CNR Paper 14
Gating communities for children?:
The perennial problem of school choice, residential location and
their (continuing) relationship with neighbourhood
Jacqui Croft
September 2003
Introduction
Housing and education are two aspects of social policy which form particularly important dimensions of the current debates around social stability and exclusion in neighbourhoods, particularly for those living within areas of deprivation. Access to quality education is a critical dimension of participation in or exclusion from the knowledge-based economy, yet in a housing market dominated by home ownership, access to high-achieving, oversubscribed schools can be determined by the ability to afford housing in particular areas.
There is a popular perception that some parents do move purposefully into the ‘catchment areas’ of popular schools. If accurate, this implies that there are other areas which are avoided by movers. Such movements would thereby perpetuate divisions between schools’ intakes, and this is theoretically a policy problematic for a number of interrelated reasons. On the education side, the socio-demographic profiles of neighbourhoods which fall within the catchments of particular schools may be shaped by these parental strategies, leading to concentrations of advantage (and of disadvantage). Evidence suggests that the concentration of social disadvantage within particular schools contributes to lower school performance as well as providing barriers to their improvement (Woods and Levačić, 2002; Levačić and Woods, 2002; Clark et al, 1999a; 1999b). Where particular schools are targeted for special funding partly on the grounds of their pupil base, they are immediately labelled as ‘failing’, no matter how good the quality of their educational offerings. This has ongoing consequences for demand, which performance improvement may not overcome, at least in the short term. The neighbourhood renewal agenda has taken up the issue of educational achievement within schools in deprived areas and seeks to improve the quality of education by tackling ‘poor schools’ (Neighbourhood Renewal Unit, 2002).
From the housing perspective, social mix within areas of deprivation has been a further focus for policy concern. Yet in areas where renewal effort aims to create and support vibrant and inclusive communities, activity in the education market may hinder success by influencing concentrations of disadvantage which are then labelled as ‘failing’. Where particular areas or schools gain poor reputations (for any reason), attracting a mix of pupils becomes more difficult. If residential areas are avoided because of the reputation of their schools, demand amongst families for the available residential space lowers, potentially exacerbating the concentration of social problems. Where local education authority (LEA) areas have a combination of low demand private sector housing, high demand social rented housing and low demand schools, they can become locations where residents without the means to leave become excluded, stigmatised or frustrated. The other side of this is that some areas may be priced out of reach of some families, effectively gatekeeping access to both schools and the wider neighbourhood for some children.
Knowledge about the iterative nature of (un)popularity is therefore important for policy makers. Without understanding the extent and dynamics of education-related strategic residential movements, renewal effort lacks an important evidence base. Drawing the existing evidence together was the starting point for the review of the existing literature on the relationship between school choice and housing decisions. The discussion is framed into a number of sections: the policy background to the review; evidence around choosing schools; an overview of the residential mobility literature which speaks to the issue of school choice; and (to bring back in the link with current policy agendas) consideration of the implications of school choice. The final section will reflect on issues for further research.
Policy background
Schooling has been at the forefront of the trend towards ranking and league tables of performance and achievement. Debates about social inclusion and cohesion focus increasingly on the quality of education and education policy has become central to the neighbourhood renewal agenda. Schooling is also a hot topic for many parents, with key decision points arising as children approach school age, or later on when approaching the move to secondary school. At any stage of families’ decision making, household resources may determine the available strategies.
In theory, parents can exercise choice in relation to primary or secondary schooling. Section 76 of the Education Act 1944 gave LEAs the duty to have regard to the general principle that children should be educated according to the wishes of parents. However, the Act also required LEAs to use resources efficiently and to provide a place for each child in their authority area (Fitz et al, 2001). In practice, the autonomy afforded to LEAs by the 1944 legislation resulted in a diverse range of provision, often reflecting local opinion and priorities (Fitz et al, 2002). Many LEAs allocated places to children through the use of catchment areas and, while some parents challenged these allocations, many accepted them (Walford, 1996).
The requirement for LEAs to meet parental preference was established in the Education Act, 1980. The legislation made it the duty of each LEA to enable preference to be expressed and for them to meet that preference, except:
‘(a) if compliance with the preference would prejudice the provision of efficient education or the efficient use of resources;
(b) if the preferred school is an aided or special agreement school and compliance with the preference would be incompatible with any arrangement between the governors and the local education authority in respect of the admission of pupils to the school; or
(c) if the arrangements for admission to the preferred school are based wholly or partly on selection by reference to ability or aptitude and compliance with the preference would be incompatible with selection under the arrangements’ (Education Act, 1980: Section 6 (3)).
