.Admission policies and practices of selective and partially selective schools in England
John Coldron
John Williams
Jane Fearon
Kathy Stephenson
Angela Logie
Nicola Smith
Paper presented as part of a symposium on The Education Market in School: Admissions, Appeals and Quasi-Regulation at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, University of Leeds, 13-15 September 2001
Contact:
John Coldron
Sheffield Hallam University
School of Education
Sheffield Hallam University S7 2BP
Email:
Introduction
The purpose of this paper is to describe some significant aspects of the various modes of practice in areas in England where selection is practised. The evidence on which the paper is based was gained as part of the DfEE research project Parents’ Experience of Choosing a Secondary School (Flatley, Williams et al 2001) conducted, in partnership, by the Social Survey Division of the Office for National Statistics and Sheffield Hallam University School of Education[1]. In the first stage Sheffield Hallam University studied the modes of practice for admissions for the year 1999-2000 in 141[2] Local Education Authorities in England. In the second stage the Office for National Statistics surveyed a nationally representative sample of parents choosing a secondary school. In the third stage Sheffield Hallam University analysed interviews with 32 parents, 5 LEA and 13 school Admission Authority staff in 5 case study areas.
Selective admission is found in a minority of LEA areas and a minority of schools in those areas. Only 9% of parents (Flatley et al. 2001) reported that a test formed part of the application process. There are at least three different purposes for such tests:
a) tests for general ability for admission to a grammar school to achieve an intake of a higher than average ability,
b) tests for general ability for admission to a banded school to achieve a more comprehensive intake,
c) tests for aptitude in a specialist subject.
Although only a minority, selective admissions present very different issues of management for both school admission officers and parents. Our understanding of the pressures, motivations and structural constraints at work in school admissions is advanced, we believe, by greater understanding of the way admissions are actually managed and the identification of issues concerning parents’ experience of choosing a secondary school. In addition to providing what we hope is helpful description the findings have some relevance for the debate concerning the polarisation effect of marketisation on schools (Gorard and Fitz 2000). In the light of the findings and discussion, we consider some possible consequences of the proposed expansion of the specialist schools programme.
The review of modes of practice was accomplished by a study of the composite prospectuses provided for parents by each of the 141 LEAs whose children were entering secondary school in September 2000 and by interview with the eighteen admission authority officers. As part of that review we looked at the admission policies and practices of areas deemed to be wholly selective and those of partially selective schools.
The management of preferences in wholly selective areas
The ‘official’ definition of a selective area, is one where over 25% of the pupils attend selective grammar schools. While maintained schools that have a wholly selective intake usually have grammar in their title, this is not invariable and some schools that use the title grammar are in fact comprehensive (or independent) schools. The names of the non-selective schools in a selective area also vary and they may be called secondary modern, high schools, all-ability schools or wide-ability schools. There are other areas such as Chelmsford and Colchester in Essex or Ripon and Skipton in North Yorkshire where all of the schools reasonably available to parents are organised as either selective grammars or secondary moderns. But because these are sub-areas within larger LEA districts the LEAs are not classified as wholly selective. All wholly selective areas use some version of a standardised test of general ability administered at 11+. In practice this was either one produced by an independent research organisation such as the NFER or one developed within the LEA itself. We deal in turn with two aspects of admissions in these areas –the first being the allowance of two first choices and the second being access by pupils to selective tests.
The advent of open enrolment highlighted a tension between the new inclusive principle that gave parents the theoretical right of attendance at any school of their choice and the older exclusive principle of selection. This, and the requirement to take account of parents’ expressed preference creates a difficult issue for parents who wish to apply for a selective place if, at the time of stating their preference, they do not know if their child is eligible for a selective school place. If they express a first preference for a place at a selective school and their child does not reach the required standard (or too many do) it is possible that they would not get their preferred non-selective school because that school may already have reached its admission limit through the allocation of first preferences.
In the event of a child not gaining admission to a first choice selective school some wholly selective areas manage this difficulty for parents by allowing the next non-selective school preference to be deemed a first choice equal with those other parents who had expressed this as their actual first choice. Thus, parents who apply to selective schools are advantaged over other parents who for whatever reason did not apply.We found two variations of this default process. One is to maintain separate selective and non-selective school preference lists deciding which to use when the child's 11-plus result is known. The second way is to require parents to express preferences for selective and non-selective schools on a common form. If it turns out that the child is deemed ineligible for a place at a selective secondary school the highest preference non-selective school becomes, by default, the first preference. These systems have either been accepted by parents and schools, or at least have operated without any effective objection, over a number of years.
However the 1998 Education Act, reaffirmed both open enrolment and then existing systems of selection. The legislation also created the Office of the Schools Adjudicator thereby creating a process for challenging the admissions practices of schools as admission authorities and of LEAs. The Schools Adjudicator has ruled against the default procedures described above in two important determinations one concerning Wirral and the other Torbay.
