Schools able to control own admissions

[raiseaneyebrow]

There was a short piece in the paper today saying over-subscribed schools will be able to run their own lotteries, rather than the LEA doing it.

It doesn't say that this will only apply to academies.

Has anyone heard more about this? Will we end up applying to individual schools do you think, rather than centrally?

This is already the case for any school that is its own admission authority including academies, faith schools and so on. The LA sends them a list of children who have applied and the school places them in order using its admission criteria. If the tiebreaker is a lottery (fairly rare these days) the school has to conduct the lottery.

I haven't seen the article you refer to but I wouldn't be at all surprised if it is a journalist thinking this is a big change whereas it has actually been true for years. Happens all the time, I'm afraid.

Yes and I thought they had to follow LEA guidelines, not make their own up? Or is that not the case?

Local school is faith (but not Church) but still adheres to LEA criteria, just with an additional faith clause IYSWIM.

I'd hate any more leeway tbh; despite being only catchment school we had a fight opn our hands to get sn ds3 in, and LEa forced it in the end by proving we met catchment AND sibling crieria (and in fact faith as well though school wasn't chosen for that- just nearest).

DS4 starts nursery there in September and is possibly going down ASD route though not as severe as ds3, and I'd weep to think we had same battle on our hands without LEA back up.

They have to follow the Admissions Code which is produced by the government. That seriously limits the school's freedom to do what it likes on admissions. The LA does have some influence. However, the school doesn't have to follow the LA's admission criteria. They can, for example, choose whether to use a lottery or distance from the school as a tie breaker regardless of which is used by the LA. They can decide whether or not siblings get priority, again regardless of whether or not the LA give priority to siblings. Faith schools can set criteria to do with adherence to the faith concerned.

That fits with what we experienced; we are one of the closest famillies to school, had 2 other chidlren there, didn;t attend Church but ahd backing of vicar who was a tutor of mine....... so a priority on every LEA criteria except they didn;t want the bit about Sn chidlren, tried to wriggle free and were refused permission.

I should mention that children with a statement of special needs are treated differently and don't go through the normal admissions system. The school named in the statement has to admit the child. It has no choice. I have, however, come across both LA schools and non-LA schools that seem to think they can refuse entry to children with statements.

prh47, that's interesting. Someone explained statemented admissions like that to me ie that the named school has to take the child, though I have also been told that the school has to agree to be named ie can say that it doesn't want to be named.

Which of these is true, if you or anyone else has a spare moment. More specifically, can a free school refuse to admit statemented pupils if it chooses to?

That was us then prh47

Thankfully both statemented boys now in SN bases- can breathe easy! Theya re with people who want to teach them.

A school must take a child named on a statement BUT there are reasons why theyc an object to being anmed; impact on children already at teh school is one that often gets used to try and put people off. School was arguing that as it already had one child with a statement they couldn;t take another without severe impact on class. There was no impact from my ds, though admit other child did have a lot of extra hard issues- the impact of those was not affected by ds3's presence.

The point of the story is that the government are going to radically alter the admissions code, thereby giving all schools more freedoms on admissions. This will set the cat amongst the proverbial admission piegons

Rosebud05 - It is up to the LA to determine which school is named on a statement but they have to have a very good reason for refusing the school preferred by the child's parents. The LA can still go ahead and name a school even if the school objects. If the LA refuses to name your chosen school or the school refuses to admit the child the parents can appeal to SENDIST who can decide which school will be named on the statement and order the school to admit the child.

Free schools are in the same position as any other state school. If they are named on the statement they have to admit the child.

What Zanzibar said. It didn't talk about faith schools, SN or academies - it seemed it would apply to all schools. More details this week apparently.

If schools can control their own admissions, isn't that effectively the end of comprehensive education?

Rasieaneyebrow - yes, it would be wouldn't it? Let's see what happens, but nothing surprises me anymore. I guess the only admissions criteria they could introduce would be academic achievement, but wouldn't that be back to grammars?

Involvement of the school in whether it should be named in a statement can be positive; in Islington some years ago each primary was asked to specialise in a particular area of special needs, we chose the area and therefore effectively influenced the naming process. My own school, which is a 1960's glass box, cannot accept a child with mobility problems. Too many stairs, no lift.

