Memorandum submitted by the Campaign for
State Education (SA 13)
SUMMARY OF
MAIN POINTS
— The committee will want to examine
some issues in relation to the new Code of Practice on school
admissions and the extent to which its overall aim will be met
ie that "school admission arrangements should work for the
benefits of all parents and children in an area"
— The Code allows LEAs to adopt different
means of working out parental preferences, eg treating them as
equal or treating them as ranked. All would be equally acceptable
to the DfES. This could lead to problems in some areas.
— The Code does little to alter the
situation that schools which are their own admission authorities
are more able to choose pupils as they set their own admission
criteria.
— It is as yet unclear how actively
admission forums will interpret their role to "assess how
well existing and proposed admission arrangements "serve
the interests of local parents and children".
— Government policy seems to be if
there is no local objection then a particular admissions system
can continue. This passive stance seems to be an abdication of
responsibility.
— Many schools which are admission
authorities have an over subscription criterion which requires
parents to express a first preference for the school and the school
gives priority to those applications. The committee should examine
this practice and its implications.
— By creating CTCs and Academies Governments
have complicated further an already too complex admissions system.
— Faith schools are publicly funded
presumably on the basis that they have something to offer the
community. If that is so it is contradictory to allow them to
select only pupils from their particular religious group.
— London is a special case. The committee
might wish to investigate this further.
— It is only when parents start to
choose schools for their children that they realise that for many
the reality is that schools choose pupils. Parents and their children
have more choice of schools if all local schools admit children
of all abilities.
— Parent groups have to be highly organised
if they wish to object using the limited opportunities they are
given to object, not least because they would have to be aware
of the potential difficulties a year ahead.
— The Government's approach to giving
parents rights to object to local admission policies including
selection is hugely inconsistent.
— Both schools and the Government should
ask themselves why many English children should continue to face
selection at 11, as clearly many schools are able to demonstrate
that excellence can be achieved without selective admissions.
— It is clear that the petitioning
and balloting system put in place by the School Standards and
Framework Act will not result in an end to selection.
— CASE believes selection by aptitude
should be removed, it creates complications and unfairnesses and
there is no evidence of its contribution to raising standards.
— In the absence of Government action
changes in covert selection will only come about if local agencies
ie LEAs, school governing bodies and Admission Forums take action.
— If parents want their child to have
access to particular facilities, sport facilities for example,
the law allows them to express a preference for the school, this
gives the "choice" to the parent, selection on aptitude
gives the choice to the school.
— Clearly an education system can play
a part in encouraging social cohesion. Selection results in schools
which are socially divided.
— In discussions of admissions and
selection the effect on children is often ignored.
— The existence of selection adds to
costs, diverting money which could be better spent on pupils"
education. This applies also to the costs of administering the
selection process.
— There is evidence to indicate that
retaining selection lowers standards in the areas where it remains.
— In conclusion—1. If selection
on ability and aptitude were removed admission processes would
become simpler and fairer for pupils, parents and schools. 2.
If the Code of Practice is to ensure "school admission arrangements
should work for the benefits of all parents and children in an
area" there will need to be more changes. 3. The Government
should grasp the nettle of ending selection otherwise its harmful
effect on children and their education will continue.
IMPLEMENTATION AND
COORDINATION OF
SCHOOL ADMISSION
POLICIES
The School Admissions Code of Practice 2003
1. The admission criteria for entry to schools
when they are over subscribed are decided by the admission authority
following consultation and in line with current government circulars.
In voluntary aided and foundation (ex grant maintained schools)
schools the admission authority is the governing body, in county
and voluntary controlled schools it is the LEA.
2. There has been an increase in the number
of schools able to act as their own admission authority, setting
the criteria for admission when the school is over subscribed.
This resulted in part from the Education Reform Act 1988 which
allowed for the setting up of grant maintained schools. Over 30%
of secondary schools are admission authorities.
