ARCHDIOCESE
OF WESTMINSTER
RESPONSE TO DFES
CONSULTATION
ON REVISED SCHOOL ADMISSIONS
AND
AND ACCOMPANYING REGULATIONS
OCTOBER 2002
We welcome the new Codes of Practice for School Admissions and School Admission appeals, which, in general, are clear, helpful and comprehensive. The documents build well on the experience of the developments made as a result of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998. We will comment in more detail on each of the Codes of Practice and on the draft regulations and related issues separately, using, wherever possible, the numbering in each of those documents.
At this stage we wish to register our concern about the short consultation period for this exercise. Accordingly, you will no doubt realise that we have only been able to undertake the most limited of consultations before responding to many of the important issues raised in your documents.
We welcome the reiteration of the general principles underlying the admissions system in Section 2 of the Code. In particular, we agree that school admission arrangements should work for the benefit of all parents and children in an area.
3. Better local admission arrangements
3.2 We welcome this clear and comprehensive list of information to be included in admissions arrangements. In particular, we welcome the confirmation that waiting lists are to be maintained in the order of the over-subscription criteria, and not in any other way.
3.6 Whilst it is true that the Local Government Ombudsman has criticised some admissions authorities for using methods which did not take into account the shortest walking distance, using the shortest walking distance is not always straightforward and can be subject to much argument and accusations of subjectivity in certain areas, particularly rural ones. On the other hand, measuring from door to door in a straight line is capable of being carried out with a high degree of accuracy, is objective, and may be effective as a tie-breaker, especially in urban settings.
3.10 Catholic Schools were founded principally to provide Catholic parents with the opportunity of choosing a Catholic education for their children. As pointed out in paragraph 3.9 they are required by their Trust Deed to give preference in their admissions arrangements to Catholics. We therefore strongly object to the Secretary of State giving statutory guidance that Catholic schools should have admission arrangements which reflect the general population of their local area. This is particularly problematic given the recommendation to LEAs in paragraph 4.10. It also seems to run counter to the right of parents to ensure that their child’s education conforms with their own religious or philosophical convictions, as pointed out in paragraph A6.
3.11 Whilst we realise that there is no statutory obligation on admissions authorities for Catholic schools to consult diocese about their admission arrangements, we would welcome the Code encouraging them to adopt this practice.
3.12 We welcome and support this clear statement of the need for admissions authorities to consider carefully the direct and indirect impact of over-subscription criteria on equal opportunities.
3.13 We are content with the proposal that all admissions authorities should make it clear in their admission arrangements that, where a school is named in a statement of special educational needs, the governing body has a duty to admit the child to the school. However, we do not consider that this should form part of the schools’ over-subscription criteria, because this confuses the two separate processes for admissions. It should be clear that the naming of school on a statement is a different process, often carried out by a different authority, and is an entirely separate procedure to the normal admissions procedures.
3.14 We support the highlighting of this disadvantaged group, and welcome the recommendations made to give these children top priority, provided it is understood that, within the context of a Catholic school, this is subject to the trust deed requirement to give preference to Catholics. We intend to promote this policy vigorously amongst our own admission authorities.
3.15 We very much welcome the proposal to review the practice of allowing schools with a religious character to interview pupils and/or their families. Of all the elements in the admissions system, the practice of interviews is the one which most often has the accusation of subjectivity levelled at it. The majority of complaints about admissions arrangements received each year by the diocese relate to such arrangements. Whilst we do not believe that any of our admission authorities misuse this power, we find the widespread perception that they do harmful. We would therefore like to see the practice of interviewing parents and/or pupils discontinued in all schools. An increasing number of our schools have ceased the practice of interviewing altogether and others are considering doing so.
3.20 We welcome the confirmation of the adjudicator’s position in the expression of preferences before selective testing. We agree that this position is the fairest to all parents.
4. Settling admission arrangements
4.2 We reiterate the point made under 3.11 above; in that admission authorities of Catholic schools should be encouraged to consult their diocese about their admissions arrangements.
4.7 The new arrangements for measuring the net capacity of schools are still in their earliest stages. Whilst this is the case, we are extremely concerned about the new requirements to publish annual notices in local newspapers and to allow parents to object each year to the adjudicator where the admission number for a school is lower than the new net capacity formula. We do not believe this will assist the sensible planning of places to replace the standard number mechanism.
4.10 See 4.7 above.
5. Admissions Forums
We welcome diocesan representation on admissions forums and the guidance that advice promulgated should represent the agreed views of the whole forum. We look forward to seeing this work in practice.
6. Co-ordination of admission arrangements
We generally welcome the introduction of co-ordinated schemes of admissions. We have examples within the diocese of these schemes working well, both at LEA level (in some cases), and amongst our own schools in other areas. We note that the guidance does not deal with Junior schools.
We wonder whether the timescale for bringing these schemes into operation is over optimistic, especially with regard to cross LEA co-ordination at secondary level. We are also a little concerned that the guidance may not be detailed enough to deal with the complexities of introducing such arrangements. In particular it is difficult to envisage the secondary co-ordinated admissions arrangements working across LEA boundaries without an agreed standard timetable.
