House of Commons - Education and Skills

Select Committee on Education and Skills Written Evidence

Memorandum submitted by Dr Ian Scoones, Secretary, Buckinghamshire Parents for Comprehensive Education (BPCE) (SA 9)

SUMMARY

— BPCE believe that to admit children to different types of secondary schools on the basis of a widely discredited test is unfair to individual children, denies all children access to a broad based curriculum, has severe cost implications, and has a negative impact on social inclusion—effectively discriminating against pupils from ethnic minorities, pupils from lower socio-economic backgrounds, and pupils with disabilities or special educational needs.

— Selection also breaks up friendship groups, fragments communities, distorts provision within the primary sector, and contributes to increased traffic congestion during the school run—compounding problems of road safety and pollution.

— This memorandum summarises the evidence to demonstrate that selection in Bucks is unfair (1-30), that it produces a structurally distorted secondary system (31-40), and is expensive (41-52).

— The memorandum goes on to show that proposed changes by the LEA for 2005 tacitly accept that selection is flawed (53-65). Finally, the memorandum makes recommendations that the Government should follow in order to end selection and bring Buckinghamshire into line with 90% of the rest of LEAs throughout the country (66-74).

INTRODUCTION

1. Buckinghamshire Parents for Comprehensive Education is a non-party political campaign group seeking to replace Buckinghamshire's selective secondary education system with a fair and equitable comprehensive system. The group has links back to the campaign to end selection in the 1970s. At that time, despite significant levels of support for the introduction of a comprehensive system throughout the county generally, and within the Chiltern District Council area in particular (where a referendum showed a majority of 60% in favour of comprehensive education), the County Council decided to retain selection.[1]

2. More recently BPCE has worked to collect sufficient signatures to trigger a ballot on the retention of selection as laid out in the legislation introduced by the present Government. Although, in the year in which we submitted completed petition forms to the Electoral Reform Ballot Service, we were able to collect nearly a thousand validated signatures, our efforts fell a long way short of the 18,000 signatures required to trigger a ballot. BPCE believe that our inability to raise sufficient signatures to trigger a ballot does not reflect any apathy on the part of the people of Buckinghamshire towards the issues at hand, nor does it indicate the outcome of any ballot. It is, rather, a function of the process itself which, it seems to us, has the unintended consequence of hampering the democratic process rather than facilitating it.[2]

SELECTION IN BUCKS

3. Buckinghamshire LEA operates a 100% selective secondary education system. Admission to secondary schools in Bucks is governed by procedures set out in the "Guide for Parents" sent to parents in the autumn before their children transfer to secondary schools. This is a complex document that makes considerable demands upon parents, who are required to make preferences between schools on the basis of information contained in the guide. The order of parental preferences can affect decisions as to which schools their children will be allocated.[3]

4. The LEA's "Secondary Allocation Procedure" [11+] uses verbal reasoning tests [VRTs] to ensure that children are placed in the sort of secondary school which, the LEA argues, can best meet their needs. These tests are independently produced by the National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER). The tests are not directly linked to National Curriculum subjects, but have been specially designed as a way of assessing a child's potential and to show whether they can think a problem through. The skills measured in the test are intended to ensure that those pupils most suitable to grammar school are placed appropriately.[4]

5. Familiarisation—takes five sessions to complete. Schools undertake it at the beginning of the autumn term.[5]

6. Practice—two practice tests are taken once familiarisation is complete. They are exactly the same format as the actual tests.[6]

7. BPCE believe that the LEA's claim that the VRT can measure suitability for grammar school is flawed. Although the VRT is independently produced by NFER, all the evidence suggests that it is impossible to assess a child's potential and suitability for different types of school at age 11. As Professor Richard Pring has pointed out to your committee, "The decision to move to a comprehensive system by most local authorities after 1965 was based on the very clear evidence from Vernon and others that `intelligence' is not a fixed and innate factor which can be accurately measured at the age of 11".[7] Chris Woodhead, the former Chief Inspector of Schools, was quoted recently as saying, "There is no test for potential, you can't [test for it] in any scientific way—it's a wing and a prayer".[8]

8. Each year considerable numbers of upper school pupils transfer into grammar school sixth forms to pursue AS and A level courses, demonstrating the failure of the 11+ to assess a child's potential. This migration of pupils also illustrates the educational bankruptcy of a policy designed to separate the "academic" from the "non-academic" in an era where participation in education beyond the age of 16 is the norm rather than the exception.

