Examination of Witnesses (Questions 920
- 939)
MONDAY 8 DECEMBER 2003
MR DAVID
MILIBAND MP AND
MR STEPHEN
TWIGG MP
Q920 Valerie Davey: Of the admission
of a child to a certain school.
Mr Miliband: In the new system
that is being put in, it would depend on the ranking of the school
by the parent and also the admissions criteria of the school.
We now know that the conditionality practice is being removed
from the system as it has been ruled unfair by the Adjudicator
so I think one can say quite clearly that each school will have
its own criteria which will be applied in a fair and transparent
way. Every parent will apply to three schools of their choice
in ranked order. The school will not know which ranking they have
been given. You will then have a clear listing of the order in
which pupils are admitted to different schools, be that on the
grounds of sibling, distance or faith (although faith without
an interview).
Q921 Valerie Davey: In Slough 20%
of their youngsters go out of Slough and 20% or more from other
authorities come in. Even then you are asking that local authority
to be holding the rein and looking after the community.
Mr Miliband: But we are moving
from a system where a school with pupils coming from a range of
authorities had hundreds of applications from individual parents.
There will be a step reduction in the amount of bureaucracy that
is attached to the system because parental preference will be
funnelled through other systems. There has been some piloting
done in two or three parts of the country where there have been
some quite complex admissions patterns, but nonetheless the introduction
of coordinated admissions has introduced a degree of efficiency
to the system.
Mr Twigg: I think two of the London
chief education officers, Ian Birnbaum and Paul Robinson from
Sutton and Wandsworth, set it out very fully when they appeared
before you. The potential benefits that are going to come to London
parents and London communities from the Pan-London system when
it comes in in 2005 will be considerable. In fact, there are already
benefits coming from those authorities like Birmingham and also
some of the London boroughs, including my own borough of Enfield,
where there is that process. Even where you have a selective element—as
we have with one school in my borough and others nearby in St
Albans—there is that possibility of a process which I think
is a good deal fairer and more transparent and, most importantly,
it does not leave a position where you have a minority—a
significant minority—of children and parents left with no
school place until the very last minute.
Q922 Valerie Davey: I agree with
you entirely that the new system is an improvement and certainly
we hope it will be more efficient. It will allow parents to have
a clear understanding of the process but I do not see that it
helps in fostering communities and schools with their communities
while this wide range of communication and travel is going on
and there is no local authority able to have a direct influence,
it would appear, on that process. The criterion at the top would
appear to be efficiency. I accept that, it is important. Then
it is parental choice and then school admissions policy and at
the bottom somewhere is the need to hold that balance potentially
for the good of the community and standards throughout those schools.
Mr Miliband: Surely the two of
us can agree that the degree to which a school is engaged with
its community is about far more than simply admissions. Whatever
system you have in a school that is over-subscribed there are
difficult decisions being made, but the degree to which a school
is genuinely engaged with its community is what it does all the
way through the year: before school, after school, weekends, summer
holidays, the extent to which it is open to the community for
out of hours use, the extent to which it works with other schools,
teacher training which is done between schools. All those
factors seem to me to have a disproportionately large influence
on the extent to which a school is seen as something that is precious
and valued by the community compared to the admissions issue.
Q923 Valerie Davey: I agree with
you, but it does not seem that the admissions policy helps that
process. In fact, in many cases it is the opposite.
Mr Twigg: I would not want to
overstate this point, but I think that the coordination of admissions
in practice is giving more of a role to the local education authority.
I apologise for using the example of my own borough again, but
the LEA has that role even alongside a grammar school and a number
of faith schools and a relationship with a whole pattern of various
schools in Hertfordshire and Barnet and elsewhere. My own sense
of it as a local member of Parliament is that it has had one effect
which is to encourage a closer relationship between secondary
schools, even across some of those barriers between the one grammar
school and the comprehensives.
Mr Miliband: Could we bring up
the Australian context? There pupils but also, in brackets, teachers,
are allocated to schools in some states on the basis of a computer
programme. I think of all of the strengths of the Australian systems
none of the participants in it would say that it does anything
to strengthen the community links that you are talking about.
It is de-humanised almost. It has the notion that the central
state knows best and it will tell you where to go as a school
child and where to go as a school teacher. I do not think that
does much to strengthen the community aspects which I know you
believe in.
