To consider variations in the use and importance of the above elements, four perspectives are taken:
1. Presence of oversubscription criterion: if an oversubscription criterion is present on the list (%)
2. Presence of oversubscription criterion in position 1: Given that the oversubscription criterion is present, the proportion of times that it is located in the first position (%).
3. Number of appearances: Given that the oversubscription criterion is present, the number of times it appears on the list.
4. Average highest position of oversubscription criterion: Given that the oversubscription criterion is present, the mean highest position it takes on the list.
The significance of each separate oversubscription criterion is then considered separately. In the following tables the numbers have been rounded to whole values and so what is given as 0% on the bar graph may in some cases still represent a very small number of schools but only ever less than 0.5% of that type of school.
Table 32
Presence of oversubscription criterion on the list (%) across types of AA
For the initial, all schools figure, n=3,122. The subsample sizes of the other 5 figures reflects the total number of schools that come under each AA type.
Community Schools (n = 1,936); Academies (n = 43); Foundation Schools (n = 529); Voluntary Aided (n=524); Voluntary Controlled (n = 90).
Table 33
Given that the oversubscription criterion is present, the proportion of times it is placed in position 1 (%)
For the initial, all schools figure, as the subsample sizes for each item are determined by whether they are actually present (as described under Table 33) i.e.
the subsamples are: Siblings (n= 2,836); Care (n = 2,378); Catchment (n = 2, 020); Proximity (n = 1,915); Med-Social (n = 1,643); SEN (n = 1,611); Feeder (n = 993); FP first (n = 923); Faith (n = 440); Parental Commitment (n = 283);
Associated Adult (n = 128).
Table 34
Given that the oversubscription criterion is present, the mean number of times that it appears
For ‘all schools’, subsample sizes: Siblings (n= 2,836); Care (n = 2,378);
Catchment (n = 2, 020); Proximity (n = 1,915); Med-Social(n = 1,643); SEN (n = 1,611); Feeder (n = 993); FP first (n = 923); Faith (n = 440); Parental Commitment (n = 283); Associated Adult (n = 128).
Children in Care
In 2000 one admission officer reported:
When an LEA is only the admission authority for [a minority] of secondary schools… fulfilling our statutory responsibilities in finding school places for looked-after children and various other difficult to place children…including excluded pupils is very challenging. section 9.4 p 64
Evidence has increased that this admission officer’s experience was by no means unique. Some schools in a variety of ways seek to admit children who are easier to educate and reduce the number of those who are harder (West and Hind 2003).
Looked after children often present schools with greater educational and pastoral challenges than other children and therefore schools may be reluctant to admit them. West and Hind (2003) found that in 2001 only 2% of schools put this as their top priority. Since then awareness has grown of the needs of children in public care. As part of meeting these needs the School Admission Code of Practice 2003 stated that:
Children in public care are a disadvantaged group who have very low average levels of attainment, often related to frequent changes of school because their care placements change. It is recommended that all admission authorities give these children top priority in their oversubscription criteria. section 3.14
It is therefore notable that in 2006, despite this recommendation, only 76% of all schools had Child in Care somewhere in their oversubscription criteria and only 67% of all schools put Child in Care as a high priority (either first or second place) in their oversubscription criteria in such a way as to ensure the child would be admitted. A striking 24%, nearly a quarter of all schools, made no mention at all of children in care in their criteria. Voluntary Aided and Foundation schools were least likely to have it as any kind of priority with a half of Voluntary Aided and a third of Foundation not mentioning them at all. Community/Voluntary Controlled schools and Academies were the most likely to have it as a criterion with 86% and 80% respectively. However, while considerably fewer Voluntary Aided schools made any mention, those that did were more likely to put it as the first priority (61%). In 2005/06 24% of the 245 objections concerning admission arrangements made to the Schools Adjudicator concerned the lack of adequate criteria giving priority to children in public care.
Table 35: Proportions of each type of school where Child in Care is present
Voluntary controlled 81 90 90%
Community 1667 1936 86%
Academies 34 43 79%
Foundation 335 529 63%
Voluntary aided 272 524 52%
These figures replicate the findings of Pennell et al (2005) in their study of London schools. It is important to remember that while this criterion is a very high priority for many schools, and is crucial for the well being of this very vulnerable group of children, it affects only a tiny proportion of the intake.
