Increased choice of school places - it's a myth. (But you probably knew that anyway).

[icecreamsoup]

(Following up on another thread here and many more threads on the same subject .....)

There has been a lot of news coverage recently about shortages of school places, due to rising populations. We all know that's leading to increased competition for admissions, but I reckon it's not just about increasing population - there's something else going on too, and we'd be noticing increased competition even if the population was static.

That's because, since at least 1996, the Government has been trying to reduce surplus school places.

Surplus school places are a waste of public money, so it makes sense to decrease surpluses. The trouble is that recent Governments have also claimed to be increasing "Choice" at the same time. Basic common sense says to me that increased Choice is impossible if surpluses are being decreased. It would be lovely if we could all choose between our nearest local school, and at least one other attractive school that was further away, but for everyone to have that choice Local Authorities would need to significantly increase surpluses. Otherwise, for each family who chooses a place that isn't their nearest local school, another is potentially denied a choice that is their nearest local school.

The reductions in surpluses are being audited closely, and current national targets for surplus school places are in the 5% - 10% range (see Q62 here), which is meant to facilitate some choice. However, the social consequences of the policy aren't being audited as far as I know.

Where I live the target surplus is actually 0%, because its an affluent borough which strategically relies on people who don't get a high state preference going private instead. That means that each year many families have an anxious wait for other families to reject their state offer for a private one. A lucky few do have a choice of more than one state school. The vast majority don't; they get their nearest school, and an increasing number don't even get that - they are simply allocated the unwanted places of those that did have a choice.

A few days ago there was a news item about how private schools in London are booming, despite the recession, and despite increasing quality in the state sector. I think they are simply thriving on the back of the increased competition for state places.

So, is growth of the private sector being driven by Government policy to reduce surpluses? Is that a good thing because more people using private schools saves more money for the State? Or is it a bad thing, because increasing privatisation undermines the State school system?

Whenever I hear a politican advocating "increased choice", I add the words "... for some people" to the end of the sentence, because in that context the idea doesn't seem quite so attractive!

"but doesn't it depend on having someone who wants to set up a free school in the first place?"

Yes. Although, LAs that have good relationships with free school groups can work closely with them and are free to give as much support as the project wants/needs.

Some LAs now operate on a commissioning basis anyway, so free school groups and academies can buy in local council services if they want to.

Talkinpeace said "In Southampton, where I live, we have two Catholic schools, one of which has removed its religious admission criteria"

Which one has removed its religious admissions criteria? St. George's and St. Anne's both have religious admissions criteria, although St. Anne's doesn't seem to have published its 2015 policy yet.

icecream
St Georges has gone co-ed and as part of academy conversion, St Anne's has admitted the reality of its cohort. The skirts are still as short as ever though!

Did you hear the interview with David Blunkett on the today programme this morning about how, when and where new schools should be opened.
You could run motors off the speed he was pinning.

This quote is interesting Talkin: "As St Anne’s was already a voluntary aided school, the Governing Body had many of the freedoms enjoyed by academies"

Quite. Like academies, VA schools have authority over their own admissions, subject to the Admissions Code of course. It's the first time I've seen that connection acknowledged though.

As an aside, I think the school is probably in breach of Section 1.46 and 1.47 of the Admissions Code as it hasn't published its 2015 arrangements yet. I couldn't see them on the website.

No they are not in breach. Paragraph 1.46 requires them to determine their admission arrangements by 15th April. It does not require them to publish anything. That is in paragraph 1.47 which requires them to be on their website for the offer year. The offer year for September 2015 admissions doesn't start until September 2014.

Ok, my mistake. Thanks prh47bridge.

Back on topic, there is at least one MP who, recognising that restrictive faith school admissions seriously complicate the surplus/choice conundrum, thinks that the answer is to allow popular schools to borrow (privately) in order to expand to meet the demand.

