Text Box: CONSULTATION ON SCHOOL ADMISSIONSPlease use this Proforma in responding to the consultation paper.

 

Name:              Paul Barber

 

Organisation:   Westminster Diocese Education Service

 

Address:          Vaughan House

                        46 Francis Street

                        London

                        SW1P 1QN

 

Your response may be made public unless you indicate otherwise.  Please tick box if you want your response to remain confidential.

 

Please tick ONE of the following boxes that best describes you as a respondent

 

LEA                 School             Governor             Headteacher or Teacher            Parent                 

 


Diocesan   X       Other   

 

If you are responding from a school, is it a community/voluntary controlled/foundation/voluntary aided school?

 

Is the school’s age range under 5/5-11/11-16/11-18/16-18/middle school?

 

Q1)      Do you agree that LEAs should be required to co-ordinate the admissions process and school place allocations in their areas, as we recommend?  (Page 5)

Text Box: Comments Section 86 of the 1998 Act has evolved from section 6 of the 1980 Act in a piecemeal and reactive manner, often in response to case law, and requires thorough overhaul. Section 86(1) of the 1998 Act already places a duty on the LEA to make arrangements for enabling parents to express their preferences and give reasons for the preference. In practice, the duty falls on admissions authorities, which may be individual governing bodies. As a minimum, this wording needs to be clarified. Section 86(6) already allows for the introduction of co-ordinated schemes but the opportunity for the SoS to impose a scheme has been removed. Something of this kind might be restored. We accept the need for agreement within LEA areas on a common timescale and would not oppose the imposition of a local or, indeed, national timescale, since discrepancies in the timing of offers between adjacent LEAs and/or governing bodies is the cause of many difficulties. The use of a common application form, with the LEA acting as a clearing house for schools within its area has been successfully introduced in many areas, where historically, difficulties have arisen. We are not yet persuaded however, that such a system needs to be imposed in all areas: Nationally, more than 90% of applicants are allocated places in their preferred school. In some areas, the percentage is higher and, in these areas, the compulsory introduction of a co-ordinated scheme might be seen as excessive. Strongly agree                 Agree                 Agree in part                 Disagree

Q2)     Do you agree that schools which are their own admission authority should be able to apply their own criteria and feed their results to their LEA before the final allocation takes place?  (Page  5)

 


Text Box: Comments Yes. Where a governing body has the right to determine the oversubscription criteria for the school, it must retain the right to apply the criteria to all applicants, and it must be clear that, even if the written offer issues from a third party, it is made on behalf of the admissions authority. Text Box: CommentsStrongly agree                 Agree                 Agree in part                 Disagree

 

Q3)     Do you agree that the law on parental preference should be clarified as we propose?  (Page  8)

 

Strongly agree                 Agree                 Agree in part                 Disagree

Text Box: Comments The current position is unclear and causes confusion because of the issue of single or multiple preferences. Where there is little or no co-ordination, parents may apply to discrete admission authorities and claim that the application is their only or first preference. Subsequently, some parents may receive multiple offers and others none, depending on accidents of geography. We do not accept the ‘first preference first’ model because this is contrary to Catholic schools’ trust deeds which require the operation of a ‘Catholics first’ model, however that might be expressed. Any revision must allow Catholic school governing bodies to consider applications from Catholics regardless of the rank order, provided schools ranked higher were also Catholic schools.

Q4)      Do you agree that Admissions Forums should be mandatory?  (Page  9)

 


Text Box: Comments We are not persuaded that admissions fora perform a necessary function and would be content to see a reduction in their role, given other requirements to consult. Strongly agree                 Agree                 Agree in part                 Disagree

 

Q5)      Do you agree that they should have an advisory role but that there should be a requirement on admission authorities to have regard to their agreed and published advice?  (Page 9)

Text Box: Comments See above.

Strongly agree                 Agree                 Agree in part                 Disagree

 

 


Q6)      Do you think that the membership suggested in Annex C is appropriate? If not, what changes would you suggest?  (Page 9)

 


Text Box: Comments Given the inability of admissions fora to determine disputes between objectors and admissions authorities, their usefulness, however constituted is questioned Strongly agree                 Agree                 Agree in part                 Disagree

 

Q7)      Do you agree that standard numbers should be abolished?  (Page 10)

 


Text Box: Comments A single, agreed and binding method of calculating the capacity of a school is needed which is used consistently in the asset management plan, the school organisation plan and the admission arrangements. Such a method is currently emerging which will replace the standard number and MOE methodologies. This is warmly welcomed. We do not agree that schools might vary their published or actual admission number at will. Either the school has the capacity to admit pupils or it does not. More importantly, the capacity of the school is the single most important issue at appeal. There must be a clear point beyond which the admission of further pupils would prejudice efficient education and the efficient use of resources and below which it would not. Strongly agree                 Agree                 Agree in part                 Disagree

 

Q8)      Do you agree that minimum admission numbers should generally reflect the admission number indicated in the new capacity assessment formula?  (Page  10)

 


Text Box: Comments Admissions numbers and capacity must be linked and cannot be separated. The capacity assessment is an indication of the ability of the school to deliver the curriculum. It is a statement of whether or not there are sufficient places or too many or not enough. It is the basis of bids for capital expenditure and is the only reliable and clear way of showing that the school is full. The proposals set out in the consultation are too vague by far and will present endless difficulties for parents and for schools. Strongly agree                 Agree                 Agree in part                 Disagree

Q9)     Do you agree that admission authorities should have the flexibility to set a number higher or lower than that suggested by the new capacity assessment formula, but that if they propose to set a lower number, they should have to say this when consulting, giving reasons?  (Page  10)

 

