question about Academies proposal

[bathtime]

Has anyone read what will happen to catchment areas? I've read that academies will continue to set their own admissions criteria, but how will this work in practice?

Obviously at the moment an LEA might have 5 secondary schools and divvy up the catchment areas between them. But what would happen to this arrangement if eg 3 of those schools become academies - it could render the councils attempt to organise admissions on geographical grounds irrelevant?
I realise in many places there aren't formal catchment areas - just a question of closest gets in... but in some places eg Brighton they've got quite rigid cathment areas. Surely if one or more schools become academies it would effect those LEA co-ordinated catchemnts? If academies don't have to answer to the LEA they could determine their catchment area as they wish?

Does anyone have any info on this?

I'm thinking this could mean some uncertain times ahead for parents waiting to see if their nearest local comps become academies and if so what their admission criteria will be!

Academies will, indeed, be able to determine their own catchment areas or, indeed, choose not to have a catchment area at all.

Of course, most LAs already have schools that set their own admission criteria, including the right to set their own catchment area if they wish. Faith schools, for example, already have that ability.

Every LA has an Admission Forum which has a major role in ensuring there is a fair admissions system. Any Academy wishing to change its admission criteria must consult the Admission Forum, the LA and other admission authorities in the area. They may also be required to consult other bodies, e.g. religious authorities if they are a faith school. The Academy must take into account any advice they receive from the Admission Forum. Anyone objecting to the admission criteria set by the Academy can object to the Schools Adjudicator. So Academies cannot just do their own thing without regard to anyone else.

That sounds reassuring, but I was getting the impression that this new breed of academies were going to be less under the "control" of the LA. So, perhaps they won't even need to be involved with the Admission Forum. I suppose what I'm getting at is a concern that we could end up with gaps in LA organised provision. In some areas it won't be an issue, but I can imagine in many areas one school doing its own thing could impact on admissions issues for surrounding schools and there will be no overall body who could co-ordinate or attempt to make it work for the area as a whole? I think there could be some interesting battle lines brewing between some local schools and the LA (it's already happened in Bath with Olfield School!).
Confusing times ahead I think!

Academies absolutely will need to be involved with the Admission Forum.

Academies will be less under the control of the LA for admissions. If they were an LA-controlled school the LA would set their admission criteria and the school would have no real say in the matter - most LA's set the same criteria for all their schools. As an Academy they can set their own admission criteria but they still have to go through the consultation process. That includes involvement with the Admission Forum. That's the law. The government isn't changing that.

Ok, so I get that they'll have to adhere to current admissions code etc? But I'm still trying to understand how radically admissions could change in the future.

I've just looked the admissions code up and it's got a picture of Ed Balls and intro by him. So I suppose it's a pretty good bet that at some point the admissions code will be ameneded (and I'm assuming they'd change more than the picture)!!

And if the admission code changes, academies are dealing with their own admissions, the LA are less involved... potentially we could be looking at a very different admissions system in the future.

There's another education bill coming isn't there (the one which will bring in free schools), it will be interesting to see if admissions issues are dealth with there? Any heads up on that one?

I don't have any inside track on that, I'm afraid. My understanding from what Gove has said is that the government don't plan to make any radical changes to the Admissions Code. Of course, plans can change.

The Department of Education rundown on Academies can be found here

In Southwark all the secondary schools are Faith ,Foundation or Academies .
Lord Harris is the sponsor for the majority of the Academies . The Admissions Forum require school's to have admissions criteria that are transparent and easy to understand - we do not have this in Southwark .Additionally the Admissions Forum did not wish schools to operate their own exams for banding ,the Harris Academies just ignore this .

The Admissions Code requires schools to have admissions criteria that are transparent and easy to understand, quite apart from anything the Admissions Forum say. Having looked through the admissions criteria for all secondary schools in Southwark they seem to meet this requirement. I note that a few of the schools ask you to contact the school for the full admission criteria but the summaries provided suggest they meet the Admissions Code requirements.

The Harris Academies all seem to operate similar criteria which are pretty standard for secondary schools. All four of them use "fair banding", as do at least four other schools in Southwark. I can't comment on the tests used. For three of them the criteria are looked after children, then special medical or social needs, then siblings, then distance. The exception is Peckham which has a number of feeder schools. If you look around state schools in other authorities you will find many with identical or similar criteria.

If you are unhappy with the criteria that have been set you can complain to the Schools Adjudicator.

Well ,whether or not you find something easy to understand I suppose depends on your level of familiarity with the subject and your intelligence.
I'm guessing that phrbridge is pretty competent in both areas .
Personally I find this
www.kingsdale.southwark.sch.uk/PDF/Admissions-Policy-2010.pdf
diffucult to follow .
And I know from discussions on other forums that I am not alone .
A parent applying for a secondary school in Southwark is faced with a bewildering array of different admissions criteria and ,against the Admissions Forums advice ,their children have to sit multiple exams at different schools .
I think this is a result of a number of schools having their own admissions policies and in particular ,the Harris schools having sufficient strength to be able to ignore recommendations/advice made by the LEA authority .
I'm not an expert in this area - just my views - and think I would have insufficient expertise to make a complaint that fully got my point of view across .

