Admissions plans

[gordongrumblebum]

What planet are they on?????
Do they not see the inevitable problems arising from unlimited admissions to a popular school? Ummmm..... buildings (haven't they stopped new building?), poorer schools getting poorer, class sizes increasing.....

Words fail me.

gingeroots - Yes an academy is its own admission authority, as are foundation schools, free schools and most faith schools. They are still required to conform to the Admissions Code and the relevant legislation. Indeed, the new code beefs that up a little by allowing the Schools Adjudicator to rule on the admission arrangements for academies. That is currently the responsibility of the Secretary of State.

erebus - my DS needed 2% and he would have got into the local selective school - apparently there were 50 kids ahead of him who didn't get in. so i can't see this would be that detrimental to the quality - anyone's test results can vary by 2% on a day surely

What about the DC who needed 3 %? Or 4%?

Where do you draw that line?

Thanks prh47bridge - I'm just trying to understand the effect of the lottery bit in the new admissions code on schools in a LA like ours - Southwark - where all the secondary schools ( with the exception of one school which I think has retained its Foundation status ) are either Academies or Faith Schools .

You say The wording in the draft code isn't very clear but I think the intention is that any school which is its own admission authority can use random allocation ,so I guess any or all of our Academies could admit by lottery? ( some already do )

Presumably if they didn't all use lotteries that wouldn't breach the Admissions Code ?
But how/who would establish which schools could use lotteries and which couldn't ?

The draft code says that the LA cannot use a lottery as its primary oversubscription criteria. There is no restriction on individual schools. So it would be ok for all the academies in an area to use a random allocation. It seems to me that this is a hole in the draft code as it stands, especially when you get areas where all the schools are their own admission authority.

Not as radical as it seems but it makes good sound bites!

Thanks prh47bridge .
Maybe an indication that not a good idea for the education system to be fragmented like this ?
Strong/big Academy chains ,as we have in Southwark ,may in theory have to follow the Admissions Code ,but in practice who can challenge them if they decided ,for eaxmple ,to make incoming pupils take in house banding tests .
And if Southwark isn't even legally required to have an Admissions Forum ( is that correct term ? ) ,there will be even less "supervision " .

Under the new code Southwark will not be required to have an admissions forum. However, that doesn't stop them from having one if they want. In any case the role of the admissions forum isn't really to supervise and ensure compliance with the relevant codes.

As for who can challenge them if they fail to follow the codes, the answer is that right now only a limited group of people can object and the Secretary of State determines the objection. Following the changes anyone can object and the Schools Adjudicator decides. So supervision of academies will be significantly stronger.

I am, however, puzzled by your comment about making incoming pupils take in house banding tests. If you are referring to the use of fair banding as part of the admissions process they are entitled to do that today if they want provided they go through the corrrect consultation before changing their admission arrangements. What they are not allowed to do is to introduce a process for selecting the brightest pupils. That is not changing.

Just for clarity, the role of an Admissions Forum is to advise the LA and admission authorities on matters relating to admissions. They do not have any right to tell individual admission authorities what to do. They are, however, one of the bodies entitled to refer admission arrangements to the Schools Adjudicator.

I'm still not totally clear on this!
Say:
My school (not an academy) has two form entry with 60 pupils per year. We are a good school.
The school down the road is also a good school with same PAN, but it is much more popular (more 'first choices' than us!). Will this school be able to take more pupils, or are they still limited by the PAN?

If they are allowed to expand, they will certainly drag a significant number from our school (YR and Y3 in particular as there are infant feeders in the area) as it is 'more popular'. Would they then have to build to accommodate these extra children?

In that case let me have another go at explaining with apologies that my previous attempts were insufficiently clear.

At the moment neither school can admit beyond PAN in general, although there are some circumstances where they are required to do so. Under the proposed changes both schools will be able to admit beyond PAN without consulting the LA if pupils apply in year and the school is already full. At the moment both schools would have to consult the LA first.

As the school down the road has a PAN of 60 and is running 6 classes in infants, if they want to increase PAN they will have to create at least 2 additional classes to avoid breaching the infant class size limit. If they do not have space for these additional classes they will have to build the required accommodation before increasing PAN. The same is true of your school. The government's proposals do not change this. Both schools will still need additional classrooms before they can increase PAN.

Once the extra accommodation is in place the other school can increase PAN by going through the appropriate process. The same is true of your school. The fact you are not an academy is irrelevant. Both your school and the other school will find it slightly easier to increase PAN under the proposed changes.

(Sorry - still being thick)
We're talking about a fixed number of entrants, shared between two schools, which, at the moment, is 60/60 because of PAN.

Presumably those making first choice of the 'more popular' school would ALL go there after a terrapin had been planted outside. They could then have 2and a half form entry (PAN 75). (I appreciate that this would have knock on effects throughout the school!!)

My school would lose children, and therefore lose money.

There is also another 'more popular' school than ours very close by, who could syphon off another 15 quite easily.

