Memorandum submitted by Mr Graeme Hitchen
(SA 36)
ADMISSIONS IN SKIPTON
INTRODUCTION
1. The Skipton area of North Yorkshire has
two academically selective schools (one boys VA school, one girls
VC school) operating alongside two "modern" schools
termed secondary modern locally. Nearby is also the largest all
ability (comprehensive) school administered by North Yorkshire.
This all ability school takes a significant proportion of its
planned intake from the satellite towns of Keighley which is within
the City of Bradford administrative area. North Yorkshire also
operates selection in Ripon where there are a single selective
school and a single modern school. The proportion selected is
28% following two NFER reasoning tests in both towns. Skipton's
education service is administered by North Yorkshire County Council
Education Service (NYLEA).
SPECIFIC CHARACTERISTICS
2. Skipton provision of secondary education
is selective and access is skewed by the use of professional coaches
in order to gain an advantage in the 11+ test. This has the effect
of making a place at a grammar school largely out of reach of
the poorer families in the area. This is indicated by the low
take up of places at the school serving the council estate in
Skipton.
3. The ballot regulations for the continuance
of selective education, and social exclusion are intrinsically
linked. An indicator is whether a school's parents would qualify
for a vote in any such ballot. To qualify a school should have
sent five children to the grammar schools in the last three years.
The local council estate school with 220 children would not be
able to vote in any ballot as they have not provided enough pupils
to the grammar school in the those three years. This school serves
as an example of social exclusion as it clearly exists in, and
takes its pupils from, the poorest area of Skipton.
4. The proportion of take up from this school
has been as follows:
| 2000 | 1
| |
| 2001 | 0 |
|
| 2002 | 2 |
|
| 2003 | 2 | (1)
|
5. This demonstrates two points—the absurdity of
the ballot regulations that firstly it effectively takes away
any say about selection from such a school and secondly, the level
of social exclusion that exists. Some children have in the past
passed the 11+ but the children went to the secondary modern indicating
peer pressure not to attend the grammar school within such communities.
6. A letter from the local tutor company is attached
and although they advertise assistance with KS 2&3 SATs, GCSE
and AS/A2 the most prominent claim in this letter is the pass
rate at 11+. December is the time the 11+ results appear. It is
interesting to note the charges here of £27 for a full lesson
(1 hour) compared to the charges noted in the recent Northern
Ireland report on selection (£12-15). In the Northern Ireland
report this level of charge was considered "inconceivable
and beyond their means" by "working classes parents".(2)
7. Skipton schools' post 16 provision is entirely through
the grammar schools unlike Ripon, where the secondary modern (Ripon
College) has post 16 provision. There are opportunities for students
to study to post 16 in Skipton at the local FE College but the
numbers do not make up for any shortfall in the cohort that would
be expected when compared to the rest of the county. Coupled with
the marked difference in passes between boys and girls this reinforces
the social exclusion and lack of opportunity for boys from the
lower socioeconomic groups.
8. For reference the proportion of boys passing has been
as low as 34% boys to 66% girls of the 11+ passes in 1997 to as
high as 46% boys and 54% girls in 1999. From the town of Skipton
itself (the grammar schools' catchment also includes the local
rural community) there were only six boy passes in 2000 for a
year group of 87.(3)
9. What is of concern is the mismatch of provision to
ability by other measurements. Head teacher recommendations were
only recently removed from the procedure in North Yorkshire. Yet
these recommendations were consistently greater than there were
grammar school places; a point often used by NYLEA in appeal to
show head teacher recommendations were unreliable. The performance
of primaries in the Skipton area is extremely high and the head
teacher assessments may well be accurate. It would therefore mean
that there are more children suitable for a grammar school education
than places are available and would show a stark shortfall in
suitable provision. It is very difficult to argue that children
are being educated to their maximum potential if there is such
a mismatch.
10. The impact on results and aspirations amongst 11
years old has never been looked at by NYLEA particularly when
considering those recommended by their head for a grammar school
place, but who did not pass the 11+.
11. The Skipton area has strong indications of low aspirations
and low achievement than would be expected in a similar town elsewhere
in the county or indeed the country. The take up of post 16 amongst
the cohort that took the 11+ five years earlier is estimated to
be about 35% and is far worse when considering boys. The two grammar
schools only educate 26% at post 16 of the initial cohort that
took the 11+ seven years earlier(4). The county average is estimated
to be 45% for post 16 study to A level. No official figures exist
and only North Yorkshire LEA can find accurate figures through
pupil tracking.
12. These figures are estimates but are sufficient to
be the basis of a hypothesis that low aspiration and achievement
is endemic particularly amongst the less wealthy. Any major change
in selection should not be allowed to ignore such points. As will
be shown later however, a major change has been allowed to happen
without considering these points. This seriously questions the
attention given to the DFES desire for LEAs to look self critically
at standards in their selective areas.
