Memorandum submitted by the Mayor of London
1. SUMMARY
1.1 The priority outcomes of the White Paper
should be that further reforms encourage the development of good
local schools for all London's children. This entails ensuring
access to good local schools within a fair admissions framework.
1.2 The Mayor welcomes the recognition in
the draft "School Admission Code of Practice" that regulation
rather than advice is at times needed to ensure a fair and equitable
school admissions system through local admissions forums.
1.3 The Mayor has concerns that the White
Paper's focus on encouraging the creation of self-governing trusts
may lead to admission policies which may actually make it more
difficult to level up educational quality and equality of opportunity
and lead to further inequity between schools.
1.4 It is, therefore, vital that changes
arising from the White Paper do not counteract the need for schools
in local areas to develop and agree a protocol on Hard to Place
Pupils, in relation to vulnerable groups such as looked after
children and those with special needs.
1.5 The Mayor welcomes the improvements
in secondary schools standards in London, though there are still
disadvantages experienced in London's diverse ethnic communities
that must be addressed.
1.6 National and local school places planning
needs to ensure adequate numbers of high quality places for the
young people of London to reflect the projected growth in London's
school-age population.
2. MAYOR OF
LONDON
2.1 This evidence paper is submitted by
the Mayor of London. Under the 1999 Greater London Authority Act,
the Mayor has a range of specific powers and duties, and a general
power to do anything that will promote economic and social development,
and environmental improvement, in London.
2.2 While the Greater London Authority (GLA)
is not a direct provider of educational or children's services,
education is of vital strategic importance to the GLA's responsibilities
for regeneration and social inclusion. From the economic development
standpoint and the long-term employment needs of Londoners and
of the London economy, the Mayor wants to see high levels of achievement
across the London school system. The quality and future of education
are major concerns of the citizens the Mayor represents.
2.3 The Mayor's Children and Young People's
Strategy (CYPS)— Making London Better for All Children
and Young People (2004) contains policies and action points
for the GLA and functional bodies[94]
to better promote children's wellbeing, inclusion and rights in
areas of education alongside social care, health, transport, planning
and culture.
2.4 A key London context for the Higher
Standards, Better Schools for All is the particular challenges
resulting from high levels of frequent moving and the greater
mobility and cross-border interactions of children and families.
The State of London's Children Report (2004) sets out how
high levels of mobility in the capital are combined with high
levels of poverty, homelessness, poor housing and very high levels
of overcrowding. This was also shown in The London Report
(Cabinet Office, 2004).
2.5 The GLA has commissioned the Centre
for Educational Research, London School of Economics (LSE) to
provide an up-to-date report on secondary schools admissions criteria
and practices in London. Relevant interim findings of this research,
which is expected to be completed by February 2006, will be cited
below.
3. A STATUTORY
ADMISSIONS PROCESS
Priority outcomes
3.1 The priority outcomes of the White Paper
should be that further reforms encourage the development of good
local schools for all London's children. This entails ensuring
access to good local schools within a fair admissions framework.
The White Paper outlines a core Government aim to improve standards
by increasing school-type diversity. This is to be achieved through
the establishment of academies with a higher degree of independence
from LEAs, additional investment and the power to act as their
own admissions authorities.
3.2 The Mayor's Children and Young People's
Strategy highlights a number of factors which are specific to
admissions in London and which present a considerable challenge
to those responsible for planning school places in the capital,
including the high numbers of children joining school at irregular
times and the extent of cross-border "traffic" (across
London Boroughs) of children and families.
3.3 A 2003 survey by the London School of
Economics (LSE) outlined the higher proportion of opportunities
for overt and covert selection in admissions in London. [95]
The Data Management and Analysis Group (DMAG) at the GLA has analysed
information that highlights the links between moving home, changing
school and low educational attainment. [96]
Recent trends in admissions
3.5 The Mayor welcomes the recognition in
the draft School Admission Code of Practice that regulation rather
than advice is at times needed to ensure a fair and equitable
school admissions system through local admissions forums.
3.6 However, the Mayor has concerns that
these changes may actually make it more difficult to "level
up" educational quality and equality of opportunity and lead
to further inequity between schools.
3.7 One of the key measures in the White
Paper is the establishment of Trust schools. Education research
by the GLA's Data Management and Analysis Group has highlighted
the issue that admissions to schools which are their own admissions
authorities involves social selection, by parents of schools,
by schools of children, or both. [97]
3.8 In London, there is a clear imbalance
in the types of pupils admitted to schools which are their own
admissions authorities compared with those admitted to schools
where the local authority is the admissions authority. For example
in 2003 in London, pupils attending schools which were their own
admissions authorities were less likely than pupils attending
other maintained schools to be entitled to free school meals or
to have special educational needs.
3.9 Therefore, the impact of greater numbers
of academies and trust schools on admissions arrangements needs
to be monitored locally and nationally, to ensure the development
of a fair and inclusive process which is consistent with the Every
Child Matters reform agenda.
3.10 Schools which are their own admissions
authority, with the support of the local authority's new commissioning
role, need to work together with other organisations to meet the
complex needs of some children—for example, to ensure that
special needs pupils are not disadvantaged with increased autonomy
in schools' admissions policies.