9. The LEA claim that the familiarisation and practice process provided for all students ensures that no pupil is disadvantaged at the time of taking the test.[9]

10. We believe that this claim is extremely disingenuous. It is well known that there is a thriving and lucrative cottage industry in Bucks specialising in the private tuition of children in preparation for the 11+. The LEA is perfectly aware of this situation, and yet does nothing about it. Private tuition, for those who can afford it, clearly places some children at an unfair advantage.

11. The LEA does not recommend further practice than that provided by its familiarisation and practice packs.[10] We are concerned that, while many LEA schools follow this advice, some don't, again putting some children at an unfair advantage over others. Furthermore, the preparatory school sector in Bucks makes no bones that one of its aims is to prepare its fee paying children for entry to state grammar schools.

12. The Special Needs and Disability Act of 2001 places a duty on admission authorities not to discriminate against children who are disabled or who have special needs in their access to education. The LEA, however, takes a very curious view of this responsibility, asking parents of a child with special needs to consider whether it is appropriate for their child to take the 11+ and whether the child would be appropriately placed in a grammar school.[11]

13. BPCE believe that it behoves the LEA to extend access to all aspects of its educational provision to those with disabilities or special needs. The LEA, by contrast, seems to want to discourage parents from seeking a grammar school place for their disabled or special needs child, pointing out that it is not possible to either offer extra time or offer extra points to compensate for any special needs.[12]

14. The LEA provides a complex review and appeal procedure intended to consider "exceptional and extenuating circumstances" where the LEA have offered an upper school place and parents feel that their child would be more suited to a grammar school education.[13]

15. BPCE believe that this account of the review and appeal procedure is very misleading. Far from the procedure being in place to consider "exceptional and extenuating circumstances", it is integral to the allocation process.

16. The LEA point out that for 2000 entry, children were required to achieve VRTs of 121 for automatic qualification. Approximately 27% of children achieved the qualifying score and, after the review and appeal process, approximately one-third of all children were placed in a grammar school.[14]

17. These figures suggest that around one in five of grammar school pupils will have gained their place on appeal, a situation which could hardly be described as catering for "exceptional and extenuating circumstances".

18. The high number of children taking up places at grammar schools on appeal exposes the fact that there is nothing mysterious about the automatic qualification mark of 121 points. Children who achieve this score or marginally above it are not fundamentally different from their peers who score marginally below it. Rather, 121 points represents a pragmatic score at which the LEA can be confident that fewer children will qualify for grammar schools than it has grammar school places to offer.

19. Given this fact, and despite its suggestion that the review and appeal procedure should only be embarked upon in exceptional cases, the LEA is perfectly aware that significant numbers of pupils will get to grammar schools via review and appeal.

20. BPCE believe that this situation benefits predominantly middle-class families who have the cultural capital to successfully negotiate the labyrinthine review and appeal procedures. Furthermore, some schools (predominantly those with higher than average intakes of children from middle-class backgrounds) submit their children to an additional round of tests (the Richmond Test) which are taken in order to provide review and appeal panels with evidence of suitability for grammar schools.

21. The review and appeal panels have recently been the subject of a heated correspondence in the local press, with suspicion being cast on the ability of panels to make decisions as to the appropriate school for a particular child.[15]

THE CONSEQUENCES OF SELECTION

(i) Facts

22. The facts of selection, according to Cllr Marion Clayton (Con)—cabinet member with responsibility for schools—are that: "In September 2002, 8243 pupils transferred to secondary schools. About 30% qualified for grammar school places, the 30% comprising 23% from Bucks LEA schools, 3.5% from schools in neighbouring counties, and 3.5% from what are known as "partner schools"—either independent schools in Bucks, or out-of-county close to the Bucks County boundary".[16]

23. This means that while only around one in five Bucks children transferred to grammar schools, about one in four of their classmates at grammar schools are from the independent sector or from out of county.