13. As indicated the better off families pay for coaching
so it is the less well off families that have to appeal in greater
numbers. They are less able to prepare and present a case to an
appeal panel than parents from a more educated background. As
will be seen admissions in North Yorkshire can be highly complex.
SKIPTON COMPARED
TO RIPON
14. It is useful to compare Ripon with Skipton both being
market towns under the same LEA administration and both being
selective.
15. One of the other major indicators of a distorted
result is the difference between the two towns 11+ pass scores.
Ripon and Skipton cohorts take the same test. Ripon and Skipton
have broadly the same size cohort with Skipton's being slightly
larger (Average cohort 1997-99 Ripon 262, Skipton 322)(3). The
explanation for the consistent difference between the pass scores
from NYLEA defies statistical reason " it is because the
numbers taking the test in Ripon and Skipton are different that
you get different cut off marks for the. . . (28%)"(5) Clearly
if you are seeking the 28 percentile the marks should be similar.
The raw data for analysis is available to NYLEA.
16. The pass mark has been consistently higher in Skipton
than in Ripon for a number of years. There is no other explanation
than coaching is altering Skipton's score. Paradoxically Skipton
parents are being told that their child "is not deemed suitable
for a grammar school education" yet in if they lived in Ripon
their child would be deemed suitable. This explains the higher
appeal rate in Skipton reflecting greater dissatisfaction with
selective scheme decisions.
17. The rate of appeal in Skipton compared to Ripon also
indicates dissatisfaction with the results of the selective tests.
Average number of appeals between 1997 and 2000 was Ripon 21 and
Skipton 66(3).
18. What follows is the chronology of admissions in the
Skipton area of North Yorkshire over the past three years. Whilst
the following issues may seem at first parochial they are indicative
of the problems that surround admissions in or near to selective
areas. These issues stem directly from the operation of a selective
admissions scheme. Any attempt to administer a fair system requires
extra resource (accurate selection tests for example). Skipton's
experience demonstrates by not applying significant extra resources,
added to parental push to do the perceived best for their children
(ie coaching), NYLEA operates in the outer reaches of legal acceptability.
ADMISSIONS 2000
19. An Ombudsman complaint was upheld after 10 parents
considered their treatment in the appeals panel was unfair. The
parents made the point that their child was not coached so the
test result should be considered unreliable as coaching distorted
the test results. NYLEA unexpectedly produced "research"
to say coaching had little effect. The evidence was an extract
from "Bias in Mental Testing" by Arthur Jensen. Jensen's
work is controversial and certainly is not widely accepted. This
extract was not disclosed to parents even though some had made
the point about coaching in their written submissions. This was
completely against the Code of Practice that "there should
be no grounds for the admission authority to produce substantial
new information at the appeal"(6) This had the effect of
disorientating a number of parents who were not used to such panel
procedures and the sense of grievance was acute. The Ombudsman
complaint was upheld and resulted in all appeals being reheard
in July 2000 (approximately 45 sets of parents took up the reappeal).
This resulted in over allocation at both grammar schools. The
Ombudsman in her report found that " the Panel was fair but
consistently unfair" and they had clearly used the criminal
burden of proof (beyond all reasonable doubt) rather than civil
(balance of probabilities).(7)
20. The Ombudsman decided to ignore the disclosure of
evidence point in the final report for reasons that have never
been made clear. She wrote to NYCC Chief Executive however, after
her report was published—"I would recommend. . . provides
in advance and research sources"(8). NYCC ignored this advice
and the Ombudsman had to return to this issue the following year.
21. As an anecdote from 2000 NYLEA opposing the reappeal
after the Ombudsman complaint from a pupil that had gained over
80% in her KS2 SATs. As reappeals took place in the July, KS2
results were available. Fortunately that appeal was upheld but
the parents who were from the local council estate were grateful
for assistance in the second appeal. They contemplated not going
through with the second appeal due to their experiences from the
initial grammar school appeal where they felt very intimidated.
The sudden production of Jensen's extract was what upset them
most. That pupil has since achieved maximum KS3 SATs scores (Maths
Eight, English Seven, Science Seven) at the grammar school.
ADMISSIONS 2001
22. A complaint was made in 2001 again regarding the
non disclosure of evidence although the Ombudman decided that
this had not affected the outcome of the appeal. The Ombudsman
went on in her report "Mrs H should have either been provided
with specific information in advance of her appeal . . . or told
where she could easily get hold of the material. This amounts
to maladministration"(9). Clearly NYCC and NYLEA has ignored
their experiences from 2000 and the follow up letter from the
Ombudsman.
