice.[9]
Q564 Jonathan Shaw: No, they have
made that choice and their choice is the LEA.
Dr Lawlor: If they make that choice
and want to delegate . . .[10]
Let me give you a counter-example. After the 1988 Act, when financial
delegation to schools—which has, I think, been proved by
all sides to be a great success—was mooted, I remember many,
many discussions with heads and governing bodies who did not want
to have financial delegation. They did not want to be responsible.
If we are seriously interested in the whole business of educating
children, we need to delegate as much responsibility. If people
do not want to take it on crucial areas about the character of
their school, about the pastoral and educational support for their
children, it may be that the teaching profession is not for them.
We have found—and this was a hard lesson—that people
who really are interested in teaching will take the vital decisions
and go that extra mile, but if we do not encourage that sort of
person—[11]
Q565 Jonathan Shaw: I am not sure
that the admissions criteria is going to form an important part
of teacher training. I think that parents would be more concerned
about people training to be teachers in terms of their ability
to teach maths, English and science et cetera. Your example of
the devolution of funding, I accept. However, at the moment there
are different systems operating. It is not something new for schools,
as was the devolvement of funding, so it is not a good example.
If a school wanted to make the choice to become a voluntary aided
or foundation school or a community school, they could do. They
have the freedom to do that at the moment.
Dr Lawlor: Yes.
Q566 Jonathan Shaw: You are saying
that because they have not experienced it, it means that they
do not understand the freedom that they are missing.
Dr Lawlor: No, no. I am sorry,
voluntary aided schools are a particular model of school which
comes from the 1944 Act. On the whole they tended to be those
church schools which could find—and there was a big battle
about it in the forties—enough money for capital projects
and capital expenditure. That has subsequently been reduced, but
essentially they are in an independent position: they had a different
kind of governing body and they were subject not to the local
education authority on many things. They have long been quite
independent in many areas. The foundation schools are, as you
know, the ex GM schools.
Q567 Jonathan Shaw: I do know all
the different criteria.
Dr Lawlor: The question is: If
you have had a school which has been run by a local authority,
where the local authority is the admissions authority, and has
not delegated admissions, does the school have choice. My point
is that I think the system has got it wrong. I would start with
the schools and have the local authorities not running the admissions
but I would hand it to the schools. You have one view, and it
is perfectly respectable, many people think it, but I have another.
Q568 Jonathan Shaw: The Committee
are forming a view from the evidence that we receive. My final
point is that a head teacher this morning, Mr Wood, went GM and
now he is back in the LEA.
Dr Lawlor: He made the choice.
Q569 Jonathan Shaw: Right. So choices
are available now.
Dr Lawlor: Choices to admit your
pupils yourself are not available. The Code of Practice will not
make it available. The care of the pupil, very often for six years,
pastorally and educationally, is a very important responsibility.
If you admit your pupils, you probably.[12]
I will tell you what one head said: "I prefer and we all
prefer as a school body to live with our own mistakes, not somebody
else's." That is a very important thing to remember in a
free society.
Q570 Mr Pollard: I wonder if I could
ask Dr Lawlor a very simplistic question. I apologise—I
did go to a grammar school but I am not as bright as the rest
on the Committee. In St Alban's, my constituency, a very middle
class constituency, one of the most middle class in the country,
we have 1600 school places, 950 local places—so we import
a lot of children. One school, STAGS, St Alban's Girls School,
has 180 places and 350 preferences. How do we square that with
parental choice?
Dr Lawlor: Life is not simple.
One man to whom I spoke yesterday had 180 places and 2,000 applicants.
Is it fairer that the school decides or that the local authority
decides? It is simply a matter of which system you run. Yes, in
the end, life brings its mixed blessings, and many times we are
treated unfairly, but I am arguing for a system where, if there
is a grievance, the grievance is not by virtue of somebody who
is outside the relationship between the school and the family,
who is simply doing this as an official running a system. You
will have a greater advantage for the professionalism of the teachers
and the school and for the parental responsibility if that relationship
is direct. Yes, it is difficult, but there are not any easy choices.
We have those problems now. I do not think if we move to a different
sort of system you would have more of a problem. You would probably
have fewer appeals and fewer of this very complicated arrangement
which you have all heard about, because I have been reading all
the papers and the evidence from the local authorities. I must
say it is a tribute to your singlemindedness. Do you know just
how much, if you were a headmaster or a headmistress, you would
have to read if you were coming here, just to know what the law
is? That is the most recent. For those reasons, no system is going
to be perfect. The question I would ask is this: Is the system
you have going to be fairer to your school in St Alban's, and
the parents and those responsible, and seen to be fairer—and,
you know, it is a democratic society, seen to be fairer—than
a more anonymous system where there is a third party doing these
vital things for you?
Q571 Mr Pollard: In 1994—just
as a piece of evidence for you, perhaps—we had GM schools,
faith schools and private sector schools. It was as free a system
for choice as you can get and it was a mess. An absolute and total
mess.
Dr Lawlor: In St Alban's are you
talking about?
Q572 Mr Pollard: Yes, it was. It
was a complete mess.
Dr Lawlor: In what respect?
Q573 Mr Pollard: Some kids got three
offers, some got none, and it was a year and a half before the
system was sorted out. Now we have gone back to a collegiate system
of selection which everybody seems satisfied with. Nick Seaton
mentioned earlier on that the system was "not too bad",
where 96% of pupils were getting their choice of school. Are you
suggesting change to suit the 4% who did not get their choice?
where the tail would be wagging the dog—which is what you
were advocating not to do. You say that minorities are ruling,
it is not good. You are suggesting that because 96% are okay generally,
that the system should be changed to suit that 4%.
