Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Written evidence submitted by Comprehensive Future (CWSB168)

The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, Clause 47

Executive summary

Comprehensive Future is a campaign group working for fair and inclusive school admissions. While Clause 47 aims to enhance cooperation between Local Authorities (LAs) and schools in admissions-a goal we strongly support-the Bill lacks clarity on how their roles and responsibilities will change. It also fails to introduce legislation to formalise any significant improvements to admission processes.

This omission suggests that local authorities will only have the right to intervene in extreme cases of poor admission practices-leaving many of the systemic issues in school admissions unresolved.

We believe that without stronger legislation, subtle social selection will persist in our education system, limiting fair access to schools.

Our recommendations include:

· Strengthening LAs oversight of admissions, ensuring admission policies are scrutinised and approved to ensure schools serve their communities fairly.

· Phasing out outdated admission methods, including historic partial selection and aptitude tests that are no longer permitted in new schools.

· Increasing transparency and regulation of test-based admissions, with the aim of improving access for disadvantaged and SEND pupils.

We believe these changes will help to ensure fair access to schools and improve social equity.

The prevalence of problematic admissions and their Impact on social inequality

Currently, around 80% of secondary schools in England operate as academies, setting their own admission policies with minimal oversight. Some schools employ subtle methods to favour high-achieving students while discouraging the admission of students with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) or those from disadvantaged backgrounds.

The Bill, as it stands, would not require any level of scrutiny from LAs that would prevent subtle selection from continuing.

Examples of problematic admissions practices:

1.‘Fair’ Banding tests that favour high attainers
‘Fair banding’ aims to admit a balanced profile of pupils across ability ranges. However, Department for Education (DfE) data shows that some schools using these tests admit 50-60% high-attaining students. This is because schools set banding thresholds based on their applicants rather than using a local or national attainment profile, allowing them to manipulate their intake in favour of wealthier, high-achieving pupils.

Some schools further deter disadvantaged families by scheduling tests on Saturdays and requiring complex application forms.

2. Distance based admissions that disadvantage low-Income families
Prioritising pupils who live nearest to the school can disproportionately benefit families in high-priced housing areas. Schools can make simple adjustments-such as expanding catchment areas to include social housing or offering priority admission to Pupil Premium students-but many choose not to.

3. Partially selective schools using outdated admission policies

Some schools still operate historic partial selection, admitting a portion of students via 11-plus ability tests or aptitude tests that are no longer allowed for new schools (e.g. design and technology.) These tests are not in the best interests of communities, and the schools would barely change character if they were removed. These outdated test policies favour wealthier families and reduce access for disadvantaged pupils. [1]

4. Selective schools operating with limited oversight

Grammar schools across the country use a wide variety of unregulated 11-plus tests, leading to unfair practices, while many make only token efforts to improve access for disadvantaged and SEND pupils.

· Grammar schools are known to admit very low numbers of disadvantaged pupils, we see hugely variable attempts to rectifying this inequality. [2]

· One grammar school was found to have discriminated against a visually impaired student by denying them the opportunity to take the test. [3]

· SEND student representation varies drastically among grammar schools-from 13% in some schools to as low as 0.4% in others. This suggests only a minority of these schools make efforts to admit pupils with additional needs. [4]

· A group of grammar schools used an improperly designed teacher-written test for over a decade before being ordered to change it. [5]

· Some grammar school PTA sell test preparation and mock exams, further disadvantaging lower-income families. [6]

5. Schools are not always serving their local communities

During a recent Bill scrutiny meeting, Sir Dan Moynihan stated:

"Good schools should reflect their local area. Sometimes that does not happen, including for many selective schools. If we are really going to have a world-class system, that needs to be addressed."

For example, Gloucester has four grammar schools-Sir Thomas Rich’s, The Crypt, High School for Girls, and Ribston Hall-but only 50% of their students live within the Gloucester postcode. Many students travel from distant areas like Slough, Bristol, and Shropshire. [7]

Some faith schools also admit a high proportion of pupils from a significant distance, and do not prioritise places for local children.

Schools that admit pupils from outside their local authority areas are unpopular locally, encourage transport use that is bad for the environment, and cause children long and stressful commutes.

Conclusions and recommendations

This Bill presents an opportunity to address these problems and prevent schools from using subtle selection methods to shape their intake.

Recommendations:

1. Strengthening cooperation between schools and Local Authorities

Local Authorities should either be the admission authority for all schools, or be required to proactively check and approve all admission policies to ensure they work for their communities.

Cooperation between schools and LAs could work as follows:

· Academy trusts and all school governing bodies should devise their admission strategies in consultation with their communities.

· The LA, using expert panels, should review and approve admission plans, suggesting changes where necessary.

· Once finalised, the LA should publish and administer admissions to ensure fairness.

2. Abolishing partial selection

Only schools with partially selective arrangements in place during the 1997/98 school year are permitted to continue this practice under the School Standards and Framework Act 1998. New schools cannot introduce academic selection​​.

Partial selection at schools around the country causes stress to parents, and advantages those who pay for tuition, and there are no clear educational advantages. [8]

Partially selective schools may admit 10-25% high attainers [9] by using 11-plus tests, but similar schools can admit an equivalent proportion without tests, or through using well designed fair banding tests. This historic practice persists in some areas, despite offering little justification for its continued use.

The places awarded through partially selection are more likely to be won by wealthier families or those living further from the school.

We hear from parents (particularly in Hertfordshire with seven partially selective schools) that partial selection creates a complicated and stressful system.

The Bill should encourage phasing out these outdated policies.

3. Reforming test-based admissions

Selection tests (eg.aptitude tests for music, art, languages, technology) and academic ‘ability’ tests such as the 11-plus, are coachable, and more likely to award school places to advantaged and highly motivated families, often living far from the school.

A long term plan should be to remove these unnecessary tests, and grammar schools should be opened up to admit pupils regardless of ‘ability’. Evidence suggests there are systematic problems with the use academic selection. [10]

However, until this is achieved, improvements should be made to improve admission test equity and transparency:

· A new accountability framework requiring schools using test-based admissions to publish test entry statistics on their websites, including the number of disadvantaged students sitting and passing selection tests. This would challenge schools to consider which pupil groups are disadvantage through tests, so they can strive to make improvements.

· Local authority oversight of ability tests to ensure transparency. Around 200 selective and partially selective schools currently operate varied and unregulated 11-plus tests. Approximately 100,000 pupils a year sit these tests, with the exact number impossible to define due to the lack of oversight.

· Linking 11-plus test data to the National Pupil Database to enable research and identify potential biases in test outcomes. This step is strongly supported by academics. [11] At present it is not possible to study who sits or passes/fails this exam.

Thank you for reading this evidence. If you would like any further information, or have any questions, Comprehensive Future would be happy to share further evidence.

Comprehensivefuture.org.uk

January 2025