Examination of Witnesses (Questions 160
- 179)
WEDNESDAY 30 NOVEMBER 2005
CLLR ALISON
KING, CLLR
JAMES KEMPTON,
MR STEPHEN
MEEK AND
MS CHRISTINE
DAVIES
Q160 Chairman: Alison King, do you
want to come in on that?
Cllr King: I have nothing to add
to what Christine has already said.
Q161 Chairman: I am intrigued that
you are calling for more radical action from the Government and
I just wondered what your take on that was.
Cllr King: Yes, well, I think
the whole issue is so important that anybody would feel that this
probably in certain areas did not go far enough, but there is
no one magic bullet, there is no one magic solution to the problem
here, and really what it involves is, as Christine says, an enormous
amount of hard work by local authorities, a good relationship
between local authorities and the schools for which they will
still have a significant responsibility and of course a significant
responsibility towards parents and children in their areas. I
think that if nothing else concentrates the mind, that certainly
will. Certainly, for local representatives, education and the
placing of children in particular schools is a very keen interest.
I get an awful lot of calls about it in my area and people are
always keen to talk about education, about standards and so on
and so forth, and of course transport and all sorts of other things,
all very, very important. I think, as Christine said, the opportunity
to have the levers and powers to make what we are going to be
responsible for something that means something positive is absolutely
critical and that is the way I would like to see the White Paper
develop. I think in many cases, no, it perhaps does not go quite
far enough and, in that respect, I am very worried, as you know,
about the levels of bureaucracy that could creep in here that
do not actually, I think, have much benefit to the whole picture,
they do not add a lot of value to the whole picture. I think we
need to have a rigorous system, I think we need a very robust
approach to admissions and I think we need a robust approach to
schools. Looking at what they provide for their communities and
making sure that they deliver on that, to me, is key here and
I do not quite think we have got it right in this version of the
White Paper and I think that is something that really needs to
be considered.
Q162 Dr Blackman-Woods: I think I
still want some convincing that there is recognition that a step
change perhaps needs to be made. I did look yesterday at some
local authority websites and it was really difficult to find information
on school results. They were usually there somewhere, but sometimes
you had to go into the individual schools, sometimes not, but
it did lead me to question how high school results and standards
are on local authorities' agendas. What really is being argued
here is that the cosy relationship that you described earlier
is not quite working and what we need is some contestability in
the system and I just want your views on that.
Cllr Kempton: Picking up the point
on radical, I think what would be radical is assessing schools
against the five Every Child Matters outcomes rather than,
as the White Paper is proposing, to assess schools, as you are
suggesting, only on issues to do with achievement and maybe behaviour.
I think if you are assessing schools against those five outcomes,
that will be very radical and you would not just be saying to
us, "I couldn't find the school results or the league tables
on your website", but you could be finding data about how
healthy children are and what their progression rates are into
training or into jobs or university. I think it would be radical
to look at those levels of intervention so that where schools
are, for example, working with parents on community education,
that is seen as contributing to the outcomes of children, not
necessarily the children in the school at that moment, but for
the future of their communities. I think it would be radical and
important to give local government the responsibility for education
from 0-19 and then, instead of looking at just the results at
16 or 18, what you would be assessing local government on is whether
all young people were progressing at 16 and were not in education,
employment and training and whether they were progressing on to
the jobs and careers or university. I think it would be radical
to be looking for that sort of data as well. I go to many schools
and ask them about progression rates and it is very difficult
for them to know exactly where young people have ended up, so
I think it would be radical to know that. I think what also would
be radical is to have these measures applied to all schools so
that we are not trying to divide it into a balkanisation of schools
of one type or another, but all schools are trying to deliver
to the same set of objectives and we can hold them to account
properly for that, but recognise that there is an aspect to do
with league tables, GCSE results and pieces of paper, but it also
has to do with social education, has to do with the other Every
Child Matters outcomes and it has to do with progression into
a working group of relationships and a successful life ahead of
them.
Cllr King: Could I finally say
that I do not think the term "cosy relationship" is
necessarily what we seek to achieve because, to me, that implies
a level of complacency and connivance which is not at all helpful
for children and I would prefer the term "challenging relationship",
and that needs to be challenging in both directions. That is when
I get back to my issue of having a robust system with high levels
of expectation locally and that means high levels of expectation
again across the board, involving the parents too, and that has
not always been the case and that is going to be one of the major
challenges as a result of this legislation and the way that we
make sure that parents are fully on board and fully supportive
because that has not always been the case in the past, not right
across the board.
