Memorandum submitted by Ann Doubleday
(SA 45)
11+ ADMISSIONS POLICY FOR CITY TECHNOLOGY
COLLEGE
I wish to make the Select Committee aware of
one of the possibly unforeseen effects of the independence of
CTCs on admissions of children in their area.
The Harris CTC in Upper Norwood has an entrance
examination for children of 11+. My grandson whose application
is strongly supported by his headmaster at Beulah Primary School,
was due to take the examination. Unfortunately, the previous week
he was diagnosed with impetigo and my daughter informed the Harris
School. Harris said he could not take the examination on the specified
day and neither were there any means of his taking it at a later
date. This totally excludes him from any possibility of attending
the school nearest to his home.
He was given a course of antibiotics and on
the day before the examination a doctor pronounced the infection
had cleared sufficiently for him to go to school and issued a
certificate to that effect. The certificate was faxed to Harris
who maintained their position that he could not sit the examination.
So, on the day of the examination he was in his primary school,
exposing the other children there to any contagion (impetigo is
spread only by physical contact) while not permitted to sit for
one and a half hours in a separate desk in the Harris School where
he would be in physical contact with his own pencil.
Croydon LEA quoted the advice given to all schools
in their area, issued by Croydon Health Authority in August 2001:
"Impetigo
Direct contact may help to spread infection,
especially on the hands. Antibiotics are indicated.
Exclusion: Children should remain off school
until the lesions are crusted or healed. This may be reduced by
covering the lesions. The disease is not reportable and time away
from school will be between four and 10 days. If the lesions can
reliably be kept covered, exclusions may be shortened."
Croydon LEA said that he could have been allowed
to sit the examination in one of their schools but that the CTC
is outside their remit and totally independent.
We made a number of suggestions to the school:
— that any remaining visible lesions
should be covered—even though not infectious;
— that he could be put in a separate
room and we would willingly pay for an invigilator of their choosing;
— the headmaster at Beulah would have
been happy that he should sit the examination in his primary school,
again with an independent invigilator;
— that children who are ill on the
day should take a different examination at a later date;
— this is done in a number of (financially)
independent schools.
The school was unwilling even to discuss any
of these suggestions. Both the local LEA and the DfES, who contacted
the school on our behalf said the school is independent of their
authority and effectively a law unto itself. We don't dispute
their legal right, only question whether they are using this right
in an appropriate way. Apart from the obvious disappointment of
my grandson and the family, there are wider issues:
1. General unfairness. One would expect
the school to aim to provide education for all those children
who can benefit from it, regardless of their health on a particular
day.
2. Practical repercussions. Parents who
are aware of this ruling will be tempted to lie about children's
health and send them with more serious infections if they know
the children will otherwise be excluded.
3. The school is maintained largely by public
funds-it cannot be right that it should be able to make its own
rules, however—capricious, and there be no public responsibility,
local or national, for their effects.
Ann Doubleday
18 December 2003
| 