From 2012 we will be in a new building "Yippee!" which will be fully DDA compliant and that restriction will go.

However the Government are not only changing the rules on admissions, they are changing the rules on statements, so it could be all different.

Absolutely nlondonlad

School I work in (unpaid) also a SNU but has no restrictions; several of the ones I visited for my own kids however couldn't take a child with mobility issues for reasons you give so input is important but that doesn;t mean it can;t be used badly either- sadly not all MS schools want kids with SN.

My own specialty is autism and seemingly most schools can at least notionally cope with the lesser rungs of it now (or think they can- makes me weep at times!), but I still note not a single child in our primary with any kind of mobility, hearing, visual or GDD type diagnosis. I think teh ASD only gets through as so many of teh chidlren are diagnsoed alter on- my older ds was the first to get through without being removed elsewhere, and ds3 lasted a year with abttles over stupid things- had to go to full panel for statement amendment before school would allow dairy intol water hating non verbal autsistic 4 year old to have rice milk at break as it didn't meet their 'milk or water' rule! ridiculous!.

But IME SNU's / bases are a little different to other schools in that tehy tend to attract chidlren from a wider area and there are existing systems for taxis etc. A palcement elsewhere for ds3 would have meant walking past school, up a steep hill for a mile and a half, dropping off then trying to get other chidlren back down hill for 8.50 start...... I do believe that chidlren should be entitled to a aplce at the school closest to them in a MS setting, and schools being able to send chidlren elsewhere with no regard for the complications of that decision could be bad news.

Statements won;t be created after the new system but existing ones will be maintained from what I have read. Hope that ds4's ASD if it IS asd (bit borderline) is picked up early!

The government is not reintroducing grammar schools.

What they have said is that they will make the Admissions Code simpler so that it is easier for parents and schools to understand. They have said they will retain the principles and priorities of the current code whilst making it less prescriptive. They are considering allowing academies and free schools to prioritise children from disadvantaged backgrounds. That is the only change they have flagged up so far.

My own perspective is that the current Admissions Code is rather larger and more complex than is really necessary. If they can get the same requirements across in a much shorter document that will ge a good thing. I'm not sure what they mean by making it less prescriptive. I'm a little concerned by that but I won't pass judgement until I see what they actually produce. By the way, they have said that looked after children and SEN children will continue to be guaranteed a place at their first choice school.

I wonder if that differes here in wales prh, as looked after children not guaranteed a palce on our school's system- tehy come after catchment, faith and siblings- SEN first atm but with usual caveat about 'if named on statement'.

Wales has its own admission code and won't be affected by anything the government in London decides. However, the provision for looked after children is broadly the same as in England. With certain exceptions, schools must give highest priority to looked after children (paragraph 2.28). As this is a faith school, looked after children of the faith must be given priority over other children of the faith. Looked after children who are not of the faith must be given priority over any other children who are not of the faith. However, it is permissible to give all children of the faith priority over children who are not of the faith.

Yes, i think that must be it then- it's not really a faith school, it' sort of an anomally but last tiem I explained someone came on and announced the name and location so erm- won't do that then!

The article I read about the gov simplyfing the admissions code
www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/mar/22/schools-admissions-reform-select-pupils and from which I've copied below ,made these points

1 the adjudicator's powers to investigate and order changes to school admissions policies are being reduced - eg where parents had complained about admissions authorities drawing up rules for sixth-form entry without consulting ,there previously was the ability to not just investigate the specific allegation, but to look at the entire policy and order any change it sees fit if it is believed that a school or local authority is not following the code .
Now, the adjudicator will only be able to take action in relation to the specific allegation made by the complainant, and not to require that an admissions policy changes in a particular way.

2 Compulsory local admissions forums are to be scrapped. These bodies are made up of parents, headteachers, faith group representatives, and local authority and academy staff, and consider the fairness of admissions arrangements across an area. Local authorities will still be able to establish these groups, but there will be no requirement to do so.

3 local authorities will no longer be required to provide annual reports to the adjudicator as to how school admissions are working. This would mean that the adjudicator's office "would not be able to maintain an overview" of how admissions were operating nationwide.