3. A new Code of Practice (February 2003)
has introduced several changes notably the requirement that LEAs
are to co-ordinate admission arrangements. There is much to welcome
in the Code which should encourage more fairness in admissions.
The overall aim of the Code is to ensure that "school admission
arrangements should work for the benefits of all parents and children
in an area". Parental and pupil interviews are to be ended
for all schools to which the Code applies.
4. Most provisions of the Code apply to
intakes from September 2004 but some will only be introduced for
intakes in September 2005. As a result it is too early to provide
evidence of the effects of the new Code. Secondary school appeals
have increased, the latest figures for secondary schools show
69,200 appeals were lodged by parents against non-admission of
their children for 2001-02, an increase of 9% from 2000-01.
5. However it would be useful for the committee
to examine some issues in relation to the Code and the extent
to which its overall aim will be met ie that "school admission
arrangements should work for the benefits of all parents and children
in an area".
6. The Code indicates that LEAs can adopt
different means of working out parental preferences, eg treating
them as equal or treating them as ranked. All would be equally
acceptable to the DfES.
7. Two possible complications suggest themselves:
(a)
The Code requires selective LEAs to ensure parental
preferences have to be expressed before selection tests for the
grammar schools so as not to disadvantage parents living further
from the school wishing to have all ability education for their
children. However if all preferences are treated equally this
will mean parents who live nearer the all ability school but who
enter their child for the entrance test will still be enabled
to have two "first choices" one for the grammar school
and one for the nearer all ability school.
(b)
When eventually inter LEA arrangements are to be
drawn up neighbouring LEAs might adopt different approaches to
preference. This could mean parents applying on their LEA form
for neighbouring LEA would have their preferences treated differently.
8. The Code does little to alter the situation
that schools which are their own admission authorities are more
able to choose pupils as they set their own admission criteria.
Evidence already submitted to the committee (Secondary school
admissions in England: Exploring the extent of overt and covert
selection. West and Hind. RISE www.risetrust.org.uk April 2003
) shows that schools which are admission authorities are far more
likely to introduce selection.
9. Clearly the admission forums are crucially
important to bring about fairness in the system. However this
is as yet untried in all LEAs. It is as yet unclear how actively
these forums will interpret their role to "assess how well
existing and proposed admission arrangements "serve the interests
of local parents and children". It is not clear how much
advice in addition to the Code will be provided to Admission Forums.
It is possible that consultation with all schools and parents
from the forum will be patchy and that admission forums could
be unrepresentative.
10. Although the Code is clear that admission
criteria should be clear fair and objective there will be no change
unless objections are made, even presumably over admission criteria
which do not seem to meet the requirements of the Code. This illustrates
what seems to be the overriding Government policy ie if there
is no local objection then the situation can continue. This passive
stance seems to be an abdication of responsibility.
11. Many schools which are admission authorities
have an over subscription criterion which requires parents to
express a first preference for the school and the school gives
priority to those applications. The committee should examine this
practice and the implications of it. It seems to advantage schools
which are admission authorities. It means where parents live equidistantly
from two schools they are forced to put the one which has this
criterion first and thereby might lose their second ranked preference.
It seems to conflict with schemes which allow all preferences
to be treated equally. However since faith schools are allowed
to give priority to parents who want faith education it seems
reasonable that all ability schools in selective areas should
be allowed to give priority to parents who want comprehensive
education. This is an issue in Kent which no doubt the committee
will want to investigate.
CTCs and Academies
12. As the Code (6.4) points out Academies
and CTCs are independent schools although publicly funded. By
creating these independent schools Governments have complicated
further an already too complex admissions system. CTCs have to
be invited rather than required to participate. This seems incredible
for what are publicly funded schools.
13. Academies and CTCs must be brought into
all local arrangements including Admission Forums, requirements
to consult locally and publications. The common application form
should include academies and CTCs. Their admission policies must
be monitored and made public.