Text Box: Comments No. The question of capacity for the purpose of admission arrangements and capacity for the purpose of determining accommodation requirements are opposite sides of the same coin. Strongly agree                 Agree                 Agree in part                 Disagree      X

 

 

Q10)   Do you agree that the law should be changed to allow all who should have been consulted on proposed admission arrangements to object, even if they were not consulted?  (Page  11)

 


Text Box: Comments Yes. We agree the current position is perverse. Strongly agree                 Agree                 Agree in part                 Disagree

 

 

Q11)   Do you agree that community and voluntary controlled schools should have the right to object to the admission arrangements of local foundation and voluntary aided schools, which might affect their own admissions?  (Page  11)

 


Text Box: Comments No. The responsibility is with and should remain with the admission authority. Strongly agree                 Agree                 Agree in part                 Disagree

 

 

Q12)   Do you think rights to object about proposed admission arrangements should be extended in other ways?  (Page 11)

 

Text Box: Comments No. We see no merit in this. Strongly agree                 Agree                 Agree in part                 Disagree

Q13)   Do you agree that admission authority schools should be allowed to consult every alternate year, if they do not propose changes to their admission arrangements and they have not been the subject of an objection previously?  (Page 12)

Text Box: Comments We would go further and say that, following an initial round of consultation, further consultation should be required only when they had been subject to an objection previously or the admissions authority was considering a change. This would have the benefit of both reducing the volume of paper in circulation and focussing on the change, rather than the status quo. This should not detract from the right of statutory objectors to make representations or to raise an objection at any time. Strongly agree                 Agree                 Agree in part                 Disagree

 

 

Q14)    Alternatively, do you agree that consultation should be carried out by LEAs on behalf of all admission authorities in their area?  (Page 12)

 

Text Box: Comments We have no objection to this proposal Strongly agree                 Agree                 Agree in part                 Disagree

 

 

Q15)   Do you agree that relevant areas should be reviewed before Admissions Forums become statutory bodies?  (Page 12)

 

Text Box: Comments We do not accept that admission fora need to be statutory bodies, particularly given that they have and would continue to have limited powers. The important issues are the need for consultation where changes are mooted and the right of objectors to object to an authority with the power to determine the objection. However, there is a case for reviewing relevant areas on a regular basis. Strongly agree                 Agree                 Agree in part                 Disagree

 

 

Q16)    Do you support these proposed changes to the Code? If not, please comment on the changes you do not support and why.  (Page 15)

                       

Strongly agree                 Agree                 Agree in part                 Disagree

 

Admission outside the normal year group

 

Comments

Admissions to nursery schools and classes.

Agree

 

Primary school admissions

Strongly agree

 

Late applications.

We await proposals.  There is little evidence that this is a problem, although the position is often misunderstood.

 

Transfer from Year 11 to 12.

This is more complex than it is presented here.  There is a case for requiring a school to clarify its criteria for transfer to the 6th form and allowing pupils already in the school but denied a place the opportunity to make representations.

 

SEN (1)

We have no evidence that this is happening. On the contrary, most parents in our experience wish to avoid labelling which accompanies the statementing process.

 

SEN (2)

Strongly agree

 

Fresh start etc.

We await detail on this with interest.  Will schools be seeking the label serious weaknesses to enable them to off-load troublesome pupils?  See SEN (1) above.

 

Publication of information

What context??  Change of headteacher? Weak Year 6 teacher has now moved on?  This is fraught.

 

Oversubscription Criteria

Re-cycle Circular 6/93.  There is much valuable material therein.

 

Shared parental responsibility.

Strongly agree.

 

Interviews

We are not persuaded of the need for interviews.  They are purportedly to allow the governing body to determine religious affiliation.  In Catholic schools, this responsibility falls to a priest who can offer testimony of affiliation.  It does not need to be a matter for the governing body and, in consequence, there is no need for the governing body of a Catholic school to conduct interviews. The evidence suggests that, if this change is to be brought about, it should be done through legislation and not left to the Code of Practice.

 

Reserved places.

The reasons for the extant advice endure.  The school, which can predict with some accuracy the turnover of families in an army, barracks or travellers site should be allowed to continue to make provision.  This proposal contradicts the assertion made earlier that schools do not hold places over because of the detrimental effect of pupil-led funding.

 

Maintained boarding schools

Agree

 

Waiting lists

We believe this is already clear, but if it needs strengthening………

 

Pupils from overseas

Adjudicator decisions

We agree that some guidance is needed on this.

 

Variations to admissions arrangements

Reference directly to the adjudicator in lieu of normal consultation should not be permitted without good and urgent cause.  In such cases, some arrangements for the publication of proposals and the right of objectors to object to the adjudicator should be built in.

 

Selective/non selective schools

Strongly agree

 

Refusal to admit

Section 96 directions

These powers already exist.

 

Role of the headteacher

The headteacher has no decision making power in admissions in a VA school

 

Mention of new regulations

Always helpful

 

Human Rights Act

Agree

 

Disability

Strongly agree, but more thought is needed on the drafting and interpretation of criteria which give higher priority to pupils with additional educational or social needs, including an opportunity for parents to identify reasons as to why they can be met at one school rather than another (e.g. disabled access.).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Q17    Are there any other changes you would like to see in admissions law or the School Admissions Code of Practice?  If so, please specify below. (Page 15)

 

Text Box: CommentsYes                                 No                

 

 

Completed questionnaires should be returned by 7 November 2001 to:

Address:          DfES Admissions Consultation

                        NOP Research Group Ltd

                        Caxton House

                        91, Victoria Road

                        Chelmsford

                        CM1 1JW

 

 

For further information about the consultation phone: Alan Clarkson (0207 925 6711)

or Sue Garner (020 7925 5487)