There were two challenges to Wirral’s admissions practices by two all-ability Catholic high schools. In summer 1999, the practice of elevating the second preference of pupils who failed to gain a grammar school place to a first preference was ruled unfair and discontinued. In July 2000, the practice of allowing pupils to take the 11+ test before expressing a preference for a secondary school was also ruled unfair. The adjudicator decided that tests for selecting to secondary schools should, under the Authority's admission arrangements, take place after rather than before all parents had expressed a preference for the school they wanted their child to attend In brief, the implications of the Torbay Determination are that tests for selection to secondary schools should follow and not precede the invitation to all parents to express a preference. An LEA should make it clear that each admission authority is required to deal first with each first preference that it receives and that a second preference for a school should therefore only be considered once the admission authority for that school has dealt with all the first preferences it has received. Any application to a school which is its own admission authority is to be regarded as nullifying a previously expressed preference for another school because of the rule that any preference counts as a preference and parents who have opted for a selective school place should not be advantaged over parents who have not opted for such a place by having ‘two bites of the cherry’ and having their selective school place preference disregarded when first preferences for a non selective secondary school place are considered.
Management of the problem in areas that are not wholly selective
A system adopted by a number of areas which are not wholly selective but have one or two selective schools in their area is to ask parents to express preferences for both selective and non-selective schools on a common form without first knowing if their child is eligible (i.e. has reached a high enough score in the test) for a place at a selective school. The tension mentioned above between the inclusive and exclusive principles is addressed directly by some LEAs. For example one LEA states clearly in its composite prospectus:
'If you enter your child for the 11plus you should bear in mind that a place at your local comprehensive school or community college cannot be reserved in the event that he or she does not gain a grammar school place.'
In this case advice is then given about the previous year’s entry (what marks children had and what marks those who were given a place had). This has the effect of reassuring those parents whose children’s test results are well above the pass mark but puts pressure on those with borderline marks. However, it allows most parents to make a reasonably informed choice. Of course the ‘pass’ mark may change each year as the number of students achieving those marks increases or decreases. The local authority acknowledges the fact that,
' … A place is not guaranteed for a candidate who qualifies for a place under the 11plus selection arrangements…The guarantee of a grammar school place was necessary in the past when the only alternative was a secondary modern school, which did not cater for pupils of grammar school ability. Nowadays suitable alternatives are available at comprehensive schools and community colleges that cater for the whole academic ability range.'
This robust position will tend to facilitate comprehensive (all-ability) intakes at the non-selective schools in the area.
Difficulties for parents arising from the selective process
Each family will have a different range of choices and need to manage the admission process in different ways depending on whether they live in a selective area, a non-selective area, or an area with some selective or partially selective schools. There are some areas where selective secondary schools are available only in the voluntary-aided and foundation sectors. Parents who want their child to attend a popular selective school have to consider not only their child’s ability but also other over-subscription criteria.
In other areas parents who are committed to a particular faith may need to make a choice between applying for a denominational place and applying for a selective non-church school place. To express a preference for the latter over the former may be interpreted as a lack of commitment to a church school education and may make it difficult to gain a place in such a school in the event of failing to secure a place at a selective non church school. Some may live on the borders between different types of authorities. Some parents may aspire to selective education for their child but find few selective schools within reasonable travelling distance. Others have to travel outside their area if they wish to escape the impact of selection. For yet other parents, the way in which selection operates by making ability rather than proximity a prior criterion may deny them a place at their local school.
Selection is usually incompatible with the comprehensive principle but also to the catchment and neighbourhood school principle. When selection is used to admit to three equal bands on the bass of attainment/ability it ensures a comprehensive intake probably more so than the proximity principle. Selection is also usually incompatible with the proximity principle of neighbourhood schools except where the school is oversubscribed in a densely populated area where proximity criteria are then often applied as part of the over subscription criteria. The recent adjudication concerning one school in London balanced the legitimacy of selection against the rights of parents in close proximity to the school.
Access to tests for places at a selective school
A significant aspect of the admission process to selective schools is how children are entered for the test. We found that there were different ways in which this happened. In some areas all children in the last year of primary school were entered for the test (with parents able to withdraw them by request). This method of entry is common for wholly selective areas. It provides universal access and raises no obvious equity issues beyond those generally associated with selective systems. In other areas children are entered on the primary school’s recommendation (with parents able to include them by request). This involves, as a formal part of the process, a discussion with primary school staff about the child’s secondary education and raises questions about the status of primary schools’ judgements and recommendations. Because there is an element of judgement it is possible that some primary schools may inappropriately close off an opportunity for some children or recommend some for inclusion on the basis of non-academic criteria. Whether this is happening or not would need a separate study. But the possibility is there whereas in the universal entry systems it is not.