In practice, then, this placed limitations on the LEAs’ obligations to meet preferences. The effect of the legislation was varied between LEAs. In particular:
‘Many LEAs did not support the concept of parental choice, or at least gave it little emphasis above other concerns such as community schooling or the protection of schools which were struggling to maintain or build up their reputation. Despite the fact that these LEAs met the requirements of the 1980 Act and 1981 Regulations, various features in their procedures discouraged or prevented the expression of choice’ (Stillman and Maychell, 1986:184).
The administration of the system was reinforced in the Education Reform Act, 1988, through the introduction of locally assessed minimum numbers for each year’s enrolment at each school (Standard Numbers). LEAs could no longer refuse to meet preferences for particular schools under the 1980 exceptions unless the Standard Number had been met. Under the same legislation, schools were enabled to opt out of LEA control, becoming Grant Maintained (GM) schools with autonomous admissions procedures. A judicial review of admissions in Greenwich in 1989 clarified that parents could express preference for a school in any LEA.
A further feature of the 1988 Act was the introduction of per capita funding, whereby schools received a set sum for each pupil, weighted by age. This linked admissions firmly to funding, providing an incentive for enrolment but, at the same time, creating financial disadvantages for schools with small and / or falling rolls (see Lupton, 2001 for overview).
The cumulative effect of these changes was that the administration of admissions became highly complex. For instance:
‘In some of our study areas, such as Brent, Gloucestershire, Essex and Hillingdon where the majority, if not all, the secondary schools ‘opted out’, LEAs were in effect left ‘minding the store’ through the task of monitoring, as they were still required to do, whether new intakes of children had acquired secondary school places. As one official told us, because of the large number of GM and voluntary schools in the area, his LEA was composed of 192 admissions authorities. Not only did multiple admissions authorities diminish LEA capacity to match students to places, the 1989 Greenwich judgement enabled parents to express a preference for schools outside their own LEA and thereby made admissions policy more complex to administer. Key beneficiaries of the judgement were the GM and voluntary aided schools, who were given an unrestricted capacity to expand their catchments.’ (Fitz et al, 2002:126-127)
The School Standards and Framework Act 1998 enabled existing selection to remain, but prevented the creation of further such forms, apart from for entry to 6th forms or to create banding arrangements (whereby schools achieve a mixed ability intake according to quotas). Since the 1998 Act, the Secretary of State must issue a Code of Practice on School Admissions, setting out the duties of LEAs. The 2003 Code instructs LEAs on co-ordinating admissions procedures, including a target date on which decisions should be communicated. However, individual LEAs may still formulate their own prioritisation mechanisms, providing:
- the criteria are not unlawful;
- the admission authority has properly considered the factors which it believes to be most important in ensuring that children receive an efficient and suitable education, and has had regard to the guidance in the Code; and
- the criteria are clear, fair and objective and are published (Department for Education and Skills, 2003:A51).
There is a further requirement that admissions criteria should not be discriminatory (DfES, 2003:15).
In practice, the position in many LEAs is that at least some schools are oversubscribed, leaving LEAs to invoke their prioritisation mechanisms. However, the use of such criteria can leave pupils in some areas without places in their most local schools, if the criteria mean that pupils from out of area are granted priority (Fitz et al, 2001). Table 1 indicates the most common range of criteria found by West and Hind (2003) to be used for secondary school
Table 1
Most frequently used admissions criteria
Criterion / % of schools(N=2862)
Siblings at the same school / 96
Distance between home and school / 86
Medical / social need for this school / 73
Geographical catchment area / 61
This school expressed as the ‘first preference’ / 41
Pupils with special educational needs / 39
Attendance of child at local ‘feeder’ school / 28
Source: West and Hind (2003:8)
admissions. It is important to note that these figures do not refer to the frequency with which the criteria were applied in allocating places, merely to the proportions of schools which use them as potential allocations devices. Additional criteria included religion, children of employees, convenience of access/distance from alternative schools/difficulty of journey to alternatives, travel time, children of former pupils, compassionate factors and children in care (2003:8). Some of the criteria used were found by West and Hind to ‘appear to be designed to select certain groups of pupils and so to exclude others’. In particular, they refer to policies selecting on the basis of family connection (past or present) and selection by aptitude or ability (2003:3).
As indicated in Table 1, only 61% of the responding LEAs used catchment areas, but 86% used distance criteria (sometimes referred to as proximity measures), which have similar effects to catchments, but narrow the field more specifically by measuring distance between home and school. These criteria are openly published. However, more hidden effects arise through the use of transport policy, with LEAs statutorily required only to provide school buses for children attending their nearest available school. This has the potential effect of dampening the expression of preference for alternative schools.