24. The actual situation is even worse than this. While 23% of Bucks year six pupils transfer to grammar schools, the evidence suggests that the majority of these pupils come from the most affluent areas of the county. For instance, it has been reported in the local press that in relatively deprived urban areas of the county as few as 7% of pupils transfer to grammar schools.[17] In relatively affluent areas of the county it is not unknown for up to 50% of a primary school's children to transfer to grammar schools.[18]

25. This bias towards the affluent is compounded by the fact that one in five of grammar school pupils will have gained their place on appeal, a system that favours middle-class parents who are best placed to negotiate the review and appeals procedure.

26. BPCE are particularly concerned about the number of pupils gaining places at grammar school on appeal because of the findings of research conducted by Dr Ian Schagen and Dr Sandie Schagen for NFER.

27. In oral evidence taken before your committee Dr Sandie Schagen has stated that,

28. If, as Dr Schagen suggests, the educational benefit of grammar schools is greatest for those children at the borderline, BPCE believe that it is scandalous that the beneficiaries of selection should be children who scrape in because their parents are more able to negotiate the system than the parents of their peers who are no less able and who are consequently at risk of under achieving in secondary modern schools.

29. Cllr Clayton argues that the 11+ is meant to be a mechanism whereby children in Bucks are selected for a programme of accelerated learning that best suits their abilities.

30. Instead, it provides a means for the relatively affluent both inside and outside the county to secure an exclusive education for their children without having to pay expensive school fees. That this is so is attested to by indices of social inclusion. 11% of upper school pupils are eligible for free school meals compared to 1% of grammar school pupils. 30% of upper school pupils are from minority ethnic backgrounds compared to 18% of grammar school pupils.[20]

(ii) Structure

31. There are 13 grammar schools and 21 upper (secondary modern) schools. Eight of the grammar schools have achieved specialist school status. Four of the upper schools have specialist status.[21]

32. Many parents of children who have qualified for grammar schools can expect within their catchment area to have the choice of single sex schools, a mixed school, and a choice of specialisms. As long as a within-catchment school is chosen, the LEA will meet transport costs for journeys over three miles.

33. Parents of children destined for upper schools will usually have no choice of schools within their catchment area. There are no single sex upper schools.

34. Because the LEA will meet the travel costs of children travelling over three miles to their catchment area school, only parents of upper school children who can afford to pay for transport will have the choice of a school other than that within catchment.

35. 16,953 years 7-11 pupils (61%) attend upper schools.

10,645 years 7-11 pupils (39%) attend grammar schools.

2,035 years 12-14 pupils [sixth form] (34%) attend upper schools.

3,992 years 12-14 pupils [sixth form] (66%) attend grammar schools.[22]

36. These attendance figures have important implications for the two sectors. The larger sixth forms at grammar schools entail funding benefits which although targeted at years 12-14 cascade down through the lower school.

37. The smaller sixth forms at upper schools mean that the range of AS and A levels on offer will be restricted. This fact compounds the problem by encouraging the most able upper school pupils to transfer to grammar school sixth forms, depleting upper schools of talent, role models, and funding.

38. The 61% of children at upper schools in years 7-11 have a greater diversity of need than those selected for grammar schools.

39. 21% of upper school pupils have special educational needs (SEN) but no statements of SEN, compared to 4% of pupils in grammar schools.[23]

40. The rate of pupil exclusions is higher for upper schools than for grammar schools.[24]

(iii) Costs

41. According to Marion Clayton in an open letter to Secretary of State Charles Clarke, "the majority of [Bucks] schools find themselves in the position of having to set deficit budgets." She goes on to argue that, "the only explanation for this is the additional pressure imposed by central government on schools".[25]

42. While BPCE accept that this has been a difficult year for school funding nationally, we believe that the LEA is wrong to blame central government entirely for the difficulties currently being experienced by Bucks schools.