Chairman: I want to have a good look at admissions
in this last 15 minutes.
Q163 Mr Chaytor: The White Paper
is absolutely silent about the role of admissions forums. Do you
see that as meaning that the admissions forums are on their way
out along with the school organisation committees or is there
possibly a radical, new role for admissions forums in the future?
Cllr King: I would hope not to
see the end of the school admissions forums because what worries
me about the White Paper is the prospect of possibly each school
becoming its own admission authority and having a plethora of
arrangements that do not necessarily ensure that children get
the right sort of choices about the level of education that they
receive. I think having a local admissions forum is a very important
part of ensuring that children and their parents are heard when
it comes to expressing a preference and finding a school that
fits with that.
Q164 Mr Chaytor: So exactly how would
you see them operating in the future? If there is a greater number
of individual admissions authorities, not necessarily 23,500,
but if there is a greater number, how would you see the role for
them?
Cllr King: I would rather see
a lesser number.
Q165 Mr Chaytor: Of admissions authorities?
Cllr King: Yes, I would because
I think at the moment, as I say, to have schools having the right
to be their own admissions authority, I think, is going to create
terrible difficulties, so I would prefer it to be more local.
Christine may have something to add on this.
Ms Davies: Yes, I think that the
more admission authorities you have in a local area, obviously
the greater complexity there is for both parents and the schools
themselves, but even more is the need for a highly effective admissions
forum where all those admissions authorities come together in
one place and actually devise a system of admissions which is
fair and transparent, where each admissions authority is in effect
holding all other admissions authorities to account, so where
there is more, there is greater need. However, absolutely critically
I think whatever system you have locally, the code of practice
on admissions has to be mandatory on all admissions authorities
and there has to be a duty on all schools to work with the local
authority in finding every child a school place.
Q166 Mr Chaytor: Before asking about
the code of practice, coming back to the forum, do you think the
forum then should be not just the clearing house, but the
mechanism that approves individual admissions policies?
Cllr King: Yes, I do because I
think that whatever system produces the greatest clarity, the
greatest accountability and is the most relevant to a particular
size of area is the one that we would want to use and I think
what Christine said earlier about there not just being guidance,
but almost being a statutory requirement to have certain admissions
policies, I think to beef it up rather more than is suggested
in the White Paper would be very helpful.
Q167 Mr Chaytor: But is it not in
the nature of a code of practice that it is advisory or can you
think of another code of practice that is actually contained within
primary legislation?
Cllr Kempton: I cannot, but I
think there is an issue about whether the Secretary of State agrees
or does not agree with the rules of the adjudicator, for example,
and we know the famous case where that did not go in the way that
the local community wanted it to go.
Q168 Mr Chaytor: Yes, but we are
talking here of one or two individual cases, are we not? It is
very, very rare that the Secretary of State gets involved with
this. The issue, the real question, it seems to me, is: is it
in the nature of a code of practice that it can only be advisory?
If you believe it should not be advisory, then presumably it follows
that we need something more than a code of practice and we need
something enshrined within legislation, within the Bill
Cllr King: That is right.
Cllr Kempton: Which would be about
not selecting on ability and not selecting by interview or whatever.
Q169 Mr Chaytor: Well, there is a
different issue of the content of the code from the legal status
of the code surely. Just leaving aside the content, I just want
to be clear about what the LGA think. Should it no longer be a
code of practice and should it be enshrined in primary legislation?
Cllr Kempton: We think it is for
you to determine, as the law-makers, how best to ensure that it
sticks, but we want something that sticks.
Cllr King: We want something more
robust than is in existence at the moment.
Ms Davies: I think we are deeply
concerned about the words "have regard to" because it
seems to us that that allows the opportunity for some schools
to disregard.
Chairman: We have had plenty of evidence about
that.
Q170 Mr Chaytor: In terms of content
of the code, the White Paper talks about fair access and fair
admissions. Are there particular criteria in the code as it stands
now that you think are unfair?
Cllr Kempton: I think the key
issue for us is that we have a code so that everyone knows where
they stand, but we also are concerned, I think, that, where there
is a code, it does not allow schools to indirectly discriminate
or directly discriminate, should they want to, either by ability
or social group, and those are the key things for us.
Q171 Mr Chaytor: Do you think that
the admissions forum could actually be given the power to challenge
schools that it deems to be in breach of the code? Alison talked
about challenging relationships earlier on. Should this extend
to the role of the admissions forums?
