Fair admissions are key to school choice

There must be active support to enable people to make the right education choice.

A plan to crack down on parents lying about their home or religious circumstances as a way of gaining an advantage in schools admission has attracted the predictable response that 'there should be more good schools' rather than fairer admissions rules. And an inquiry into school lotteries - predictably - is likely to endorse their continued use.

Of course, those who raise the mantra about good schools - like the indefatigable Sheila Lawlor on Today this morning - don't bother to look at what's actually been happening in schools over the last decade or so. There are twice as many comprehensives where 70% or more pupils achieve five good GCSEs including English and Maths, and the number where fewer than 30% do so has fallen from 1600 - half of all secondaries in 1997 - to around 250 today.

But even if the numbers of top performing schools are doubled again and no school gets below the 30% benchmark - which should be the minimum expectation for the next phase of school reform, although the Tories are curiously unwilling to explain what outcomes they expect from their proposed changes - there will still be some schools that are more popular than others. Anyone suggesting otherwise is talking rot.

So, the issue is then: what is the fairest way to allocate places where a school has more applicants than places? Good schools are encouraged to expand, but are often reluctant to do so. The number of academies, which are typically very popular with parents, is expanding rapidly. But a system will still be needed that is fair.

Since both major parties now eschew selection (apart from a limited 10% on aptitude in a handful of subjects) this boils down to a question of whether proximity to a school should trump most other criteria? For primaries, it makes sense to use this. But for urban secondaries, it does not, as the arbitrariness of distance simply drives up house prices and places some schools out of reach on financial grounds. It is fairer to use either banding or a lottery (random allocation).

But that is not enough in itself. There must also be a network of community activists trained to help less articulate parents to be as pushy as their middle class counterparts. Such choice advisers should not be local authority bureaucrats, but part-timers from the communities that need support, with credibility in those communities but the knowledge to understand the best choices for individual pupils. And the changes introduced in 2008 (following the 2006 Act), where free school transport is now linked to choice, should be extended and much better publicised so that there is subsidised transport available to a choice of schools within a reasonable distance of one's home. To pretend that choice will emerge simply because new providers are allowed is not enough. There must be active support to enable people to exercise those choice.

This article was orginally published on Conor Ryan's blog.

Conor Ryan is a writer and consultant on education and other issues, having been senior adviser to David Blunkett from 1993-2001 and Tony Blair's senior education adviser from 2005-7.

02 Nov 2009 13:13

Tags

 

Comments

• Posted by Alan Griffiths on 02 November 2009, 8:21:39 PM Conor's points are worth discussing (they usually are) but they aren't about fraud. Giving a false or inaccurate address in applying for a School place is exactly the same as giving a false or inaccurate address in applying for any other public service. If you apply for Council Tax Benefit, a vehicle parking permit or a Council tenancy, you are expected to supply Proof of Address and to sign a statement that you underdstand that you will be prosecuted if your information is false. I get the impression that some Councils / School Governors don't even ask to see the address on the latest Child Benefit book or letter!