The type of school adds a further framework which complicates admissions procedures. The history and politics of education in England is such that there are now four types of state school (maintained school). Community Schools are owned and staffed by the LEA, usually with no selection on intake, but may include former grammar schools which are still in the control of the LEA. Voluntary Controlled Schools are often owned by charities, but staffed by the LEA. They may have selection criteria based around, eg, religion. Foundation Schools are run – and may be owned - by their governing bodies, with autonomy in setting their own admissions criteria. If not owned by the governing body, ownership lies with a charitable organisation. Finally, Voluntary Aided Schools are often owned by charities, but staffed by the governing body, which also controls admissions. There are two additional categories of state-funded school which complicate the admissions process: 14 City Technology Colleges (DfES, 2002), which are funded directly from the DfES and are independent admissions authorities, but are required to take pupils who reflect the local population; and 1454 specialist schools, which may be any kind of maintained school, but which specialise in curriculum areas and may select up to 10% of pupils on the basis of aptitude for their specialism. However, being granted specialist status does not alter existing admissions arrangements.
This mix of prescription, autonomy and differentiated governance divides the state sector’s admissions system in any particular location between various admissions authorities, which then transcend LEAs’ geographical boundaries. This makes the allocations task of the LEA more difficult, when parental strategies cut across school types and result in multiple applications within an authority area or across more than one authority. Where parents or pupils are dissatisfied with allocated school places, they have a statutory right of appeal to an independent appeal panel which can direct LEAs to revoke decisions. Where parents or pupils are not satisfied with allocated school places, there is a statutory right of appeal to an independent appeal panel which can direct LEAs to revoke decisions. Appeals for secondary school places have increased from approximately 6% of admissions in 1995/96 to almost 10% in 1999/00 (Audit Commission, 2002). Differences exist between and within LEAs (Taylor and Gorard, 2001b) and, within a single LEA, the appeals increase may relate to one or two particular schools. Population density appears to make a difference to the numbers of appeals, with higher proportions seen in more densely populated areas (Audit Commission, 2002). The Audit Commission’s recommendation is that:
‘LEAs should look at their general admissions criteria and process, they should identify specific problem areas or ‘hot spots’ and aim to improve the help that they provide so that parents can express realistic preferences’ (Audit Commission, 2002:18, emphasis added)
Ultimately, this problem is caused by finite supply within quasi education markets, which are artificially restricted by finite demand (a fixed number of school age pupils) and allocations mechanisms.
Specialist schools (which specialise in one or more areas of the curriculum) may increase segregation between schools, especially where they pitch their specialisms such that they become locally popular, or the specialisms appeal to class-related aspirations (Fitz et al, 2002). Grant maintained status (now Foundation schools) has a slightly ambiguous effect, however; it was valued by 30% of parents in Bradley’s study (1996), but 60% said that this was not an issue which was important. Where LEAs have retained the practice of banding, they:
‘… have levels of segregation running at half what would be expected ceteris paribus. LEAs that use catchment areas as their main method of allocating places have levels of segregation around 20% higher than would be expected otherwise, and […] LEAs where a large proportion of schools are their own admissions authorities also have above average segregation.’ (Fitz et al, 2002)
The supply of school places is one of the key issues in enabling free choice. This has been problematic in some areas, where insufficient state school places are available, or where there is an excess of places, or where some schools are oversubscribed and others have empty seats. This last issue was targeted by the government, following an Audit Commission report which made recommendations about the rationalisation of school places (Audit Commission, 1996). Progress has been made, although more recent findings reveal that overcrowding in secondary schools has increased in 63% of LEAs (Audit Commission, 2002). When those state schools perceived to be ‘good’ become oversubscribed they may contribute further to a flight into the private sector.
It is clear, then, that local and central policy has effects on the level of segregation within schools. Current policy in some areas represents a return to the pre-1988 situation whereby housing location influences the acquisition of places at preferred schools. However, it is not clear whether the introduction of school choice has led to the ‘spirals of decline’ which were predicted by some, as research outcomes differ by study (see Levačić and Woods, 2002 for discussion). Additionally, the use of free school meals as a deprivation indicator in such studies may be misleading, as it excludes pupils whose parents are not in receipt of income support or income-based Job Seeker’s Allowance but who, nonetheless, are on relatively low incomes. This is particularly salient in areas of relatively high housing cost.