I am indeed pretty familiar with the admissions system which does probably help. I find the Kingsdale admission criteria (paragraphs 1.2, 1.3, 2.1 and 2.3 of the document to which you link) fairly ordinary, although I would agree that the use of "fair banding" makes it harder to understand. However, many state schools operate "fair banding" and have similar admission criteria.

I would be interested to know what it is you find hard to understand about Kingsdale's criteria. Is it the "fair banding" (which is not explained very well in this document) or is it something else? I am genuinely interested as it helps me understand how non-experts view the system.

I would agree that making children take multiple tests for different schools within the LA is not ideal.

You don't need expertise to make a complaint. We will never improve the system if people are put off complaining because they think they don't know enough. You can simply go to the Schools Adjudicator and say that you find the admission criteria for Kingsdale School overly complex and difficult to understand. You could equally go to the school and say this. If enough parents complain they may at least improve the explanations within their admission policy even if they don't actually change the criteria.

They do banding in our LEA. They use the results of the optional tests taken in Y5 to determine the banding, so children do not need to take any secondary school tests.

My child applied to Kingsdale this year and I would say that the criteria are not at all transparent. I know several children, including my own, who got awarded a scholarship in October, but did not then receive an offer of a place in March (and they received no other offers so it was not the case that a higher placed school trumped a Kingsdale offer) .

The school will not say how it decided which of the children offered scholarships then got awarded places, or how they determine the position on the scholarship place waiting list. The criteria would be transparent if the school only offered the same number of scholarships pre-admission (you can find out before filling in the CAF the results of the scholarship assessment) as they have scholarship places available - but they seem to offer many more

So there is no way of working out what your chances are for the scholarship category, and no way of knowing why some children got awarded places on this basis and others did not. I think both these points contravene the Code don't they?

The lottery category is transparent I agree, although in practice it was not clear how the two waiting lists operated together.

I am considering making a complaint about this system so if anyone has any ideas about how this could be improved, that would be really interesting.

I know another school in the area usually fails to fill its specialist places category because it puts into the system the correct number of offers - and some of those children get offers from higher placed schools. So I wonder if there is an issue with the way the CAF operates in London and the specialist places allocations? Either you play by the rules or you fail to fill that quota?

If you don't get a place the school must tell you why you didn't get a place. That is vital information for any appeal. If they refuse to do so you should appeal anyway. They have to supply the details to the panel. If they fail to do so the panel can draw its own conclusions.

Looking at their admission criteria...

Your child met the scholarship criteria. He/she would then have been placed in one of three ability bands based on performance in a test. There are presumably 66 or 67 places for each ability band (that's a fault in the criteria - as the admission number is not divisible by the number of bands they really ought to say how many places go to each band). A total of 30 places, 10 in each band, were available for pupils who satisfy the scholarship criteria (this could be clearer). If there were more than 10 such pupils they should have selected 10 by random allocation (that appears to be the tie breaker - again, this could be clearer). Presumably your child failed to be selected in this lottery, didn't have any siblings and didn't have any special medical or social needs. That would mean your child should then go into the lottery with all the other children applying.

The way you work out your chances for the scholarship category is by looking at the figures for the previous year which show that there were 75 applicants for 45 scholarship places. It looks like the admission number and the percentage of scholarship places have both changed since last year making this a less useful guide than normal, but publishing this information meets the requirements of the admissions code.

I agree that they could and should be clearer as to how they decide between children in the scholarship category. That would be a valid point to raise with the Schools Adjudicator. If they aren't using a lottery it may be the basis of a successful appeal.

Thank you so much for this.

What is not clear to me, and others I know though, is where it says that scholarship places are allocated by random allocation - are you assuming this is what happens (reasonably enough)? This presumably does not apply to children in public care and siblings and particular needs (categories 1, 3 and 4)? The random allocation seems only to refer to category five. When people have asked, the school has not said it used random allocation, or that the scholarship places are spread evenly throughout the bands (it has said the criteria are too complex to publish in full).

You are told whether your child has met the scholarship criteria before the CAF deadline, but are not told how many other children have, of the hundreds applied this year, so it is not clear how you can work out what the chances are surely? Even assuming the school made clear that they use random allocation for this category too, you would still need to know how many children satisfied the criteria to be able to calculate your child's chance.

You have been very helpful - thanks so much.

phrbridge - sorry been at work ,see that in my absence someone is explaining the confusing bits .
Which I see you now also feel aren't very clear .

TwoTerrors - A common problem with admission criteria is that the tie breaker is stated as if it is an additional category. So, for example, a fairly common set of criteria is looked after children, then siblings, then distance. What they really mean is that it is looked after children, then siblings, then everyone else with distance being used as a tie breaker. So if the total of looked after children and siblings is more than the number of places, they would use distance to determine which siblings get in. I've seen this repeatedly with criteria for LA schools as well as faith schools and academies.