I'm not sure whether in practice it will make much difference .
In Southwark at secondary level we have only Faith ,Foundation ,and Academy schools ( so all their own admissions authorities ) and there's not much sign of any influence by an admissions forum .
We have widely varying admissions policies for secondary schools - lotteries ,geographical distance ,different sorts of banding -with children having to sit different tests and parents in confusion .
This year the authority is unable to offer 40 children a secondary school place yet a local Academy ( co-ed ) has just reduced it's intake by 60 places .

The Guardian is broadly correct except on point 3. What is actually happening is that the requirement is being taken out of legislation and added to the Admissions Code. I presume the intention is to make it easier for the government to change things in future - it is much easier (and cheaper) to change a statutory code than it is to change the law.

Thanks prh47bridge .
So the annual reports will go straight to central gov. instead of to an adjudicator's department ?
Plus they're replacing ability to complain to Ombudsman with a complaints procedure to Education Secretary ?

So more control by central gov ? Weaker democratic process ?
Or am I misunderstanding this ?

What about Special Needs without a Statement? In our LEA it is virtually impossible to get a statement if you have a physical disability but no learning or behavioural difficulties.

We got dd into an oversubscribed out-of-catchment secondary on appeal by arguing that it was the only school that could meet her physical needs and the panel upheld our appeal- how would that work if the school controlled its own admissions? Would there still be an independent appeals panel?

Naturally, no school would want to take a child like dd with mobility problems and chronic health problems, because it means more work and, in dd's case, a significant drop in attendance statistics. So who would make a school take a child like dd? (Always remembering that the number of suitable schools is going to be low anyway)

My understanding is that there would still be independent appeals panels ,just that the processes that monitor this and other requirements of the admission process will be different .
I think weaker and more difficult for the man in the street to follow ,but I'm cynical .
Though happy to be dissuaded .

Gingeroots - The reports still go to the adjudicator, so it is really no change at all - just moving the regulations from one place to another.

Complaints about admission arrangements still go to the Schools Adjudicator. There is a slight difference in the process depending on the type of school. For most schools the adjudicator issues a decision which the LA/school must implement. If they fail to do so the adjudicator can refer the matter to the Secretary for Education who should issue a decision letter enforcing the adjudicator's decision. For academies and free schools, instead of making a decision the adjudicator makes a recommendation to the Secretary who decides what changes are necessary. The expectation is that in the vast majority of cases the Secretary will simply follow the adjudicator's recommendations. If the Secretary fails to follow the adjudicator's recommendations his decision can be taken to judicial review, where he will lose if he has allowed an academy to breach the Admissions Code. A previous Secretary under the last government got this wrong with respect to a SENDIST decision for an SEN child and got into all sorts of trouble as a result.

The only things that are really changing here are:

• the adjudicator will be less prescriptive. At the moment, if he finds that a school or LA has breached the code the adjudicator tells them exactly how to modify their admission arrangements in order to comply. In future it will be up to the admission authority to sort out how to comply.

• the adjudicator will only look at the matter referred to in the complaint and will not look more widely to see if there are any other issues in the admission arrangements.

On the "more control by central government" question, we'll have to see how it works. If you want schools to be free of LA control and answerable to parents the only way to do it (as far as I can see) is to make schools report direct to central government. However, if central government then micromanages the schools you have achieved the opposite effect. I personally hope the changes will make schools more democratically accountable, not less.

Cory - Many schools (faith schools, for example) are already in this situation. There is still an appeal to an independent appeals panel. In many cases the school gets the LA to sort this out but some provide their own appeal panels. There is still the possibility of referring the matter to the LGO if the appeal panel get things wrong or turn out not to be properly independent. And if the school or LA fails to imppment the LGO's recommendations you can go to judicial review. So absolutely no different from LA schools.

Do people really think the government's change to the admission's code won't make any difference in practice? If so why are they bothering and why has the head of the OSA announced he is to stand down early?

A less prescriptive code will make a major difference - the old OSA over extended themselves, tried to usurp the role of GBs and seem to be about to get their wings severely clipped.

It is possible that a very different admissions code might have more impact on schools of England than all the academies and free schools.

We should all watch this space.