23. It became apparent that during the year from 2000
to 2001 NYCC had introduced a new concept of "Selection Appeal
Panels" which it stated to the Ombudsman were not statutory
appeals. The change was not explained to parents and was not consulted
about locally. Only NYCC can explain why it introduced this new
concept of appeals and not tell anyone about it. It drew criticism
from the Ombudsman "What I do criticise is the Councils'
failure to ensure that parents are made fully aware of their statutory
appeal rights". Parents thought that the new Selection Appeal
Panel was their only appeal.(9)
24. Also in this year parents were turned away from the
all ability school in the area (South Craven School) administered
by North Yorkshire but whose catchment area adjoined the grammars.
This was due to large cohort within the all ability school's catchment
area and the school had reached its Maximum Admissions Limit.
The parents complained to the Director of Education and the Ombudsman
that they had made a deliberate choice of an all ability school
and had withdrawn from the selective test yet did not gain a place.
25. The cause of the problem was NYLEA was operating
an apparently elevated second preference scheme where priority
as given to pupils from the all ability area but who had taken
the 11+. Those applicants to the grammars had either failed to
gain a place through numbers or had failed to pass the 11+. The
NYLEA scheme was in existence after the two Wirral High Court
judgements which followed Adjudicator's decisions. The Adjudicator
had decided that elevated second preference was unfair. An officer
of NYLEA was later to dismiss Wirral's relevance to North Yorkshire
by stating in an Admissions Forum that those judgements only applied
to wholly selective areas. This missed the point that preference
before selective test, the centre piece of second Wirral case,
was incorporated into the 2003 Admissions Code of Practice.
ADMISSIONS 2002
26. The main controversy was connected again with the
operation of the elevated second preference to the local all ability
school. Two parents took counsel's advice and that opinion was
that the admissions criteria was unlawful in that NYLEA gave places
at the all ability school whose parents had placed it second or
third ahead of out of catchment area children that had the school
as first choice. This was whilst the old Code of Practice was
in force and the law only allowed for a single choice. It became
apparent that NYLEA was not operating elevated second preference
but blatantly giving places to 2nd or 3rd choices without elevation.
These 2nd or 3rd choices had failed to gain a place at the grammar
schools or other schools. The NYLEA procedure was a clear support
mechanism for grammar school applicants giving them a protected
place at the all ability school. This place was at the expense
of parents who wanted an all ability education from the outset.
This places more gives more virtue to selective applications than
all ability applications. The all ability school has asked for
proper recognition to be given to first choice applications but
these requests have been ignored.
27. The legal advice was used in the admission appeals
and placed the panel in an impossible position. After a High Court
judgement following an admissions case in Sheffield(10) if an
appeal panel knows that the admissions process is illegal it has
to allow the appeal. There was no rebuttal legal evidence from
NYLEA. All of the appeals were allowed at the end of the second
day of an 8 day cycle ie the majority of parents did not have
to attend an appeal. This made the all ability school 10% over
subscribed.
28. The Governors of the all ability were concerned this
could happen again and asked why NYLEA believed its admissions
procedure was legal. This point has never been answered. NYLEA
has claimed verbally that their admissions process was legal in
contradiction to the parental counsel's advice but no supporting
legal document has ever been seen. It must be concluded, in the
absence of any explanation that the NYLEA was running an illegal
admissions procedure. It may go some way to explaining why NYLEA
agreed, in some haste, to an increase in the grammar school numbers
in 2003 completely outside the terms of the Code of Practice.
An increase meant that legal problems were alleviated for 2003.
ADJUDICATORS REFERRAL
2003
29. NYLEA consulted about increasing capacity at both
the grammars (from 87 to 91 at each) and at the all ability school
(from 275 to 300) for admissions in 2004. This was routine followed
net capacity assessments. As late as 8 Jan 2003 the numbers above
were being published by NYLEA as part of the consultation process(11).
In late January the boys VA grammar school governors decided to
increase its numbers from 87 to 112 from September 2003. That
was completely outside the Code of Practice and the DfES wrote
to both admission authorities in this regard.
30. It should be borne in mind that consultation for
2004, according to the Code of Practice had to have been completed
by 1 March 2003 for admissions 2004(12) and there was little time
for that. NYLEA have not explained why it did not inform the boys
grammar that it could not increase for September 2003. Rather
it went along with the legally dubious route and decided to increase
the girls VC school by the same amount. It cited equal opportunities
but as the attached letter from the DfES ambiguously states this
may not have been necessary.[59]
31. South Craven school and City of Bradford in the face
of such a disregard of the Code of Practice went to the Adjudicator.
The two main objections were firstly lack of consultation obviously
for 2003 but for 2004 as well. City of Bradford was never informed
about any of these new increases for 2003 or 2004 and as an adjoining
authority they would be expected to be so. This was reported to
the community schools in Skipton on 27-28 January 2000.
