Clause37
Education and Inspections Bill
4:15 pm
David Chaytor (Bury North, Labour)
I am grateful for that correction, but it doesnot in any way undermine my point that random allocation is an ideathat needs to be debated far more widely. The concept of anonymisedadmissions does not appear in the code, but is something that theGovernment should take more seriously than they have to date.
Some points in the draft codeneed further consideration. Sibling policy and the distinction betweensibling policy in schools that select by ability, whether wholly orpartly, compared with sibling policy in schools that select by aptitudeis riddled with anomalies. It is conceivable that a school thatselects10 per cent. of its pupils by ability in foreignlanguages could sit next door to a school that selects 10 per cent. byaptitude in foreign languages, yet the sibling link could not be usedas a criterion for admission to the school that selected by ability,but it could be used by the school that selects by aptitude. Ihighlight that point of detail to show the small anomaly in siblingpolicy.
The subjectof supplementary application forms is also worth highlighting. The useof supplementary application forms by certain schools to elicit moreinformation about the individual pupil, their family background, theirgeneral level of ability and the level of cultural capital in the homeis one of the most regrettable forms of covert selection that routinelytake places in some schools that are their own admission authorities.That needs to be eliminated. I can see no reason why supplementary application forms should be used, because thecode suggests that they should be used only where it is necessary toproduce a letter of verification of the pupil’s faith. Thatcould be done, of course, by attaching the letter to the initialadmissions application form.
I welcome the text in paragraph1.27 in respect of faith schools and the encouragement of diversity.Again, the Government have taken seriously the criticism of theadmissions policies of some faith schools that are reluctant to opentheir schools to children living in the immediate neighbourhood. We allaccept faith schools’ right to select children according tofaith, but that must be balanced against the need for them not to becompletely exclusive and to be more open to children and families ofother faiths.
Thefinal aspect of the new code to which I want to draw attention is thematter of first preference first and the recommendation that inselective areas parents who apply to selective schools for places fortheir children should be able to find out the result of the test forthe selective school before they submit an application to anon-selective school. Oddly, the section of the code about firstpreference first describes it as poor practice in selective areas butgood practice in non-selective areas. It is hard to see how a procedurecan be both good and poor practice. The real source of the problem isthe existence of selection. If there were no selection, firstpreference first would be good practiceeverywhere.