3.11 According to the draft "School
Admissions Code of Practice", by 1 September 2005, all admission
forums should have formulated protocols for sharing hard to place
pupils within their area and agreed these with all schools. "All
schools need to play their part in ensuring that these children,
especially looked after children and those pupils previously excluded
from other schools for whom education in a mainstream school is
appropriate, are admitted to a suitable school as quickly as possible".
It is vital that changes arising from the White Paper do not counteract
the need for schools in local areas to develop and agree a protocol
on "Hard to Place Pupils".
3.12 These admissions authority issues for
London are in the context of the competition for places in London
schools appearing to be more intense than elsewhere, and evidence
suggesting that over half of cross-border mobility is made from
choice rather than the lack of a school place locally. Compared
to parents in other local authorities, London parents are least
likely to be offered a place for their child in the school they
would most like. [98]
London research interim findings
3.13 The LSE research (see 3.5) will enable
comparisons to be made with admissions in 2002, when a research
study on secondary school admissions criteria showed greater selectivity
by schools in London than in the rest of England.
3.14 The interim findings indicate that
there is a higher priority across London schools now being given
to "looked after" children, which is welcome. However,
this is less the case for schools which are their own admissions
authorities.
3.15 This supports the Mayor's view that
a statutory framework for admissions is required to ensure vulnerable,
"hard to place" and frequent mover children can access
school places.
3.16 Additional, relevant interim findings
include:
— Some schools are still interviewing
pupils; several have been identified as using the term "meeting"
to describe an "interview" with parents; at least two
schools have replaced interviews with tests of religious knowledge;
— LEA brochures do not necessarily
accurately reflect information provided by the school to parents;
for example, a case of interviews not being mentioned in the LEA
prospectus but being mentioned in school material (this was in
one of the schools where there are both LEA and individual school
criteria);
— Some school admission forms are still
requiring information that could be used to select pupils (such
as parents' occupations).
4. IMPROVEMENTS
IN STANDARDS
AND CONCERNS
ON DIVERSITY
4.1 The Mayor welcomes the improvements
in secondary schools standards during the first period of the
DfES-led "London Challenge" work programme (since 2002).
London's level of improvement at GCSE has outpaced the rest of
the country over the past three years. It overtook the national
average for 5 A*-C for the first time ever in 2004, with the poorest
five boroughs having had the highest rise in success rates. It
is particularly welcome that Asian pupils in London excel in comparison
with their counterparts nationally, with 62% of Asian pupils gaining
five or more A-C grades at GCSE, compared to 56% nationally. For
Pakistani pupils the difference is particularly noticeable with
a London achievement figure of 57%, 11% above the national figure
for Pakistani pupils and over 3% above the national average for
all pupils.
4.2 Nevertheless, the perception that parents
have of London schools and of their own local school lags behind
these performance indicators. There is a need to communicate the
message of these achievements to London's parents, which should
have the benefit of encouraging more Londoners to choose to send
their children to local schools. Current parental choice policies,
allowing children to attend schools in neighbouring boroughs,
had led to high numbers attending school some distance from where
they live.
4.3 While, overall, the indications are
that London's schools are at the forefront of success in driving
up national standards, there is still disadvantage experienced
in London's diverse ethnic communities:
— Black Caribbean pupils, while having
one of the most improved levels of average performance in 2004,
improved from a very low 2003 base;
— even in 2004 Black Caribbean boys
were nearly half as likely as pupils nationally to achieve five
or more higher grade passes in public examinations.
4.4 A London Development Agency Education
Commission report (2004) identified low teacher expectations as
a major contributory factor to the underachievement of African-Caribbean
heritage children. It remains the Mayor's view that the setting
of specific targets to achieve a representative teaching workforce
in the shortest possible time is imperative to ensuring that future
generations of African-Caribbean heritage children are not lost
as previous generations have been. The GLA and LDA are supporting
a range of initiatives to this end, as this is crucial to addressing
these problems, which are particularly acute in London.
5. PLANNING OF
SCHOOL PLACES
5.1 National and local school places planning
needs to ensure adequate numbers of high quality places for the
young people of London to reflect the projected growth in London's
school-age population. It has been estimated that London's school
age population will increase by 2016 by 8%, half of this (140,000)
in Outer London.
5.2 This need for strategic schools planning
in the medium- and long-term must be addressed by DfES, working
in partnership with the Mayor, Boroughs and sub regional partnerships,
to guarantee that adequate sites are identified, planning approval
and funding secured and the schools built to meet future demand.
November 2005
94 GLA group functional bodies are the London Development
Agency, London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority, Metropolitan
Police Authority and Transport for London. Back
95
London School of Economics, Secondary schools in London: Admissions
Criteria and Cream Skimming, LSE, 2003. Back
96
Data Management and Analysis Group, Moving home and changing
school-1, GLA, 2005. Back
97
Data Management and Analysis Group, Schools and social selection,
GLA, 2004. Back
98
DfES, Parents' Experiences of the Process of Choosing a Secondary
School, DfES, 2001. Back
| 