I'm so used to it that I automatically assume that any final criteria which looks like a tie breaker is actually the tie breaker for any category that needs one. So yes, the random allocation does seem to refer to category 5 but in practise if admitting everyone in category 4 would take them over the limit for the band they would use random allocation there. Of course, unlike scholarship places there is no limit on the number of places in each band that can be given to children in categories 1, 3 or 4 and it would be unusual for there to be so many children in those categories that it took them over the limit for the band, so the tie breaker won't generally be needed for those categories. (I hope that last sentence makes sense!)

Given that random allocation is the only form of tie breaker stated in the admission criteria, they must use that wherever a tie breaker is needed. If they do anything else an appeal panel will not be impressed. So therefore they must use random allocation to determine which scholarship students get in.

The scholarship places being spread evenly through the bands is there because it isn't there, if you see what I mean. There are up to 30 scholarship places. They allocate children into three ability bands and then admit from each of the bands in turn with meeting the scholarship criteria being category 2. Significantly more children meet the scholarship criteria than there are places available. That means there must be a certain number of scholarship places for each band. In the absence of any statement to the contrary, those places must be spread evenly across the bands.

I can understand the school feeling that its admission criteria are too complex to publish in full in the booklet Southwark send out as they only have limited space for everything they want to say. However, they MUST publish their admission criteria in full. If there is some other document that gives more detail than their "admissions policy" they are definitely breaking the rules. Any appeal panel will only look at their published criteria in determining whether they have complied with the Code and operated their admissions correctly. The same is true of the Local Government Ombudsman.

I understand your comments about knowing how many children have passed the scholarship criteria but the school isn't required to publish this information. You are supposed to use what happened last year as a guide to your chances. I accept that in this case there doesn't seem to be any good reason not to publish this information and it would probably be a good idea if they did but they are nonetheless complying with the rules on this point.

Violetqueen - Yes, I agree that what is clear to someone like me who reads loads of admission criteria may be less clear to others, which is why I was interested in understanding the issues. Clearly schools in Southwark vary. Kingsdale is quite complex with the interaction between fair banding, scholarships and random allocation. It could certainly do with being explained more clearly. The criteria for some of the RC schools look complex although I think they aren't as bad as they look. I still think the Harris Academies are pretty straightforward. However, with so many schools using fair banding it is a real pity that Southwark haven't bothered to describe what it is and how it works in their booklet.

prh47bridge, thank you - this is incredibly useful and provides food for thought. And makes sense! I don't think criteria can be clear and transparent to parents if they rely on knowing how the system works elsewhere, for other schools in other parts of the country, and of assumptions that must be made (random allocation used as a tie breaker even if not stated for example). So this information could perhaps provide the basis for a constructive complaint (rather than howls of outrage and despair). The lack of clarity works to the school's advantage at the moment but I think has been controversial this year as it is now so over-subscribed. So thank you again for such a detailed and clear reply.

You are very welcome

prhbridge - thanks for all your time on this .
When I have time I'll reread and properly digest your detailed interpretation about Kingsdale .
In passing ,don't know if my opinion is right ,but I would hazard an opinion that Kingsdales admission policy is a succesful attempt to deal with the situation that beset this school for years .
It's geographical location is in leafy upper class area where lots of local kids go to the adjacent private schools and Kinsdale always ended up with what seemed to be kids from the other end of the borough who hadn't been able to get a place elsewhere .
It just niggles away at me that all schools should have the same admissions policy - I know the lottery thing is hard on parents but lottery plus 3 bands seems a way of acieving a balanced intake and possibly the chance for all schools to be good and not just some good at the expense of others .

On a different point - re Harris Academies .
I was making ( not very clearly ,exhausted from other life events ) 2 points .
Admissions criteria confusing .
Academies ignoring admissions forum advice .
I wasn't complaining that Harris Academies admissions policies not clear ,but that they were able to disregard LEA's Admission Forum and go ahead setting ,administering and holding their own seperate set of banding exams .
And ( I don't have energy to check right now ) but I seem to recall that admissions to ( for example ) first intake for new East Dulwich Boys Harris Academy was applications direct to the school ,cutting out LEA altogether .
How can that be ...what would the adjective be ...right /above board /open to scrutiny /
helpful to parents applying to several schools ?
Its just that with more schools becoming Academies ,I can see this whole admissions thing getting more and more complicated and out of LEA's guidance .
And harder for parents .

It would certainly be easier if all schools have the same admissions policy but you won't find anywhere in the country where that is true. Faith schools have always done their own thing.

The Admissions Forum can't force the Harris Academies to comply with their wishes but they can force the matter to the Schools Adjudicator for decision. I obviously don't know what's happened in the past regarding East Dulwich but parents definitely applied through the LA this year according to Southwark's website. Applications for academies definitely have to be through the LA.