Faith schools
14. If faith schools are to remain we wish
to see them required to open places to pupils living in the local
area, regardless of their faith or none. Faith schools are publicly
funded presumably on the basis that they have something to offer
the community. If that is so it is contradictory to allow them
to select only pupils from their particular religious group.
15. It is likely that there are primary
schools which are designated as having a religious character but
have all their places as open places. There might be many village
schools which fit this category. There should be more secondary
schools with the same policy.
London
16. Coldron found that "competition
for places in London schools appears to be more intense than elsewhere.
London parents were the least likely to be offered places for
their child in the school they would most like—nearly 70%
compared with 85% nationally. (Coldron Research Report 2001 DfES)
17. It is surprising therefore that the
DFES study from the London Challenge—"Transforming
London Secondary Schools" published earlier in the year although
drawing attention to the large numbers of pupils moving across
London had nothing to say about the effect of admissions. The
committee might wish to investigate this further.
Parents and admissions
18. Since the 1980s much has been made by
successive Governments of the concept of parental choice. It is
only when parents start to choose schools for their children that
they realise that for many the reality is that schools choose
pupils. Rather than a choice of local schools many parents are
faced with a pecking order of schools. Parents and their children
have more choice of schools if all local schools admit children
of all abilities.
19. Although admission authorities are required
to consult on admission arrangements it is only when the admission
process starts that parents realise that some admission criteria
exclude their children. By then of course it is too late for parents
to object either to the LEA or the admission forum, or even if
they were entitled, to the Adjudicator.
20. If local schools propose to introduce
selection by aptitude parents cannot object. They can only make
their views know indirectly by pressing admission authorities
ie to object to their local LEA or the governing bodies of voluntary
or foundation schools, or contacting the Admission Forum, in particular
the Parent Governor Representatives. Parent groups have to be
highly organised if they wish to object using the limited opportunities
they are given to object, not least because they would have to
be aware of the potential difficulties a year ahead. Nonetheless
the Government has seen fit to restrict their rights to object.
21. The Government's approach to giving
parents rights to object to local admission policies including
selection is hugely inconsistent (paras 22-27).
22. In the specific case of existing partial
selection on ability parents can object to the Adjudicator when
a school publishes its proposed admission criteria. Objections
have to be made within six weeks of the notice of admission arrangements
in the newspaper. Objections have to be made by 10 or more primary
parents living in the relevant area.
23. The previous Code of Practice indicated
that parents should make sure that in their complaint they offer
evidence of the effect partial selection is having. It said their
evidence should show that:
— local pupils who could otherwise
expect to be admitted to the school, are in effect being denied
admission;
— other schools in the area are suffering
adverse changes in their pupil profile as a result of the school
creaming off high ability pupils;
— there are difficulties for pupils
placement across the whole area;
— many children are having to travel
unreasonable distances to school;
— it is difficult for the LEA to ensure
that there are sufficient school places;
— an already limited choice of school
in isolated rural areas is being limited; and
— children are being adversely affected
by having to sit a number of tests to gain a place at a local
school.
24. It is not clear why this advice to those
objecting to existing partial selection does not appear in the
current Code. Contacts CASE has had with parents wishing to object
in the past indicates that it is difficult for them to assemble
evidence for the Adjudicator.
25. If a local school wishes to start banding
its intake, as this change requires a statutory consultation,
parents can object, in the same way as any other local people.
The School Organisation Committee has to consider the objection.
The Adjudicator may be called upon to make a ruling if the SOC
disagrees in its response to the proposal.
26. In relation to grammar schools (except
for the unlikely possibility that governing bodies will make a
change) only parents can vote for change to end selection.
27. Parents may object if local schools
propose to fix an admission number which is lower than its capacity
assessment. So while parents may not object if every local school
starts to select 10% on aptitude thereby potentially reducing
available places to their child they can object if the schools
wish to reduce admissions by 10% or less, which may have a similar
effect on the availability of places.