Q924 Helen Jones: We have heard quite
a lot from you already about the importance of coordinating admissions
and I think we can certainly agree that there has been a step
forward on this recently. However, if that is so important can
I ask you why CTCs are not included and are not required to
participate in the coordinated admissions arrangements, particularly
when academies are and they are both state funded schools?
Mr Twigg: I think the situation
in respect of CTCs is without doubt an anomaly and I do not think
that either of us would sit here and deny that. We are talking
about a small number of schools and a situation that we inherited
from the previous government. I think in the previous evidence
given by officials from the Department one of the ways forward
to correct that was set out, which is to encourage CTCs to become
academies so that they then become part of that coordinated approach.
One of them has already done so and another is in discussion with
us about taking that matter forward.
Q925 Helen Jones: I agree that we
are only talking about a small number of schools, but they can
have quite an impact in the area in which they operate and an
impact on the other schools in the area. Is the Department thinking
of further ways that they can either encourage or compel CTCs
to become academies and, if so, what changes would that require
to their funding arrangements?
Mr Miliband: Quite substantial.
The CTCs were set up on the basis of a particular prospectus which
included the admissions arrangements to which you refer and it
is out of respect for the basis on which they were set up that
we have not compelled—to use your phrase—them to change
because I think that would alter the terms of trade on which they
were set up. What I think we can legitimately do is to encourage
them to follow the route of academies which have to have regard
to the admissions code as we discussed earlier. If they are going
to admit pupils across the ability range they have to do it in
relation to the proportion of pupils who have applied to the school
rather than according to national ability bands. I am encouraged
that one has already decided to become an academy; another is
interested in doing so. Of the two that have joined they are interested
in federating with other schools and I think all that is to the
good. However, they were set up on a particular basis and we think
it is right to respect the basis on which they were set up while
encouraging the benefits of the academy operation. It is worth
saying that we have had three academies going for over a year
and we have had 12 academies going since September so we have
a relatively new offer to make to those CTCs and I think as they
see the way in which the academy admissions process is working
they will be encouraged to join them.
Q926 Helen Jones: We have had some
discussion about the interview process for CTCs and our understanding
is that they are not actually allowed to interview but they are
allowed to have what is called a structured discussion. What
is the difference? Have you thought of at least bringing their
admission arrangements into line with other schools and getting
rid of that interviewing process, whatever you choose to call
it?
Mr Miliband: If a structured discussion
means that all parents who are interested in applying to a school
are invited—invited, not compelled—to come to the
school on their own or in groups to parents' evenings or to see
the school at work during the day, that is a good thing. If it
is structured in the sense that the head teacher and other teachers
explain the way the school works and they give the parents as
much information as possible, that is to be encouraged. It fosters
an understanding that we want to see across the system. If a structured
discussion means an interview with each pupil, to either encourage
them or discourage them to apply, that is not something that is
allowed by the Code. That is the difference, but the fact remains
that CTCs were set up on a different basis; they were not set
up on the same basis as academies and that is why they operate
under a different set of rules.
Q927 Chairman: Can CTCs have interviews
or only structured discussions?
Mr Miliband: They can have structured
discussions. I will write to you about whether there are any legal
case laws as to what constitutes a structured discussion. CTCs
are not required to operate under the Code.
Q928 Helen Jones: Do you accept then,
whether you call it an interview or a structured discussion—we
are not entirely clear what the difference is—that the kind
of arrangement that you just described actually disadvantages
a number of children whose parents are perhaps not so articulate
at those discussions or who do not turn up?
Mr Miliband: It could lead to
that kind of discrimination. That is why, to take account of that
sort of disadvantage, we have said that academies should not operate
on that basis. That is the simple answer to what you are saying.
Academies are encouraged to be as open as possible—as other
schools are—with as many parents as possible about the way
in which the school works and what makes the school tick. That
is not the same as interviewing or having a structured discussion
with each and every parent before they apply.
Q929 Helen Jones: It could be that
where CTCs are concerned some families do not even apply in the
first place because they are put off by that process. Does the
Department have any evidence on that?
