Memorandum submitted by Chris Payne
SUMMARY
Providing evidence on admissions criteria and
the risks of allowing schools to select their own admissions criteria.
I am concerned that the white paper fails to protect parents from
school governors and faith organisations who choose to use unusual
admissions criteria which parents would not reasonably expect
to exist.
The white paper fails to require faith groups
to describe the basic criteria that enable parents of those faith
groups to understand the basic criteria of adherence that would
define support for admissions ranking.
The white paper fails to instruct LEA's on the
basic principles that they should use to determine when a schools
admissions criteria should be referred to the admissions adjudicator.
Some LEA's currently refer to the Schools Adjudicator when others
never have.
There is no mechanism for parents to refer admissions
criteria to the adjudicator other than in the case of schools
applying a section process. For all other admissions criteria,
parents are reliant on LEA's to protect their interests.
EVIDENCE
LEA referrals
Source: National Schools Admissions Adjudicator
Website.
The following quote comes from Dr Hunter (Schools
Adjudicator). . . schools need to be reminded that admission
arrangements are drawn up for the benefit of local parents, not
for themselves. Adjudicators are still seeing too many cases where
arrangements are not clear enough for parents to make a realistic
assessment of their chances of getting places, or where schools
are accused of selecting by ability or social group.
Given that this appears to be the case, it is
surprising that some LEA's have never referred a single admissions
case to the adjudicator. Are the governors in these areas excellent
or are the LEA's remiss.
The following chart shows that 11 LEA's submitted
70% of the admissions referrals to the adjudicator between 1999—2005.
It may be the case that these LEA's were extra
cautious. If this was the case it would be reasonable to conclude
that the majority of referrals should be rejected. This was not
the case. The majority were either upheld or part upheld.
This being the case it is difficult as a parent
to determine if the local LEA is following the guidelines and
looking after the interest of local parents.
The following two tables show that the referrals
from high usage LEA's are spread over a period of time and that
there was an increase in referrals after the last admissions guidelines
were issued.
Brighton and Hove Council has never referred
an admissions criterion to the adjudicator.
In the case of St Bernadette's primary school
the LEA refused to refer the used of date of baptism as an admissions
criteria to the adjudicator. The premise is that they do not want
to upset the excellent relationship that they have with the school.
This is in spite of the fact that the local
judicial vicar for the catholic faith confirms that the faith
considers all baptised Catholics to be equal.
Parents have no right to appeal to the adjudicator
so are reliant on the LEA to look after their interests.
Rather than allowing faith schools to determine
admissions criteria on school by school basis the government should
seek each faith to set down common admissions criteria that all
adherents to the faith can understand and recognise.
This would in turn save money as each LEA could
check the admissions criteria in their area against these basic
standards and each parent would know exactly where they stand.
CONCLUSION
Allowing unelected school governors to determine
admissions criteria is likely to lead to the following outcomes.
— Faith schools creating rules
based on local prejudices.
— Increase in the number of schools
manipulating the admissions criteria to attract pupils likely
to improve their SAT's results.
— An increase in litigation from
parents against school governors.
— Parent's faith in the openness
and fairness of the system starts to decline.
Setting a set of common standard admissions
rules would reduce costs by:
— Eliminating the need for the
admissions adjudicator.
— Reducing admissions appeals.
— Reducing staffing in the DFES
occupied on admissions issues.
| 