32. The second point of objection was the impact such
a large number of higher ability children going to the grammar
school would have on the ability mix of Bradford schools in Keighley,
and the North Yorkshire all ability school. A consultation about
a contentious increase in selective places deserved the fullest
and most complete discussion, if you accept that social exclusion
and lower standards could exist. To allow such increase
without any discussion about them is to ignore them.
33. The Adjudicator decided that consultation could be
disregarded and placed more importance on increases in places
at perceived popular schools and he allowed the increase form
87 to 112 at both grammar schools(13). He was highly critical
of NYLEA's consultation process with regard to the City of Bradford
but not in the way it dealt with its own community schools. This
decision by the Adjudicator has created some far reaching precedents
when considering social exclusion, standards, consultation and
school planning:
(a) No consultation meant that there was no discussion
about social exclusion and raising standards before increases
in grammar school numbers were allowed.
(b) Schools Organisation Plans can be ignored as these
increases did not appear and were not mentioned in the Adjudicators
decision.
(c) Ignore Section 89 (5) b. of the 1998 Act which states
no major changes to consulted admissions. The Adjudicator did
not consider this in his report.
(d) Use applicants to take the 11+ rather than actually
take up of places as justification for allowing increases (with
the new intake of 112 at the boys grammar only 98 places were
actually taken up).
(e) He ignored in his report the Sex Education Act which
was the reason given by NYLEA for increasing the girls grammars
numbers.
(f) He based his decision on the applicants for schools
not places taken. Although allowing the boys admission number
to go up to 112 on the basis of boys sitting the 11+ only 98 took
up places.
(g) He ignored the Admissions Forum minutes.
34. As it stands there is nothing to stop NYLEA or any
other LEA forcing through an increase in admissions in such a
manner in future years. This Adjudicator decision will give them
encouragement that they can be successful.
GENERAL
35. It is clear that in almost every selective area other
admissions must support the selective test or run into administrative
problems and this is the basis of the long running disagreements
in Kent for example. This is because parents whose child does
not pass the 11+ in general do not want them to go to a secondary
modern school. This was at the centre of the two Wirral judgements,
other Adjudicator decisions (Torbay) and features strongly in
North Yorkshire.
36. The theory behind academic selection is two stepped.
First you can successfully select by academic ability at the age
of 11. Secondly a pupil will benefit most from attendance at the
type of school indicated by that 11+ test. Yet parents do not
like the choice on offer if their child does not pass the 11+.
They either travel to all ability schools elsewhere or they expensively
coach their children to ensure a pass, as in Skipton. The system
intrinsically favours the better off. A solution is to make choice
of school for 11+ not by a particular school but by a choice of
entry for the test. This will mean a pass gets a grammar school
place and a fail a secondary modern place, automatically becoming
their first choice. It will remove at a stroke all problems with
elevated second preference that the new Admissions Code of Practice
now allows.
37. A great deal is spoken about choice with regard to
schools. Choice can only follow opportunity. If a parent is denied
an opportunity to attend a particular type of school they have
no choice. In Skipton the recent 29% increase in selective places
will only benefit out of catchment children leaving the level
of selection where it was (28%). After what will be an multi million
pound spend to increase places, it will offer grammar school places
to pupils outside of Skipton that can get post 16 at their local
all ability school. It will also keep the lack of opportunity
for the people of more modest means, so denying them a choice.
It may also significantly affect nearby school's ability to improve
standards.
Graeme Hitchen
10 November 2003
Sources
(1) Source—parents at the school.
(2) Research on Selection in Northern Ireland Section 7.1
Coaching for the Transfer Test.
(3) Source—various letters from NYLEA to parents before
appeal 2000-03.
(4) Estimates from League table results and NY Schools Organisation
Plan.
(5) Letter from the Director of Education to the Editor of
the Craven Herald dated 29 February 2000.
(6) Code of Pratice School Admission Appeals 1999 paragraph
4.35.
(7) Ombudsman complaint 99/C/5295 et al against North
Yorkshire County Council.
(8) Letter from Ombdudsman to NYCC Chief Executive dated 9
October 2000.
(9) Ombudsman Report 00/C/17287 et al dated 30 May
2002.
(10) R and Sheffield City Council ex parte Phillipa Hague;
Jennifer Bell and Meron Tesfayohannes [1999]
(19 March, 1999).
(11) North Yorkshire LEA—Admissions Policy for 2004-05—Minor
Changes dated 8 January 2003.
(12) Admissions Code of Practice 2003 Annex A—section
A10.
(13) Adjudicators decisions ADA/000447 et al dated
29 September 2003 and ADA/000315 dated
29 September 2003.
59
Note: Not printed. Back
| 
