Memorandum submitted by Anne West and
Hazel Pennell, Centre for Educational Research, Department of
Social Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Research on secondary school admissions
is being carried out by the Centre for Educational Research (CER)
at the London School of Economics. This short submission draws
on this research. The next section provides an overview of some
of the interim findings from a research study funded by the Greater
London Authority on secondary school admissions in London; it
also draws on other research being undertaken. It highlights a
number of key points that are pertinent given the proposals in
the White Paper Higher Standards, Better Schools for All—More
Choice for Parents and Pupils (HM Government, 2005), in particular
concerns about school autonomy in the area of admissions. The
following section addresses possible ways forward based on admissions
systems in operation in Scotland, Finland and Sweden. The final
section concludes the submission.
2. SECONDARY
SCHOOL ADMISSIONS
IN LONDON
2.1 Nationally, most parents in England
receive the offer of a place at their preferred secondary school;
however, research by Flatley et al. (2001) found that parents
living in London, were the least likely to be offered a place
for their child at their favourite school (68% compared with 85%
nationally). There is a highly-developed market in secondary schools
in London with many different school types, some of which are
responsible for their own admissions (voluntary-aided, foundation,
academies and city technology colleges) and some of which are
not (community and voluntary-controlled schools); in the case
of the latter, the local authority is responsible for admissions.
Proportionately, more secondary schools in London than in the
rest of England are responsible for their own admissions.
2.2 Interim findings from ongoing research
funded by the Greater London Authority and focusing on admissions
to London secondary schools for September 2005 reveal that more
voluntary-aided and foundation schools (with autonomy over admissions)
than community and voluntary-controlled schools reported the use
of potentially selective admissions criteria, for example, selecting
a proportion of pupils on the basis of aptitude/ability[99]
(Pennell et al, 2006).
2.3 In terms of admitting children who are
particularly vulnerable, there were also differences in terms
of admissions criteria used; whilst the vast majority of community
schools reported giving priority in the event of a school being
oversubscribed to children in care, fewer schools with autonomy
over admissions (voluntary-aided and foundation) reported doing
so. The situation is similar in the case of children who have
special educational needs or medical/social needs (Pennell et
al, 2006).
2.4 A further research study being carried
out by the CER has found that the level of poverty measured by
known free school meals eligibility is lower in schools with autonomy
over admissions, as is the percentage of pupils with special educational
needs, both with and without statements. Moreover, more high attaining
pupils entered voluntary-aided and foundation schools in year
7 (age 11) than community/voluntary-controlled schools (West &
Hind, 2006). [100]
2.5 The fact that schools with responsibility
for their own admissions are not taking their fair share of vulnerable
children poses particular problems. Although the White Paper Higher
Standards, Better Schools for All—More Choice for Parents
and Pupils, suggests mechanisms to enable a more socially
mixed intake to be obtained, it is simultaneously encouraging
more school autonomy, including autonomy in relation to school
admissions. There appears to be an inherent contradiction in,
on the one hand, offering ways in which schools can become more
inclusive and, on the other, giving schools more autonomy, which
research indicates is likely to result in the opposite outcome.
2.6 There also appears to be a clear tension
between the White Paper and the policy agenda put forward in Every
Child Matters: Next Steps. This states: "Raising standards
in schools and inclusion must go hand in hand. In particular,
schools have a critical role to play in raising the educational
achievement of children in care and other groups that have consistently
underachieved." In addition, it sets out a vision requiring
"new ways of working and collaboration between schools and
closer working between schools". It is unclear how developing
new types of schools and severing their overarching links with
the local authority will enhance collaboration between schools.
Research indicates that establishing links between schools of
different types and with a different ethos can be problematic
(McMeeking et al., 2004). We consider that the proposals for admissions
outlined in the White Paper are out of step with the vision set
down in Every Child Matters.
2.7 The White Paper, Higher Standards,
Better Schools for All—More Choice for Parents and Pupils,
proposes placing a new duty on local authorities to ensure
that no child is without a school place, to promote choice, diversity
and fair access. This is a challenging task particularly as the
number of autonomous schools is likely to rise. There is also
a lack of clarity in how local authorities will perform their
role in respect of school admissions. Certainly, without powers
to carry out audits of the admissions process and outcomes of
individual schools it is hard to see how they will be able to
ascertain whether, for example, a school that introduced banding
arrangements indeed obtained a "proportionate spread of children
of all abilities" (DfES, 2003). More generally, it is of
concern that the White Paper does not seek to strengthen regulation
over school admissions by underpinning the Code of Practice with
regulation and widening the powers of the Schools Adjudicator.
2.8 It is our opinion that the current admissions
system is fundamentally flawed. It allows criteria that are not
objective, fair and clear; it allows certain overtly selective
criteria to be used; and it allows individual schools to select
their own intake. This is particularly problematic as schools
have a vested interest in selecting pupils who are likely to enhance
the school's league table results and who are likely to be easier
to teach. Further, we consider that the proposals set down in
the White Paper are likely to make the situation more inequitable
than it is at present.