Then we'd be left with single form entry.

If the other school created two additional classrooms for infants and their junior classrooms were large enough to cope with the additional pupils then yes, they could increase their PAN to 75. That option is open to them today under the current admissions code. The changes proposed by the government make it slightly easier but that is all. Your position is not affected to any significant degree by the proposed changes.

Yes, if other local schools are more popular than yours and they choose to expand it could result in your school losing pupils. It could equally result in your school gaining pupils who are currently going elsewhere because your school is full, leaving it with the same number of pupils as it has today. The number of entrants is not fixed unless you are the only two schools in the LA. I accept, however, that if yours is one of the least popular schools in the LA it may find it difficult.

I would also point out that it doesn't necessarily follow that a school which is popular today will remain popular if it expands. Some parents may feel that the school is becoming too big and send their children elsewhere.

At the end of the day you are objecting to parental choice - something which is supported by all the major political parties. You are suggesting that popular schools must be prevented from expanding just so your school doesn't shrink. Popular schools are already encouraged to expand and have been for years. The government proposes to make it very slightly easier for them to do so. I'm afraid I don't think you will get much support for a campaign to get the government to change the rules so that popular schools are unable to expand.

prh47 - I just mentioned the bit about the Harris Academies requiring pupils to take their own banding exams because this is not in keeping with Southwark Admissions Forum advice .
Which if I understand it correctly - and I may not - is that year 6 should not have to sit lots of different tests for the secondary transfer and that secondary schools should rely on data from primary schools .

I hadn't realised that at the moment only certain people were allowed to challenge admission codes and that in future anyone can object - interesting stuff !

Slightly different position here ph - our school is less popular due to high mobility, but we are in leafy surroundings. Lots of parents don't choose our school because of perceived a lack of stability for their children even though all local schools (including mine) are rated good by ofsted.
So I do have a real worry of local leafy schools expanding, whilst we shrink.

gingeroots - The current admissions code says that if a number of schools in an area use fair banding they should use a common test. The use of the word "should" means that this is not compulsory, so the schools can all set their own test if they prefer. This paragraph is missing from the draft but it is so widely ignored that I doubt it will make any difference.

gordongrumblebum - I understand your concern and sorry if I have appeared unsympathetic. The point I've been trying to get across is that your school's position does not change significantly as a result of the proposed changes. The risk (from your point of view) that the popular schools will expand is already there. The changes will only marginally increase that risk.

prh - yes I thought it was advice only ,that's why I used that word.

I can see that it's not really feasible to insist that schools join together to do things a certain way .
Well not in Southwark anyway .

prh47bridge, I have a question for you about the current process that needs to be followed by schools and LA to increase PAN after parents have submitted their admission applications for the school year.

Many Thanks,

Are we talking about a bulge class?

If they want to formally change the admission number that has to be referred to the Schools Adjudicator for approval in most cases. In general the Adjudicator is likely to approve such requests, particularly for a popular school.

The more usual route for a bulge class, however, would be to leave the admission number alone and simply admit children over PAN. That just needs agreement between the school and the LA (or the Secretary of State if it is an academy). So the LA contacts the school and asks if they are willing to accept a bulge class, the school says yes and the LA admits another 30 children without changing the admission number.

Thanks prh4bridge.

We have a school in our LA which had the PAN of 20 for 2011, however they have admitted 24. They have also changed their PAN for year 2012 to 24. For the LA and school to admit the extra 4 students this year would they need the approval of school's adjudicator?

prh why do you think random allocation is not a good thing?

enroute - They have almost certainly admitted the extra children this year by agreement with the LA, which means they have left the PAN at 20 but chosen to admit 24. That doesn't need any involvement from the Schools Adjudicator.

nameymcnamechanger - I am not completely against random allocation - it can be appropriate for some schools. However, I prefer using straight line distance as a tie breaker. If all the schools in an LA use random allocation as the main oversubscription criteria it makes school admissions a complete lottery. It may increase your chances of getting into a school that is miles away but it means you don't have any safe choices for your preferences. You cannot predict which schools you are likely to get. I prefer a system that allows parents to make choices with a reasonable idea of the likely outcome.

Regarding LA wide random allocation This is what happened when Brighton tried it. And maybe partly why it fell out of favour.

" Brighton and Hove's controversial school admissions lottery system has failed in one of its key aims ? to give deprived children equal access to better performing schools, a study by academics from the Institute of Education, London and the University of Bristol finds. The system has resulted in significant winners and losers ? but has not markedly reduced social segregation, it says."

No that is not correct.

This is a very old thread that was discussing the proposed new admissions code. In its final form the new admissions code allows schools to prioritise children of staff who have been at the school for 2 years or more. They can also prioritise children of staff recruited to fill a vacancy for which there is a demonstrable skill shortage.

However, the code only allows schools to do this. It does not say they have to. Most schools have not taken advantage of this and do not give any priority to children of staff.