Selection
28. In brief current Government policy seems
to be—"no-more selection (except banding, in sixth
forms and by aptitude)" and "existing selection can
stay unless some local people want it to change".
Clearly the Government wishes to promote inclusion and high standards.
The Code states that admission arrangements should work for the
benefit of all. That said it is difficult to see why the Government
maintains a policy on selection which is clearly at odds with
these aims.
29. In a recent article the Chief Schools
Adjudicator said schools proposing to select should ask themselves
why they need to select pupils. He said "There should
be a clearly thought through statement of what the school hopes
to achieve by selection and why it is prepared to devote resources
and energy to a process that has proved to be both time consuming
and expensive". Times Educational Supplement 11.7.2003
30. All primary schools are comprehensive
in their admission policies. Both secondary schools and the Government
should ask themselves why should many English children continue
to face selection at 11, as clearly many schools are able to demonstrate
that excellence can be achieved without selective admissions.
SELECTION IN
THE ENGLISH
EDUCATION SYSTEM
Grammar Schools
31. There are 164 grammar schools in England,
each likely to be creaming from the intake of three times that
number of de facto secondary moderns. So we have a situation
in England where roughly 20% of secondary schools, and the children
in them are faced with the effects of selection.
32. Of the 150 LEAs in England—15
LEAs (Bexley, Bournemouth, Buckinghamshire, Kent, Kingston, Lincolnshire,
Medway, Poole, Reading, Slough, Southend, Sutton, Torbay, Trafford
and Wirral) can be considered fully selective. About one in five
of their secondary pupils are in grammar schools.
33. Another 21 LEAs have grammar schools
(Barnet, Birmingham, Bromley, Calderdale, Cumbria, Devon, Enfield,
Essex, Gloucestershire, Kirklees, Lancashire, Liverpool, North
Yorkshire, Plymouth, Redbridge, Stoke on Trent, Telford and Wrekin,
Walsall, Warwickshire, Wiltshire and Wolverhampton).
34. The School Standards and Framework Act
stopped the few LEAs which are the admission authority for their
grammar schools from publishing proposals to change their status
to comprehensive. Only the governing bodies of the grammar schools
concerned are allowed to do that under the regulations now in
force.
35. It is clear that the petitioning and
balloting system put in place by the School Standards and Framework
Act will not result in an end to selection. Not only are there
the complex requirements for huge petitions; unfairnesses in the
eligibility to vote and virtual silencing of education professionals
and the Government, but, crucially there are no plans for a comprehensive
system for which local campaigners can campaign. So "better
the devil" you know" arguments hold sway. Meanwhile
the cost of gathering information to provide parental lists in
order for petitions to be gathered has so far resulted in public
spending of £1,102,945 since 1999 (Written Parliamentary
Answer David Miliband 8 April 2003). (Appendix 1 details some
of the complexities of the system).
36. Much of this research quoted in this
submission has been examined in a pamphlet by education Professors
Edwards and Tomlinson which has been submitted to the Committee.
(Selection isn't working. Diversity, standards and inequality
in secondary education. Tony Edwards and Sally Tomlinson. Catalyst.
October 2002). They concluded that the retention of grammar schools
is a matter of public interest on which Government policy should
be much clearer than it is.
37. Edwards and Tomlinson quoted research
by Bradley and Taylor which showed an increase in selection in
that grammar school places have increased by nearly 20% between
1992 to 2000. The Government has recently announced that school
expansion will be made easier. If grammar schools take this opportunity
to expand selection will increase.
Overt and covert selection
38. Apart from overt selection research
by West and Hind found covert selection by unfair admission criteria
in a significant minority of secondary schools which are their
own admission authorities. Change in these will only come
about if local agencies ie LEAs and Admission Forums take action.
Partial selection
39. When the school next door selects it
puts pressure on neighbouring schools to do it, in order to keep
their places in the pecking order.