43. This view is supported by the Buckinghamshire Upper Schools Forum, for whom Dr Katy Simmons (Chair of Governors at Cressex Community School, High Wycombe) has pointed out that, "The national problems provide a smoke screen for local problems which are the result of long term inequalities [ . . . ] Deficit budgets have been a fact of life in Bucks for a long time. They are new in the rest of the country. The reasons we have them is the fault of the [selective] system because the money is not being distributed properly".[26]

44. Furthermore, Professor Rosalind Levacic has pointed out that, "it is upper schools rather than the grammar schools which have been experiencing deficits in a much higher proportion than one would expect if Buckinghamshire schools were like schools in other LEAs".[27]

45. Most alarmingly, Dr Simmons has suggested a link between the financial difficulties experienced by upper schools and concentrations of ethnic minority pupils. It is the upper schools with significant numbers of ethnic minority pupils which endure the largest deficits, "The data shows that the ethnic composition of a school is a strong determinant of deficit budgets [ . . . ] Not surprisingly, the few areas in Buckinghamshire serving areas of deprivation and with significant numbers of ethnic minority pupils are suffering most".[28]

46. It is our view that the costs associated with selection have contributed greatly to the current financial plight of Bucks schools.

47. The costs of the admission procedures associated with selection have been estimated at £2 million per year.[29]

48. Last year the LEA spent £13.2 million on transport, of which £6.7 million was spent on home-to-secondary school transport. Half of this cost (£3.35 million) could be directly attributed to the selective system.[30]

49. This year the LEA is budgeting to spend £15.5 million on transport. The cost this year of bussing pupils to grammar schools is £4.6 million—up £1.25 million on last year.[31]

50. The LEA has therefore spent at least £6.6 million this year on the costs of selection.

51. To put this into perspective, the County Council found an extra £2.8 million this year, to bring the current total annual education budget for Buckinghamshire to £194.6 million.[32] We welcome the fact that the greater proportion of this extra money has been targeted at upper schools with their historical legacy of deficit budgets.

52. Unfortunately, the result has been that the county's 190 primary schools have been left with only £860,000 as their share of the extra money to be divided between them. Consequently many of them have had to set deficit budgets for the first time, while upper schools continue to experience deficits. Schools in the Chiltern area have reported a combined deficit for the year of £1.42 million.[33]

SELECTION FROM 2005

53. The LEA has announced a consultation about proposed changes to school admissions and secondary school catchment areas to take effect from September 2005.[34]

54. It is doing so because the Education Act of 2002 and the School Admissions Code of Practice 2003 require all education authorities to review their admission procedures.

55. The LEA hopes that its proposed changes will maximise the opportunity for more children to attend a preferred school, set schools at the heart of their communities with local schools being available for local children, and to reduce journey times for children to enable them to have more time for other activities.[35]

56. BPCE believe that the LEA is also undertaking its review of secondary (predominantly grammar) school catchment areas in order to attempt to curb its spiralling transport bill.

57. We support the LEA's proposal to set schools at the heart of their communities, and agree that it must reduce its transport bill. Unfortunately, we see no evidence that the proposed changes will bring this about. Transport costs will not be cut substantially because grammar school catchment areas remain too large. Schools will not be at the heart of their communities so long as communities are split by selection.

58. The consultation exercise, however, has brought to light a surprising and significant admission on behalf of the LEA.

59. In its attempt to reduce the distance grammar school pupils have to travel to school, the LEA proposes to end the practice of using 11+ scores as the final over subscription criterion for grammar schools.[36]

60. The LEA tells parents it is doing this because, "The VRT (11+) score a child achieves can be affected by a number of events such as a family bereavement, sickness or disability. Many girls start menstruation during the time of the testing".[37]

61. However, in its briefing document sent to schools and governors (but not to parents), the LEA is more candid, stating that, "Circumstances sometimes mean that many children do less well in the [11+] than their ability would predict".[38]

62. Conceding this point, the LEA goes on to argue that any appeals panel convened to assess a child's true ability would have to leave the actual score achieved by a child unchanged because, "there is no way of measuring a number of marks that would be fair to that child and all of the other children". Therefore, to admit children to an oversubscribed grammar school on score order would disadvantage children who had under performed in the 11+ but whose score could not be changed because there is no fair way of altering it relative to the scores of their peers.[39]

63. Regrettably, the LEA only proposes to adopt this admirable logic for children who score the 121 marks needed to pass the 11+. And yet it must be the case that if the 11+ cannot accurately reflect ability above the pass mark it certainly cannot reflect ability at the pass boundary or below it.