Medical/social needs and special educational needs
There are two other categories of children that many schools have traditionally prioritised because of their unusual needs - those with special medical or social circumstances, and those with special educational needs. Schools that accord these children and families high priority are sending an important message about inclusivity; that, despite potential greater difficulties for the school, it is their role to prioritise the most vulnerable. Schools that do not so prioritise, either by putting it as a low priority or not including it as a category at all, are sending another message.
Seventeen percent of all schools put Medical or Social Needs as their first priority.
Fifty three percent (1642) of schools included it somewhere in their oversubscription criteria. Just under a half of all schools did not list it as a priority.
Community and Voluntary Controlled schools and Academies were the most likely to have this as a priority. Foundation schools were less likely to do so, but Voluntary Aided schools were much less likely with, just under a quarter prioritising these children.
Table 36: Proportions of each type of school where the criterion of Medical or Social (MedSoc) needs is present
School Type MedSoc All Schools % MedSoc
Community 1200 1936 62%
Voluntary controlled 55 90 61%
Academies 25 43 58%
Foundation 246 529 47%
Voluntary aided 116 524 22%
The category of Special Educational Needs is more difficult to interpret. When found in the composite prospectus this referred to two categories of children. The first was any child who had named the school on their statement of special education needs. In this case the school is bound to take that child following consultation. The second was children with unusual educational needs but who had not reached the statementing stage. The former does not operate as an ordinary oversubscription criterion because it is not discretionary on the part of the
school and, whether or not it appears in their published criteria, they would be required to admit the child following consultation. The latter however is optional and again sends a strong signal of inclusivity and educational mission.
Fifty two percent (1611) of schools included it somewhere in their oversubscription criteria. Just under a half of all schools did not list it as a priority. Community and Voluntary Controlled schools and Academies were much the most likely to have this as a priority. Foundation schools were less likely to do so, but Voluntary Aided schools were much less likely with, just over a fifth prioritising these children.
Table 37: Proportions of each type of school where SEN is present
School Type SEN All Schools % SEN
Academies 30 43 70%
Community 1247 1936 64%
Voluntary controlled 55 90 61%
Foundation 168 529 32%
Voluntary aided 111 524 21%
Again it is important to note that, like Child in Care, these criteria affect only a tiny proportion of the intake of children to secondary schools each year. The next three to be looked at, Siblings, Catchment and Proximity affect the great majority.
Siblings attending the school
This was the most frequently used criterion. It is important, for a variety of practical and emotional reasons, for parents to be able to gain a place at the same school as their other children should they so wish. Almost all Community, Voluntary Controlled and Foundation schools used this criterion, and the great majority of Academies and Voluntary Aided schools did so too. It was rarely the first priority with only 5% of all schools placing it as number one but its mean highest position (3.3.) showed it to be a significant criterion for schools.
Table 38: Proportions of each type of school where Sibling is present School Type Siblings All Schools % Siblings
Voluntary controlled 90 90 100%
Community 1895 1936 98%
Foundation 482 529 91%
Academies 32 43 74%
Voluntary aided 346 524 66%
Catchment
A catchment criterion prioritises applications from children who are resident in a clearly defined geographical area. It need not be related to proximity although distance to the schools is a major consideration in the drawing of the boundaries of a catchment area. They are affected by geographical, demographic and historical factors and these can sometimes create anomalies and difficulties in managing admissions as things change over time. The drawing up of catchments can offer a means of affecting the intake of schools and for that reason can often be extremely contentious. The parent survey found that 22% of parents had taken
catchment areas into account when they last moved house. Faith schools and grammar schools, if they have this criterion, will of necessity draw from a larger catchment area than non-religious or all ability schools.