Partial selection on ability
40. In 1997 rather than ending the partial
selection on ability which had been introduced in some areas as
a result of schools opting out the Labour Government stopped any
further selection and introduced a means of change, should there
be local objections, in the School Standards and Framework Act.
Section 100 of the SSFA allows schools which were selecting pupils
on the basis of ability or aptitude at the beginning of the 1997-98
school year to continue provided that it has continued to admit
on this basis continuously since that time and that there is no
increase in the proportion of pupils selected and no change in
the basis of selection. An amendment allowing parents to object
to existing partial selection was introduced as the SSFA went
through Parliament when it was pointed out that although the Government
had criticised the effect of partial selection it had provided
no opportunity for local parents to make a change.
41. Although it is impossible yet to have
a clear national picture it seems despite past opportunities to
select most schools have not taken up the opportunity. In some
partial selection hotspots such as Wandsworth and Hertfordshire
Adjudicator's decisions have reduced some selection by ability.
Partial selection on aptitude
42. All schools which have a specialism
may select 10% of their intake on "aptitude" for specified
subjects. No definition of, or procedure for, selection by aptitude
distinguishes its reliably from selection by ability. The previous
report from the committee was right to raise concerns about this
provision to select. CASE has been in correspondence with the
DfES over this for many years (see Appendix 2). It seems Government
pronouncements in order to justify it become more and more tortuous.
CASE believes selection by aptitude should be removed, it creates
complications and unfairnesses with no evidence of its contribution
to raising standards. There are many reasons for this (paras 43-49).
43. The committee's previous report quoted
work by West and Hind, which found some schools selecting on aptitude
were, in reality, selecting on ability or attainment.
44. Researchers at Sheffield Hallam University
(Admission policies and practices of selective and partially selective
in England, Coldron et al BERA 2001)) who have worked on school
admissions, have concluded "Specialist school status in
itself does not lead to a change in the intake of a school relative
to other schools in the area. The use of the option to select
does. Our view is that it is probably the case that there is a
principled and political objection to an increase (or even continuation)
of selection by general ability on the part of the Government
but that the 10% option for selection by aptitude will have similar
effects".
45. Even if only 10% of places are reserved
for pupils with a particular aptitude, many more children
will be put through the test, if schools start to select. Parents
living locally will be concerned that their children might not
get in and might be tempted to put them in for the test "just
in case". This adds to the burden of tests on our children.
46. Inevitably the introduction of 10% selection
on aptitude reduces parental choice for all local parents whose
children do not have the "aptitude" who might otherwise
have got a place.
47. When challenged the usual Government
response is that most schools do not use their right to select,
so the retention of this policy is justified by saying it is rarely
used.
48. Currently few schools have taken up
the 10% selection on aptitude option. However it is easier for
schools which are admission authorities to introduce selection.
Of the 25 specialist schools listed in a recent parliamentary
answer as selecting part of their intake only one is a community
school. (PQ 23 January 2002. House of Commons). Any community
school that wishes, with local agreement, can transfer from community
to foundation status. A school becoming a foundation school
becomes an admission authority. There has been an increase in
secondary schools becoming admission authorities. If more schools
were admission authorities it would be easier for 10% selection
to spread in a domino effect as neighbouring schools react to
one school introducing selection. So there is the potential for
a huge increase in selection.
49. Access to particular facilities has
been cited in support of aptitude selection. However if parents
want their child to have access to particular facilities, sport
facilities for example they can express a preference for the school,
this gives the "choice" to the parents rather than the
schools. Government should be aiming to ensure all children have
access to the specialist facilities they might need—regardless
of which schools they attend.
Social segregation and selective admissions
50. If we are to encourage a socially cohesive
society, children need to learn how to live and work together.
Clearly an education system can play a part in encouraging social
cohesion. Selection results in schools which are socially divided.