We welcome the fact that the Codes make it clear that LEAs will only offer places on behalf of governing bodies, where governing bodies are the admission authority. We would look for schemes to provide adequate detail to ensure that parents are clear that it is admission authorities, and not LEAs, who make decisions on admissions and admit pupils.
7. Applying admission arrangements
7.18 The statement made in the first sentence of this paragraph is only correct in relation to the normal year of entry. This is also true of the similar statement made in paragraph (A43).
7.20
and See the comments under 3.13 above
7.22
7.29 We once again welcome the clarity given in this paragraph about the nature of waiting lists. (See 3.2 above).
7.30 This paragraph seems contradictory, and seems to suggest that the factors set out there may be able to override the admissions authorities’ published over-subscription criteria. This cannot be the case.
7.32 The reference to a ‘sub-committee’ is incorrect and should be replaced with a reference to an ‘admissions committee’,
A.44 This paragraph does not seem to reflect the regulations as accurately or as clearly as it might do.
C.6 It is right to point out that the model described in this paragraph would not be acceptable to any Catholic school.
SCHOOL ADMISSIONS APPEALS
CODE OF PRACTICE
This Code of Practice is generally very helpful and the improvements to it are welcome. In our view, the matter detailed below could benefit from a little extra work.
Paragraph 4.61 correctly makes it clear that, in non class size prejudice appeal cases the first (factual) stage in fact contains two elements. One, where the panel considers whether the school’s published admissions arrangements were correctly applied in the individual’s case, and the other where it decides whether prejudice would arise were the child to be admitted. This is an improvement in clarity from the current code of practice. However, the part of the first stage where the panel considers whether the school’s published arrangements correctly applied in the individual’s case, is not dealt with under paragraphs 4.71 and 4.72 which set out the procedures for dealing with multiple appeals. We suggest that it would be helpful if that were done.
In paragraph 4.71 the approach can be the same as set out in 4.61 i.e. the panel can consider this part of the first stage at the same time as the other part. However, in paragraph 4.72, the appeal panel will not be able to deal with in this way. Only the part of the first stage dealing with ‘prejudice’ can be heard as a group. The other part, dealing with whether the arrangements were correctly applied in the individual’s case, can only be dealt with when the individual cases are heard and it is therefore necessary that this be done after the grouped appeals and before the second stage at the individual appeal hearings.
SCHOOLS ADMISSION AND APPEALS
DRAFT REGULATIONS
The Education (Objections to Admissions Arrangements) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2002.
As indicated above (Admissions
Code of Practice 4.10) we are alarmed at the prospect of annual opportunity for
parents to object to an admission number lower than the indicated admission
number before the impact of the new calculations of indicated admissions number
had a chance to be assessed. The same
concern arises in relation to The Education (Determination of Admissions
Arrangements) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2002.
We continue to object most strongly to the requirements set out in paragraph 8 (2)(b) of Schedule 3 to the regulations which was introduced by the previous government without consultation in 1996. Our schools do not relish the opportunity of explaining to parents who might be opposed to the ethos of the school, in advance of their application to the school, opportunities to undermine the school’s ethos. We would like to see this requirement dropped and a return to the pre-1996 position.
We are also unhappy with the new requirements of regulation 2(4) and Schedule 5 which would appear to preclude a governing body affording priority to religious education as a subject within the basic curriculum in accordance with Section 80 of the Education Act 2002. We would wish it to be clear that, should a school wish to do so, this is acceptable.
We are concerned that draft regulation 3 (1)(a) restrict the role of the forum to considering how well existing and proposed admission arrangements serve the interests of children and parents within the area of the authority. Many of our schools, by their very nature, have admissions patterns which straddle more than one local education authority. We agree with the principle described in paragraph 3.7 of the admissions code of practice that parents should not be disadvantaged because they live near to borough boundaries. We would prefer this part of the regulation to be worded consistently in principle as enunciated in paragraph 2.2 of the code of practice. Other than that, we are content with these draft regulations.
We have two concerns about both these sets of regulations. The first one is that, for consistency, it should be clarified (whether in the regulations themselves or in guidance) whether the national offer date is the date upon which the offers are sent out or the date upon which they should be received by the parents.
The second concern relates to the governing body’s duties under a qualifying scheme in both sets of regulations. The way the draft regulations are currently worded, it would seem to be possible for parents to disregard the co-ordinated scheme and to make direct applications to multiple schools. If the co-ordinated arrangements are to work at all this must not be possible. We hope that this aspect can be clarified so that it is not possible for the scheme to be evaded by a minority of parents.
These appear to reflect the current position accurately. However, since this is a major review of admissions and admissions appeals we wonder whether it is an opportune moment to reconsider complex categories into which members of appeal panels must fall under draft regulation 2(1)(ii)&(iii).
The appointment of members of an appeal panel in a voluntary aided school is a non-delegable function of the governing body. Governing bodies are therefore required to approve standing arrangements which would allow appeal panels to sit and members who have been appointed by the governing body are unavailable or unable to sit for any reason. It is complex to ensure that these arrangements always comply with paragraph 2(ii) especially as many of those to be appointed fall into both the category at 2(i)(b) and the category described at paragraph 2(iii). Is there a way in which this could be simplified?