In 2006 65% of all schools used this criterion. There were differences between types of school. The great majority of Community and Voluntary Controlled schools used Catchment, nearly a half of the Foundation and Voluntary Aided schools and only a third of Academies. It was a significant criterion with a mean highest position of 2.8. This criterion can reinforce the problems of residential segregation and selection by mortgage but can also be used as a device for affecting intakes through the choice of residential areas to include or exclude as part of the catchment. Given the importance of location in determining the intake of a school (Gordon and Monastiriotis 2007) it would have been interesting to look at the different locations caught by different types of schools catchments. We could not do this for the present project but it would be an interesting topic for further research. Interestingly, use of this criterion varies with population density. Schools in less dense areas use it more often than schools in more densely populated areas.
Table 39: Proportions of each type of school where Catchment is present School Type Catchment All Schools
% Catchment
Voluntary controlled 77 90 86%
Community 1394 1936 72%
Foundation 280 529 53%
Voluntary aided 255 524 49%
Academies 14 43 33%
Only 14% of all schools put this as their first priority. There were differences in the proportions of each type of school so doing, with Voluntary Aided schools most likely (29%) and Community (10%) and Voluntary Controlled schools (6%) least likely.
Table 40: Proportions of each type of school with Catchment as first priority School Type Catchment All Schools
% Catchment
Voluntary aided 152 524 29%
Foundation 116 529 22%
Academies 6 43 14%
Community 194 1936 10%
Voluntary controlled 5 90 5%
Proximity
This criterion appears in 61% of all schools’ criteria. However it is often used as a tie break when other criteria fail to differentiate. It is one of the least likely to be placed as the first priority with only 1% of schools doing so. Its mean highest position of 5.1 is only just above parent commitment at 6.8. Almost the same proportion of Community, Voluntary Controlled, Foundation schools and
Academies use this criterion. The exception is some Voluntary Aided schools which, of necessity, draw from a wider geographical area. This criterion can reinforce the problems of residential segregation and selection by mortgage but beyond this does not lend itself as a short term device for affecting intakes30 although it may be an important factor in maintaining social segregation.
Table 41: Proportions of each type of school where Proximity is present School Type Proximity AllSchools %Proximity
Academies 30 43 70%
Community 1348 1936 70%
Voluntary controlled 61 90 68%
Foundation 358 529 68%
Voluntary aided 121 524 23%
Feeder
A feeder school criterion identifies a number of primary schools the children of which the secondary school will prioritise for entry. This provides some welcome predictability for parents, children and the secondary schools. It can also be a convenient means of administering admissions. It offers a means of affecting intakes through the choice of feeder primary schools. Only 6% place it as their first priority and 32% of all schools used this criterion somewhere in their list. Voluntary Aided schools used this more often than any other type.
Table 42: Proportions of each type of school where Feeder is present School Type Feeder All Schools % Feeder
Voluntary aided 231 524 44%
Community 620 1936 32%
Voluntary controlled 25 90 28%
Foundation 125 529 24%
Academies 5 43 12%
First preference first
This criterion states that those parents who have put the school down as their first expressed preference will have priority over parents who have put it as any other preference. The issues arising from the first preference first system as an area wide criterion have been discussed in section 2.2.3. Where the area wide system operates, all the schools in that area have First Preference First entered in our database as their first oversubscription criterion.
30Although some recent studies have suggested that simply having a proximity criterion for all schools would produce still segregated but more balanced intakes than the current system.
Where the area wide system is equal preference/default ranking there may still be some individual schools within the area who adopt First Preference First. This has been the subject of objections to the adjudicator because it has the effect of constraining parental choice in areas where there are very popular oversubscribed schools. If a parent wishes to try for one of these schools but their second and third preference schools have a First Preference First criterion, parents are faced with the possibility that they would not get into any of their chosen schools. This is particularly acute in areas where there are grammar schools (Coldron 2005) because of the unpredictability of the 11+ test. In these areas the non-selective schools have used the First Preference First criterion as a partial defence against the grammar schools taking all of the high attaining children. It is also valued by schools as a means of attracting only those parents who really want their children to come to the school and are committed to what it offers.
In 2005/06 the Office of the Schools Adjudicator (Annual Report 2005/06) dealt with 73 objections concerning first preference. Adjudicators upheld 68 of these objections on the grounds that the use of such criteria is normally confusing to parents in areas where equal preference/default ranking systems are used for most schools and it can sometimes appear to act more in the interests of the school than the parents.