Mr Miliband: I do not have any
evidence. What I know is that the CTCs have used a model of nine
ability rankings for applicants and they take pupils from each
of those nine ability ranges. Just so that we are absolutely clear,
I think that the accusation that is made or the worry that you
have is that within each of those nine ability rankings there
is a temptation or a tendency for particular groups of people
to be chosen within those ability ranks. I think the CTCs would
make a very strong argument that they are very comprehensive in
the ability range that they take. They take pupils from the bottom
10% of ability and the same proportion from the top 10%. What
you may be worried about is that they take particular groups from
within those deciles. It is worth pointing out that they do take
pupils from every single one of those ability ranges. From our
point of view the reason the academies have been set up in the
way they have is that we think it is important that every child
has an equal chance of getting in them.
Q930 Helen Jones: Are you telling
the Committee, Minister, that you believe that the current structure
by which CTCs are able to interview is not an appropriate one?
Mr Miliband: What I would say
is that it seems that it is an anomaly that results from the unique
way in which they were set up in the mid 1980s.
Q931 Chairman: The memorandum that
you have sent to us (SA42, City Technology Colleges, point 4)[1]
says, "8 CTSs interview". You have to make up your mind
whether it is a structured discussion or an interview.
Mr Miliband: Nobody is trying
to hide behind what it is called. We have been absolutely clear
that the CTCs were set up on a particular basis which allows them
to have interviews even if they are called structured discussions.
Q932 Chairman: You explain that in
terms of historic reasons.
Mr Miliband: Exactly.
Q933 Chairman: If you do not like
the admissions procedure, both CTCs and City Academies—and
City Academies are very much the progeny of this administration—have
a common appeal system to the Secretary of State. Why have you
again allowed Academies to have a different system? This is not
because you inherited it?
Mr Miliband: We deliberately gave
the Academies a different admissions procedure.
Q934 Chairman: But not a different
appeal procedure. They both appeal to the Secretary of State not
to the Adjudicator. Why is that?
Mr Miliband: Because the Secretary
of State has a funding agreement with them. As the Academy is
organised it has a funding agreement with the Secretary of State.
Q935 Chairman: What has a funding
agreement got to do with the fact that if in a state school parents
believe their child has been unfairly refused admission the appeal
is not to the Adjudicator but to the Secretary of State?
Mr Miliband: Maybe the words funding
agreement are misleading. The funding agreement sets out all aspects
of the way in which the school will work so it is the appropriate
basis on which to judge the way in which the school is working,
whether it is adhering to the Code or whether it is adhering to
other aspects.
Q936 Chairman: You are being a bit
nimble on your feet, Minister. On the one hand you explain that
it is all inherited and you could not help it, it was an old administration
from years ago. Two minutes ago it was all something inherited
from Kenneth Baker and that was a long time ago and you do not
want to disturb historic decisions.
Mr Miliband: Correct.
Q937 Chairman: Two minutes later,
I pointed out to you that the appeals procedure is very new because
it is in City Academies as well as CTCs.[2]
Mr Miliband: We had our opportunity
to do something different from the CTCs. In the case of the adherence
to the Code and the way in which the admissions work, we did.
In relation to appeals, we did not. What is inconsistent about
that?
Q938 Chairman: We feel it is in inconsistent
following the reasoning of your argument in the early part of
this investigation.
Mr Miliband: I do not see why.
Q939 Chairman: This is a scrutiny
Committee of your Department that you are talking to and what
we are interested in is consistency. We feel that it is an inconsistency
if CTCs have a very different system which you have explained
is because it is historic. When we point to a very modern innovation—City
Academies—they share some of those characteristics which
are not new and you have actually included them. The appeal procedure
is the same as the CTCs.
Mr Miliband: I think we have both
been labouring under a misapprehension. Let me try to explain.
An individual parent gets an independent appeal to an appeal
panel just like in other maintained schools. Schools that
dislike others' admissions arrangements cannot go to the Adjudicator,
but that is not the role of the individual parent. I hope that
clarifies the situation. Do you see the distinction between the
parental appeal against admission or lack thereof, and the appeal
by another admissions authority—be it a school or an LEA—against
the way in which an Academy is operating its admissions arrangements?
1 Note: See Ev 223. Back
2
Note by Witness: Academics are required in their funding
agreement to set up independent appeals panels appointed in accordance
with the provisions of the School Admission Appeals Code of Practice. Back
| 
