Supplementary memorandum submitted by
David Miliband MP, Minister of State for School Standards (SA
49)
I promised to write to you with the answers
to outstanding questions raised by the Committee when Stephen
Twigg and I appeared before you on 8 December.
CTCS
The Committee asked if CTCs can interview pupils
or only hold structured discussions and I said I would let you
know of any case law on what constitutes a structured discussion.
I can confirm that CTCs can hold structured discussions only.
These discussions must give the same opportunity to all students
and be capable of faithful replication. In practice this means
that a CTC will identify beforehand a set of questions to be asked
at the structured discussion, and all applicants will be given
the same set of issues and questions.
Our lawyers are not aware of any case law relating
to structured discussions.
TRENDS IN
ADMISSION APPEALS
The Committee asked whether trends in appeals
show that too many appeals are allowed by panels without regard
to the capacity of individual schools. There is no way of telling
this from the statistical returns made to my Department. Someone
would have to sit in on every appeal and make a subjective judgement.
All we can say is that this should not happen, if panels are operating
according to the law and the Codes of Practice.
As the Committee knows, most admission appeals
(except for infant class sizes, see below) are two-stage. Usually
the admission authority convinces the panel in the first stage
that it followed its admission arrangements correctly, recruiting
up to its published admission number and beyond. But the second
stage gives parents the chance to say why their child should be
admitted, even though by definition that means exceeding published
capacity. The panel then balances the advantage to the child,
against the disadvantages to everybody else. In this second stage
I wouldn't say that the school's capacity is being disregarded—just
re-evaluated by an independent panel, on the basis of the evidence
presented. But panels are obliged to "have regard to . .
. any reasons put forward . . . as to why the child's admission
would be inappropriate"; and to assess in every case whether
admission of an additional child would cause prejudice to the
efficient provision of education or use of resources at the school.
If Committee Members believe they know of cases where appeal panels
patently failed to do this, my officials would be happy to check
them out, given the details. It may be that the panel members
concerned, or the presenting officers, have a training need. On
the other hand, the panel may have judged—reasonably, on
the evidence before it—that the school could safely and
efficiently cope with more pupils than the published admission
number.
There were particular concerns about appeals
in Slough, which the Committee visited. I believe that in Slough,
as in some other selective areas, parents may have a "grammar
school appeal"—where they can argue that their child
should be regarded as having met the selective standard—as
well as the statutory appeal for a place at a particular school.
It would be interesting to know whether this contributed to the
burden of appeals, as reported to the Committee.
When the Government introduced a limit of 30
on infant classes, in the School Standards and Framework Act 1998,
we thought it necessary to guard against successful appeals causing
widespread breaches; so we restricted the grounds on which appeal
panels could admit additional pupils to infant classes already
at the limit. In these cases, the appeal only succeeds if the
panel is satisfied either that the decision to refuse a
place was not one which a reasonable authority would make, or
that the published admission arrangements weren't properly applied,
and the child would have been admitted if they had been. Since
these restrictions were introduced, the number of successful primary
appeals has fallen dramatically. Those who believe that too many
appeals succeed, might favour introducing similar restrictions
for secondary admissions. However, research conducted by Sheffield
Hallam University in 2002 revealed that many parents and appeal
panel members were highly critical of the infant class size appeal
system. They felt that appeals were futile where the appeal panel
members were not allowed to exercise their discretion, and balance
advantage to the applicant against disadvantage to others. Knowing
what store parents set on getting a place for their child at their
preferred secondary school if at all possible, I do not believe
that such restrictions would be well-received.
PERFORMANCE OF
CHILDREN SELECTED
BY APTITUDE
The Committee asked if my Department had carried
out any research on the performance of children selected by aptitude.
I confirm that we have not carried out any such research, although
of course others have.
ACADEMIES
It was suggested that Academies were not giving
parents the same deal on appeals as maintained schools, because
Academies could not be referred to the Adjudicator. In case there
is any lingering confusion, may I try again to explain why I do
not believe this to be the case. Adjudicators get involved in
admissions only when there is an objection to the admission arrangements
a school or LEA wishes to have for pupil intake in a future year.
These objections must be distinguished from parental appeals,
which happen when parents are not given a place for their child
at a school they have applied for.
Academies, like maintained schools, have independent
appeal panels to hear parental appeals. Their admission arrangements,
which will have been agreed by the Secretary of State following
local annual consultation very like that undertaken for maintained
schools, cannot be the subject of objections to the Adjudicator—but
we do not accept that that disadvantages individual parents trying
to get a school place for their child. Most objections about admission
arrangements come from LEAs or schools. There are only two circumstances
in which groups of parents can make objections to the Adjudicator
about maintained schools' proposed admission arrangements. The
first is if the admission arrangements include types of selection
that cannot now lawfully be introduced, such as partial selection
by ability, or selection by aptitude over 10%. Academies are not
allowed to have these arrangements anyway. The second is if the
admission number set for the school is below its capacity, according
to the Department's capacity measurement formula. This formula
does not apply to Academies, whose funding agreements ensure that
their capacity is fully used (except where they are new schools
building up). So the Committee can be assured that parents do
not lose out by being unable to refer an objection to the Adjudicator—who
has no powers over whether a pupil should be admitted to a particular
school.
David Miliband
12 January 2004
| 