The Government is committed to promoting community cohesion through
schools (Schools Organisation Committee Guidance consultation
document Spring 2003) An important factor in achieving strong,
bonded communities with a common sense of place, is to allow them
to grow together. As a IPPR report said ..the quality of local
social relations affect the quality of life of individuals and
families . . . At the aggregate level, there is evidence to show
that areas with a predominance of certain types of social relations
or social capital, wil be healthier, more prosperous or less crime
ridden than others. (Reclaiming community Nash IPPR 2002)
What better starting place for this than in schools?
51. The comparison between the proportion
of children known to be eligible for free school meals in selective
and non selective secondary schools (2.7% compared to 17.1%) illustrates
the stark social division as a result of selection (Written Parliamentary
Answer 1.11.2000).
52. In Buckinghamshire, a fully selective
LEA, for example, there is clear evidence that selection discriminates
against children on the basis of class, race and special needs.
The non selective schools in Bucks have 11% of their pupils eligible
for free school meals, compared to 1% in the grammar schools;
there are 30% ethnic minority pupils compared to 18% in the grammar
schools; and 21% with special educational needs compared to 4%
in grammar schools (The Penalty Costs of Upper School Funding.
Levacic, March and Newson IoE. October 2002).
53. The Institute of Public Policy Research
(IPPR) recently reported (Schooling in London An overview. Martin
Johnson. IPPR February 2003) on schooling in London. Drawing attention
to the social segregation of London schools and its effect on
performance, the report recommended that Admission by selection
according to ability or aptitude must be ended.
54. An End Child Poverty report published
recently (Child Poverty and Education Briefing Paper End Child
Poverty and National Children's Bureau 2003) looked at the class
gap in attainment. It drew attention to the fact that the rate
at which the performance of children from different social classes
diverges during secondary schools is faster in areas where the
11 plus is retained. It called for the removal of all types
of selection within the maintained system, and the establishment
of admission policies geared towards maximising the social mix
in any school.
55. Some researchers have concluded that
there is little difference in overall outcomes between selective
and comprehensive systems. In view of the effect of selection
on social inclusion and children, this is an argument for change.
(Using National Value-Added Datasets to Explore the effects of
school diversity. Ian and Sandie Schagen. British Educational
Research Association. September 2002; Comprehensive secondary
education—building on success. 2002 published by the Campaign
for State Education: The Grammar School Question. Crook, Power
and Whitty. Institute of Education. 1999)
56. House prices can rise in areas of popular
schools so only those able to pay these inflated prices can get
there children into these schools (Is comprehensive education
really free? D Leech and E Campos. J R Statistical Society 2003).
This has led some to argue that the 11plus would be fairer than
this "selection by mortgage". However in these situations
children do not feel failures if their parents fail to buy a house
in the right street; ability to pay plays a strong role in selective
areas as parents pay for coaching to pass the exam and in any
case, house prices are subject to many other influences.
Children and selective admissions
57. In discussions of admissions and selection
the effect on children is often ignored.
58. All children now face tests at KS2.
In areas where selection exists children face further testing.
Selection can be criticised as unfair now just as it was when,
for the majority of children, it was abolished. The effect of
selection on children is also just the same now. The majority
of children enter secondary school with a sense of failure. Schools
taking children who fail the selection tests know that their first
task has to be to rebuild their self-esteem.
59. The London Office for a Children's Commissioner
(Changing Schools. the impact of the school admission process
on children. Hood and Templeton. Office of the Childrens' Rights
Commissioner for London 2002) conducted research into the views
of children on school admissions in four London primary schools.
They found the bad effect on children when local secondary schools
selected in various ways- The pupils experience of this is entirely
negative—more selection processes, more rejections, more
anxiety and a divisive force within the classroom
60. Save the Children investigated the effect
of taking the entry tests for secondary education on children
in Northern Ireland. The report (Children's Voices in Education.