His argument seems to be that public money would not be put at risk. Of course he's wrong, because the effect would be closure of less popular schools. Maybe he would see that as a welcome side effect - the closure of less popular schools, facilitated by private sector capital. He doesn't make that intention clear, but it has to be the elephant in his argument.

the effect would be closure of less popular schools

I thought you were in favour of choice and yet you now seem to be opposing it.

If there is to be genuine choice popular schools must be allowed to expand and encouraged to do so. Unless there is a surplus of places some parents will always end up forced to send their child to an unpopular and/or failing school. A natural consequence of having a surplus is that the number on roll in unpopular schools will fall. Such schools will therefore have to pull their socks up and make themselves more attractive to parents. If they fail to do so they may ultimately face closure.

If you really do want choice you must accept the possibility that some unpopular schools end up closing. If you don't want unpopular schools to close under any circumstances you must ensure that at least some parents are forced to send their children there regardless of their personal preferences.

"I thought you were in favour of choice and yet you now seem to be opposing it"

I (deliberately) didn't say whether I was in favour of it or not. I just said that it wasn't possible when surpluses were being reduced.

For the record, I am in favour of it in theory, but see a lot of problems with it. I worry about the consequences when choice is enabled within a system where some schools (selective faith schools, grammar schools) have the popularity odds stacked in their favour through privileged admissions policies. If one school closes because another is more popular and expands, then that actually reduces choice. It would be much better to focus attention on bringing all schools up to the same standard, and creating a system where the default option is for everyone to go to a local school.

I don't have any answers, but I don't like the status quo, and I certainly don't like the way some politicians advocate "choice" as a reason for creating more selective faith schools or expanding grammar schools.

It would be much better to focus attention on bringing all schools up to the same standard

Nice idea but I take the pragmatic view that this approach does not appear to have ever worked anywhere in the world. There are always good schools and bad schools.

If one school closes because another is more popular and expands, then that actually reduces choice

But if the popular school expands and the one no-one wants closes it means more parents get the school they want and none are forced to accept the school they don't want. Playing devil's advocate!

"Nice idea but I take the pragmatic view ..."

That's defeatism not pragmatism.

It's a high bar, but gaps are being closed. They may never be completely closed, but it's indefensible not to try. The City/London Challenge was considered successful at raising standards.

"But if the popular school expands and the one no-one wants closes"

If the popular one is a community school it's fine, but if it's a faith school it's not. I have nothing against inclusive faith schools, provided they have open admissions, but nobody should be forced to go to a faith school just because its the only option available and popular with other families. Everyone should have the right to go to a good community school in their local area if they want to.

Round here there is an unpopular school.
It is only 55% full - by rights it should close, but as its a sponsored academy with a new £16m building, that's not going to be allowed to happen ; market force distortion and all that.

"Ok, my mistake. Thanks prh47bridge."

Actually, prh47bridge, sorry to be pedantic, but I don't think you're right after all.

Paragraph 1.46 requires schools to determine their admission arrangements by 15th April, and Paragraph 47 says "Once admission authorities have determined their admission arrangements, they must ... publish a copy of the determined arrangements on their website".

They're required to publish them in April, because there is only a short window of opportunity for people to object to them, which ends in June. See here for further confirmation of the timetable.

So any school that hasn't published its 2015 entry policy is by now in breach of the admissions code.

yeah, but its St Anne's so nobody will worry too much.

Yeah, they're not the only ones though. I only followed it up because I was looking at another school whose published policy was out of date on their website (though that one was from 2011/12!).

You've missed a vital part of paragraph 1.47. Immediately after the bit you reproduce the last few words of the sentence are "displaying them for the whole offer year". So the arrangements for admission in September 2015 must be on the website from September 1st 2014 to August 31st 2015. There is nothing in that paragraph that specifically states they must be up before September 1st.

If it said, "must immediately publish a copy" I would agree that they should be on the school's website now. With the wording as it stands I think the implication is that they should get them on their website as soon as possible but I'm not sure they are actually in breach yet, although they clearly will be in breach if nothing appears before September. I certainly don't think the relevant authorities would rule that there had been a breach just because the admission arrangements didn't appear on the website on 16th April.