2.9 If admissions criteria are clear, fair
and objective it is preferable if a body that has less of a vested
interest in the outcome, than the school involved, carries out
the allocation process. This could be a local authority or another
body. The next section of the submission briefly outlines the
school admissions systems operating in Scotland, Finland and Sweden
as working examples of this type.
3. WHO SHOULD
BE RESPONSIBLE
FOR SCHOOL
ADMISSIONS?
3.1 In Scotland, school admissions are the
responsibility of the local education authority; each authority
usually divides the local area into catchment areas; children
living in a catchment area generally go to the same local school.
However, the local education authority must tell parents of their
right to choose a different school, and it has a duty to grant
this school where possible. Local education authorities are also
obliged to produce guidelines to be followed in deciding who should
be offered places in the event of a school not having sufficient
places to meet all requests (Scottish Executive, 2005).
3.2 In Finland, where there are similarities
with the reform agenda of England, (eg, in encouraging schools
to specialise and in loosening up the national curriculum), the
former "school district principle" was abolished in
1991 and replaced with a new system. Under the previous method
children were allocated to schools closest to their homes within
a particular district; however, after the reform the local authority
area was considered as one large "district" and parents
could freely choose a school of their choice within the municipality
or city (West & Ylönen, 2005). In practice, schools are
only allowed to admit pupils from outside the local area if they
have free places remaining after children residing in their area
have been allocated places. Each local authority is obliged "to
arrange basic education for children of compulsory school age
residing in its area" and to assign the child to a neighbourhood
school; in addition, travel to and from school must be "as
safe and short as possible" (Ministry of Education, 2005).
3.3 In Sweden, the municipality allocates
children to different schools but is obliged to provide equal
schooling for all children so no one is given priority to an individual
school. Students and their parents have a right to choose another
municipal school or a privately-run school. In the event of a
parent wishing their child to attend a municipality school, but
not one to which their child would normally be allocated (perhaps
because it is further away), the municipality will consider the
parent's request although the local authority will make the final
decision (Swedish National Agency for Education, 2005).
4. CONCLUSION
4.1 In conclusion, the research that has
been carried out by the CER reveals a fundamental problem with
school autonomy in relation to admissions. Schools have a vested
interest in selecting pupils who are more likely to perform well
in examination league tables and who are easier to teach. Schools
funded by public money have, in our view a responsibility to serve
the needs of all children in the community; the evidence strongly
suggests that school autonomy in relation to admissions is not
leading to equitable outcomes in terms of who is admitted to schools.
4.2 The models of school admissions used
in Scotland, Finland and Sweden all provide alternative ways for
the admissions process to be carried out. These models do not
give responsibility to individual schools that have a vested interest
in the outcome. The Finnish model in particular gives local authorities
a statutory responsibility to ensure that children are assigned
to a local school and that travel to and from school should be
both "safe" and "short". Such an approach
in England offers a way of ensuring that the needs of the community
as opposed to individual schools are met.
References
Department for Education and Skills (2003) School
Admissions Code of Practice, London: DfES.
Flatley, J, Williams, J, Coldron, J, Connolly,
H, Higgins, V, Logie, A, Smith, N & Stephenson, K (2001) Parents'
Experience of the Process of Choosing a Secondary School, London:
DfES.
HM Government (2005) Higher Standards, Better
Schools for All—More Choice for Parents and Pupils, Cm 6677,
London: DfES.
http://www.dfes.gov.uk/publications/schoolswhitepaper/
McMeeking, S, Lines, A, Blenkinsop, S &
Schagen, S (2004) The Evaluation of Excellence Clusters: Final
Report, Slough: NFER.
Ministry of Education (2005) General Education
Basic Education Act 1998, available at
http://www.minedu.fi/minedu/education/general—education.html
Pennell, H, West, A & Hind, A (2006) Secondary
school admissions in London 2005 (in preparation).
Scottish Executive (2005) Choosing a school:
A guide for parents, available at
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library5/education/cas04-01.asp
Swedish National Agency for Education (2005)
Email correspondence with Anne West.
West, A & Hind, A (2006) School choice in
London, England: Characteristics of students in different types
of schools (in preparation).
West, A & Ylönen, A P (2005) Market-oriented
reforms and the welfare state in England and Finland: The case
of compulsory education (submitted).
99 In 2005, 13% of voluntary-aided schools, 12% of
foundation schools and 3% of community/voluntary-controlled schools
(7% overall) selected a proportion of pupils on the basis of aptitude/ability.
In 2001, the comparable figures were: 9%, 7% and 1% (5% overall). Back
100
Examples of the types of criteria used by secondary schools responsible
for their own admissions are given in the Annex. Back
|