Save the Children. November 2001) concluded The views and experiences
of the children spoken to in the course of our research suggests
that testing has a far more detrimental effect on children than
Government is often willing to admit. The level of fear and anxiety
that children admitted to was frightening.
61. In selective Northern Ireland the recent
Burns report (Education for the 21st century Report by the Post
Primary Review Body. NI. October 2001) examined all aspects of
selection and concluded it should end. It said We were particularly
impressed by the views of young people and their experiences of
the tests and their effects on themselves and others. We have
been left in no doubt that the tests are socially divisive, damage
self esteem, place unreasonable pressures on pupils, primary teachers
and parents, disrupt teaching and learning at an important stage
in the primary curriculum and reinforce inequality of opportunity.
Admission and school transport costs
62. School transport costs are an important
factor in all areas, particularly rural ones. The existence of
selection adds to these costs, diverting money which could be
better spent on pupils' education. This applies also to the costs
of administering the selection process.
63. A report on Buckinghamshire by researchers
from the Institute of Education (The Penalty Costs of Upper School
Funding, Levacic et cal I of E 2002) said "The relatively
high costs of home to school transport in a rural authority make
the delegation target more difficult to achieve. There is evidence
that much of these higher costs derive from the selective system
and that the costs have been rising more rapidly than the rate
of inflation. Buckinghamshire spends £3.5 million more on
secondary home to school transport than the Statistical Neighbour
average".
64. A report to Kent Education Committee
(Paper from CEO Kent to Kent CC education committee 10.2.2000)
estimated that about £102,000 a year could be saved on administration
costs if selection ended. An additional £2.5 million could
be saved on transport.
65. Data from the recently published London
Challenge report (The London Challenge. Transforming London Secondary
Schools. DfES 2003), shows large numbers of children moving across
London for secondary education. The fact that seven of the 33
London boroughs have grammar schools contributes to this pressure
on children (and roads).
Admissions and school and pupil performance
66. In its last report the Committee drew
attention to the PISA report and its finding that selective practices
can have the effect of depressing pupil attainment. The PISA study
found that the more differentiated and selective an education
system is the larger the typical performance differences between
students for more and less advantaged family backgrounds. When
looked at overall in comparison to Germany for example our system
is considered comprehensive, but there are many parts of England
where the system is very divided, just as it was before comprehensive
education was introduced.
67. There is evidence to indicate that retaining
selection lowers standards in the areas where it remains.
68. Jesson's research (Selective systems
of education—blueprint for lower standards? Education Review
15(1) 2001) indicates that in the 15 LEAs which he considers to
be wholly selective the proportion of schools in special measures
is higher than in comparable LEAs; the proportion of schools facing
challenging circumstances is almost double that in non selective
LEAs. This is despite the fact that many of the selective LEAs
serve relatively advantaged communities. He concludes that selective
education depresses the performance of whole communities, and
this at a time when the emphasis is on doing everything possible
to enhance a nation's educational performance.
69. The recent OFSTED report into selective
Kent is an illustration of this overall lowering of standards.
When OFSTED compared Kent with its statistical neighbours taking
account of free school meals it found that schools in the county
were "substantially" more likely to require special
measures or have serious weaknesses. (Kent Local Education
Authority. Paper by OFSTED. January 2003)
70. Research by both Jesson and Schagen
and Schagen has shown that contrary to previous findings more
able pupils do better at GCSE in comprehensives. (Schagen and
Schagen, Using National Value- Added Datasets to Explore the effects
of school diversity BERA 2002)
71. CONCLUSION
72. If selection on ability and aptitude
were removed admission processes would become simpler and fairer
for pupils, parents and schools.
73. There will need to be more changes if
the Code of Practice is to ensure "school admission arrangements
should work for the benefits of all parents and children in an
area".
74. Unless the Government grasps the nettle
of ending selection its harmful effect on children and their education
will continue.
| 