Ms Davies: I think that one has
to understand the complementary responsibilities of the local
admissions forums and the admissions adjudicator because the system
that is in operation at the moment, which is actually a very fair
and robust system, is that the admissions forum determines fair,
transparent admissions across a local authority, understanding
the requirements of admissions authorities. If schools then choose
not to wish to abide by the admissions forums' decisions, they
have the responsibility to go to the admissions adjudicator. Equally,
and we have done this in Telford, where schools blatantly disregard
the admissions forums, for instance, in the admission of looked-after
children, we have gone to the admissions adjudicator and the admissions
adjudicator, as is the evidence across the country, has chosen
to support the collective view of the local admissions forums.
I think that robust relationship needs to continue to be in place,
and will need to be in place if there is a great complexity of
admissions authorities.
Q172 Mr Chaytor: Finally, could I
ask about the question of choice and admissions, and the transport
issue really. The Government is trying to enhance parental choice
by making it easier for some children to travel further to different
schools, but it does not seem to want to enhance parental choice
by giving children a right to attend their nearest school. Do
you think there is a contradiction there?
Cllr King: Yes, it is rather contradictory.
Q173 Mr Chaytor: How can that be
resolved?
Cllr King: There has always been
this difficulty about whether it is parental choice or parental
preference. Obviously choice is not choice if you pick a school
which then says it is full for the particular year to which you
want to admit your child. There will probably always be a situation
where children do not attain their primary choice in some parts
of the country because the places are not available in the area
where their parents wish them to be educated. That is something
with which we really have to wrestle. As Helen said earlier, the
results of the survey carried out recently showed that there was
wide disparity across the country in the percentage of children
who were able to attend schools that were their or their parents'
first choice. That is something that we really have to address.
I do not think it is necessarily going to be addressed by this
idea of bussing children all over the place either.
Q174 Chairman: Six miles is not really
all over the place, is it?
Cllr King: It can be; it depends
where you live. Six miles on a dual carriageway route seems a
lot shorter than six miles on a twisty road. I do not want to
harp on too much about rural areas because I noticed Ruth Kelly
said to you that 85% of children did have this choice available,
but my concern is with the 15% of children who do not have that.
That is still quite a significant percentage. This is something
with which we all have to wrestle, and it is going to be the responsibility
of local authorities to make sure that places are available where
they are required. Whether we will ever get to the wonderful condition
of having 100% of children getting their first choice, I do not
know, I think it is a little unlikely.
Q175 Mr Chaytor: The local authorities'
responsibility for school place planning is made more difficult
where you have a number of admissions authorities that do not
admit children on their doorstep.
Cllr King: Yes.
Q176 Mr Chaytor: Would it be a valid
criterion within the code to include an obligation to admit children
from the immediate catchment area?
Cllr King: I think so because
there are a lot of parents who want their children to be educated
within their own communities.
Q177 Chairman: How would that impinge
on grammar school entry?
Cllr King: We do not have grammar
schools in my area but Christine does. May I hand over to her?
Ms Davies: We do have every category
of school, including two single sex grammar schools. Of course,
the catchment area for the grammar schools is wider than the catchment
area for other schools that most immediately serve their local
area. Again, through the admissions forums, there is an understanding
that the catchment area has to be wider and different for those
two schools.
Q178 Chairman: All of you, certainly
three of you, criticised the new arrangements for Academies that
could not have children referred to them in a statement of special
educational need. That is true of grammar schools too, is it not?
Let us put it bluntly: grammar schools do not take their fair
share of those on free school meals, we know that from the Sutton
Trust review research lately, they do not take many special educational
needs pupils and looked after children. That is the truth, is
it not? Should these rules apply in other schools?
Ms Davies: That is the truth and
I think there are a number of us who, if we were starting with
a blank piece of paper, would not set up something called grammar
schools necessarily, but grammar schools exist and grammar schools
are meeting the needs of their children very effectively.
Q179 Chairman: But not those with
special educational needs or children on free school meals for
some reason. I think the Sutton Trust said 13% free school meals
in the community, even in rural parts of the country, such as
Alison King represents, and 3% in the schools. That is strange,
is it not?
Ms Davies: It is certainly true,
and your evidence is correct, that because of the nature of the
grammar school, they do not necessarily take the same range of
special educational needs or the incidence of free school meals
as other schools. Some schools do, but grammar schools are like
all other categories of schools, they are not—
| 