Prh47bridge, I agree it's ambiguous, which is why I thought you were right at first. And I don't know if there has been any formal ruling on it yet. However, the timetable set out on the adjudicator's website (which I linked to above) is very clear. Plus, if you google it you'll see some local authorities are advising their schools that they will be in breach of the code if they don't publish by April 15th. (Sorry, I'm on my mobile right now or I'd post some of the links I found yesterday).

the timetable set out on the adjudicator's website (which I linked to above) is very clear

Really? It says "required to publish their admission arrangements by, for example, April 2013". That certainly doesn't specify 15th April and looks a bit vague to me!

I would be fascinated in the links you say you have found. My own search throws up a lot of pages that say something like, "All admission authorities must have determined their arrangements by 15 April 2014. The admission arrangements for all foundation, voluntary aided schools and Academies are required to be displayed on the individual school websites" or similar. This clearly separates the two statements. I can see quite a few LAs saying that admission arrangements must be published on the school's website by 1st May.

I am pretty sure there have been no formal rulings and I would be very surprised if there ever are. The Adjudicator only rules on whether or not the admission arrangements conform to the Admissions Code, not on the administration of the arrangements. The LGO and the EFA are only likely to make rulings if non-publication of the admission arrangements was a significant factor in determining an appeal which is highly unlikely.

prh, the adjudicator's site says here that: "The school admissions system operates on a two-year cycle. With the admission authority required to publish their admission arrangements by, for example, April 2013, for admission to that school in September 2014"

That seems pretty clear to me, and according to this post on LSN, the DfE has confirmed that there is a "statutory duty on admission authorities to determine their admission arrangements by 15 April every year and publish a copy on their website"

I'll look out some other links later (sorry, I'm at work at the mo).

That is the wording I reproduced from the adjudicator's site. It isn't very definite about an actual date for publishing the arrangements. It doesn't specify 15th April and doesn't even mention the school's website. Furthermore the words "for example" take a lot of force away from the April 2013 date, suggesting that other examples may be possible. And, of course, this is not a ruling from the Adjudicator so, in the event of any differences, the Admissions Code takes priority.

The LSN article shows how easy it is to misinterpret something. If you read it carefully, the wording you have produced from the DfE gives a date for determining admission arrangements. It then goes on to say that the authority must publish a copy on their website. It does not say that the 15th April date applies to publishing information on the website despite the fact that LSN seem to think it does. They have interpreted the statement as if the words, "on the same day" were added to the end. They aren't. In fact the DfE's statement does not give any date by which the admission arrangements must be published.

Prh, you're reading it all with the eye of a lawyer, and from that perspective you're right that it's ambiguous and unenforceable without a ruling. However the Adjudicator's intention is clear, given that non-publication would prevent people from following the timetabled procedure for raising objections.

"suggesting that other examples may be possible"

By my reading, other examples would be ....
April 2014, for admission to that school in September 2015
April 2015, for admission to that school in September 2016
etc ...

Prh, some admission authority links, as promised ...

Surrey County Council say the policies need to be published on websites by 1 May (see second last para).

The Diocese of Portsmouth agree with that date, saying "Following determination admission authorities must notify the consultees in 3.5 above and the governing bodies of voluntary controlled and community schools in the relevant area. They must publish a copy of the determined arrangements on their website and they must send a copy of their full, determined arrangements to the Diocesan Department for Schools and the local authority by 1 May 2014"

Somerset are taking a more risk-averse approach. Quote: "Every Admission Authority must formally determine and publish their admission arrangements by 15 April in the year preceding admission. If this deadline is missed, then the admission Authority risks having no legal admission arrangements for the 2012/13 academic year."

There are probably more examples if you trawl through Google (I searched on the following list of terms: "breach admissions code deadline april 15th publish website")