64. Furthermore, if appeals panels are unable to assign accurate and fair scores above the pass mark, there is no reason to suppose that they can fairly and accurately state that a child who has under performed in the 11+ should actually be deemed to have or have not qualified for grammar school.

65. BPCE believe that, having finally acknowledged that the 11+ does not give an accurate reflection of the ability or potential of pupils, the LEA should have the good grace to follow the example of 90% of the rest of the country and discard selection by ability as the primary criterion for transfer to secondary school.

RECOMMENDATIONS

66. The LEA would no doubt ask the committee to disregard the evidence submitted by BPCE and consider instead the results achieved by the selective system.

67. Undoubtedly the results are impressive. Last year 64.4% of pupils achieved five or more GCSEs at A*-C, significantly better than the national average of 51.5%.[40] But league tables do not tell the whole story.

68. The LEA is rightly proud of the GCSE results achieved by teachers and pupils within the Bucks system. BPCE share that pride in the hard work of teachers and pupils, but we recognise that higher than average scores would be expected from a county with the above average socio-economic circumstances of Buckinghamshire.

69. However, Bucks is one of the 20 LEAs with the largest performance differences between their highest and lowest achieving schools.[41] Furthermore, there is a 37% gap between white pupils and pupils of Pakistani heritage achieving five or more A*-C GCSEs.[42]

70. Research suggests that comprehensive systems match or better the performance of selective systems. Dr Sandie Schagen reports that her work shows that, "at GCSE level, comprehensive LEAs get slightly better results than those where a large proportion of children are in grammar schools".[43] Even the National Grammar Schools Association has to grudgingly admit that, on the benchmark of five or more A*-C GCSEs, the top 25% of pupils in comprehensives achieve better results than children in grammar schools.[44] We see no reason why a comprehensive system in Bucks should not at least match current performance, if not improve upon it, without the disastrous consequences of selection detailed above.

71. We believe the Government should act to end the many injustices of selection and introduce a fair and equitable comprehensive system to bring Bucks into line with 90% of the rest of the country.

72. Failing this, the Government should abandon the unworkable petition and ballot procedure it has put in place. It should instead undertake independent reviews of the impact of selection in all the areas where it persists. It should also fund all affected LEAs to produce detailed and costed plans for a transition to comprehensive systems.

73. The reviews and plans should then be put to local parents to decide whether to retain selection or switch to comprehensive systems.

74. BPCE believe that parents, aware of all the facts and reassured that any change will be properly managed and funded, will overwhelmingly support the introduction of comprehensive education.

Dr Ian Scoones

August 2003

1 T, McLellan, Acting Chairman, Buckinghamshire County Council Education Committee, Report of the Schools Sub-Committee, 28 January 1975. Back

2 A BPCE delegation under the auspices of the Campaign for State Education, along with other delegations from campaign groups around the country, met with the Secretary of State in March 2003 to discuss the shortcomings of the petition and ballot procedures. Back

3 Admissions to Buckinghamshire Primary and Secondary Schools, Guide for Parents, September 2002-August 2003 Entry. Back

4 Guide for Parents, p25. Back

5 Guide for Parents, p25. Back

6 Guide for Parents, p25. Back

7 Professor Richard Pring, Memorandum, House of Commons Education and Skills Committee, Secondary Education: Diversity of Provision, Fourth Report of Session 2002-03, Ev 3. Back

8 Chris Woodhead, speaking on BBC Radio 4's Straw Poll, 1 August 2003. Back

9 Guide for Parents, p25. Back

10 Guide for Parents, p25. Back