It was because of the difficulties faced by parents that the School Admissions Code 2007 now outlaws First Preference First as a criterion. In 2006 it was still legitimate and 30% of all schools used it. A minority of all types of schools had this criterion and the proportion of each type of school was roughly the same except for Academies which were the least likely to use First Preference First. By its nature this criterion when used is most often put as the first priority.
Table 43: Proportions of each type of school where First Preference First is present
Voluntary aided 162 524 31%
Community 593 1936 31%
This criterion applies exclusively to faith schools. They wish to provide a religious education for the community of their faith. The great majority of faith schools are Voluntary Aided while others became Voluntary Controlled. Some Foundation schools and a significant proportion of Academies are designated as having a religious character although some academies with a religious character do not have faith based 0ver-subscription criteria. Faith related criteria do not of themselves affect the social characteristics of the intake beyond the practice of a particular faith. However, in so far as there are correlations between membership of religious communities and socio-economic status then this criterion could affect
the social characteristics of the intake. For example, if it were the case that families who were part of the Anglican community also tended to be more affluent and more educationally qualified, then a Church of England school with an over subscription criterion to be active in the faith would be likely to have a more advantaged intake.
Faith schools often wish to give priority to families and children who are most devout and this leads to sometimes extremely complex combinations of criteria and evidence which attempt to provide a means of differentiating the more religiously committed from the less.
Only 15% of all schools have any faith related criterion. By ‘faith related criterion’
we mean criteria to do with the core faith, or other faiths, or no-faith.
Table 44: Proportions of each type of school where Faith Related is present School Type
Faith
Related All Schools
% Faith Related
Voluntary aided 460 524 88%
Academies 4 43 9%
Voluntary controlled 2 90 2%
Foundation 2 529 0.4%
Community 6 1936 0.3%
Where it is used, only 54% of schools put it as their first priority but its mean highest position is 1.7 showing that it has generally high rank. One worry about this criterion has been its potential contribution to the segregation of faith communities and the possible exacerbation of religious and social tensions between different Christian faiths and, with the possibility of more Muslim and Sikh schools and schools for adherents of other world religions, between ethnic communities. In view of these concerns about social cohesion, there have been calls for faith schools to admit a proportion of children from different faiths and of no-faith. 60% of Voluntary Aided schools gave some priority to other faiths. A smaller proportion (16%) gave some priority to children of no-faith.
Parent commitment
Parental commitment is important to schools in at least two ways. Firstly, schools would like to maximise parents’ willingness to support the school’s policies on such things as uniform, homework and discipline, and to inculcate a generally positive attitude towards learning. Secondly, they would like to prioritise those who positively want their school and what it offers. This oversubscription criterion is not now lawful and is proscribed in the School Admissions Code 2007.
We have included in this category oversubscription criteria such as the following:
• Parent actively wanting a faith school
• Parent actively wanting single sex education
• Parent who shows commitment to the ethos of the school
• Parent who shows commitment to the expectations of the school
By far the most frequently found of these was the first, parents actively seeking a religious school. It is arguable that this criterion should have been included with Faith Related and specifically with Non-Faith. Indeed the Non-Faith criterion was often combined with a need to demonstrate that they actively wanted a religious school. Nevertheless, it is not about membership or relationship with a church or religious denomination and there is value in looking at it separately because the criterion has the potential for social discrimination and unfairness. Most often the evidence required was a supporting letter from the parents explaining their reasons for applying and, through what they write, demonstrating commitment.
This would be a subjective judgement on the part of the admission authority members. In addition it is a complex writing task and is likely to be done better by more educated parents and would provide ample clues as to the social class of the applicants.
Its mean highest position of 6.8 shows it to be a low priority and only 9% of all schools used this criterion but, there are striking differences in the proportion of each type of school doing so. Nearly a third of all Voluntary Aided schools did so
Its mean highest position of 6.8 shows it to be a low priority and only 9% of all schools used this criterion but, there are striking differences in the proportion of each type of school doing so. Nearly a third of all Voluntary Aided schools did so