Mr Seaton: No. To be honest, I
would suggest that those people who are less than satisfied is
probably a lot more than 96%. But, for all that, whatever it is,
the 4% who are left, or more, are generally fairly tragic cases.
The thing is, basically, that the system is moving. It is a slow
process but it is moving away from parental responsibility and
parental choice to the state, both locally and nationally, taking
all the responsibility. That is my fear. If I could briefly go
back to the point about schools being their own admission authorities,
I do not think that is incompatible with parental choice. If the
head and the governors set an ethos for the school—which
may be a highly academic school, it may be a caring school which
wants to help children with special needs or low achievers or
it may be a faith school or anything—parents know what that
school does, they know what sort of a school it is, and many will
choose it. Many of the schools, given the choice, will go down
these different directions, I am sure. I do not think the two
things of having the school as an admissions authority and parental
choice are incompatible at all. I mean, look at our Prime Minister
sending his children to the London Oratory: he wanted the ethos
of the school. To me, that is fine.
Q574 Jeff Ennis: On the idea of every
school being its own admissions authority, the prime concern of
a school and the governors of a school is to educate all the children
within that school to the very best of their ability, I would
suggest, no matter what the type of school is. Everybody would
accept that as a given. Is there a responsibility within each
admissions authority and the individual school to the wider community,
to its neighbouring schools? Does it have to take into concern
what their strategy is? Should we be looking at a federation of
schools within an area to provide a good educational system for
all schools, not just for the children within the individual school?
Mr Seaton: This idea of variety
between different types of school, obviously it would work in
urban areas, but in rural areas, where you probably have only
one school within a 10-mile radius, this school has to cater for
everyone. This idea of federations of schools, I think, again,
it is producing another excuse for failure, in that, as far as
I can see, there is talk of publishing the exam results for the
federation rather than the individual school and things like that.
It could hide failure. That is my worry, quite honestly. I am
sorry, what was the key question again? I apologise.
Q575 Mr Pollard: That is the main
point: Do they need to take regard of the wider community? And
when I say the wider community I mean the other local schools
that may be impacted upon by their selective policy, or whatever
their admissions policy is.
Mr Seaton: Maybe it is idealism
but I still think most teachers, most schools, most governors
care about their local communities and want to serve their local
communities.
Q576 Mr Pollard: But they do not
have to take consideration of the other schools' admissions policies.
Mr Seaton: I think a bit of competition
between schools is fair enough. Again, I think that would raise
standards all round and improve parental satisfaction.
Q577 Mr Pollard: What do you think
about that, Mr Johnson?
Mr Johnson: The one thing that
struck me about the evidence given to you by the head teachers
this morning was the assumptions of autonomy which they all carried
with them. Even Mo Laycock, who seemed to want to be part of a
community of Sheffield schools, spoke, as I interpreted it, as
if it was up to her, effectively, and her governing body, of course,
as to how they played it. Schools are part of a public service.
They are funded by the taxpayer. Even, to a very great extent,
voluntary aided schools are funded by the taxpayer, and so they
must be accountable. That is a word we have not heard this morning,
but I think it is a very important word. I do not see within the
present system, on admissions or a range of other issues, the
degree of accountability to the local community on the part of
the individual schools that I would certainly wish. On admissions,
if the LEA were the admissions authority for all the schools in
its area, then the LEA is open to pressure from its citizens.
Of course, there is ultimately the ballot box, but, more realistically
and in between elections, if it was understood that councillors
ultimately were responsible for the way the schools in their area
admitted pupils, then their surgeries would be full of people
knocking on their doors. There would be heat and it would be effective.
That is democracy in action.
Q578 Chairman: You are trying to
recreate communities where the heads who gave evidence this morning
said they do not exist. Mr Wood said, "People now in London
come from a very, very long way away. What is my community? Is
it the community of church affiliation that comes from all over
London? Is it the people who come from the next borough?"
All of them said, in a sense—except for the head from Sheffield
who has more of a community-based school—that a community
is very difficult to identify for many schools these days.
Mr Johnson: I agree it is an issue.
As you say, Chairman, it does depend on the geography very much.
In London it is sometimes difficult—not always. You do find
schools which are stuck in the middle of a very large estate—I
am talking about within London—and you would say, "That
school should serve that estate." It would not have a balanced
intake. There are other circumstances in which that is not so
likely. But the fact is that if for every school within a borough,
within the London context, the borough were responsible for the
admissions to that school, then the people of that borough could
complain to that LEA and that council if things were not going
well. At the moment, the adjudication system is difficult and
long-winded and it is not direct.
Q579 Chairman: Martin, you call your
ideas "Radical proposals on secondary admissions". How
far would your new proposals address that problem better than
what is proposed by the Government at the moment?
Mr Johnson: In what sense, Chairman?
9 Note by Witness: If schools do not want that
choice it may be because this over centralised and bureaucratic
system at every level has effectively driven out the able, independent,
responsible teachers. Without proper responsibility and the prospect
of exercising exercise of professional judgement, able people
will not become teachers. When you drive away the most able, less
able will take the slots. Back
10
Note by Witness: You cannot deny that there has been no
real choice over admissions policy in the present system and it
takes exceptional heads to defy and stand up to the trend. Back
11
Note by Witness: We will be left with poor teachers, poor
schools and heads unable to take proper responsibility, with the
consequences for unfortunate and failing children which we are
already seeing. Back
12
Note by Witness: Will take far more trouble to teach and
help that pupil, especially if you have made a mistake, than if
a category has been wished on you by bureaucratic procedure. Back
|
