Tenth Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation
Wednesday 28 April 1999
[Mr. Peter Atkinson in the Chair]
Draft Code of Practice on School Admissions
4.30 pm
Mrs. Theresa May (Maidenhead): I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Code of Practice on School Admissions.
I welcome you, Mr. Atkinson, as Chairman of the Committee. This is the first time that I have had the opportunity of serving under you, which I am sure will be a pleasure for me and for other Committee members.
We have already considered in Standing Committee several regulations that underlie the code of practice. In Standing Committee, I told the Minister for School Standards that I hoped that we should have an opportunity to examine the code. When people assess the Government's admissions policies, they will read the code rather than the regulations.
In relation to school admissions, I agree that parents need to have information that is clear and easily comprehensible. I am sure that Committee members—especially those who serve on the Select Committee on Education and Employment—know that particular problems occur when parents cannot get their children into their school of preference. I accept that it is difficult to design admissions policies that are genuinely fair and which people believe operate in the interests of local children. It is not easy to take action in this area.
It is important to make clear information available to parents. However, in this context, I am not sure that such information is particularly clear to them. To fully comprehend the issues, they should read the code of practice, the code on admissions appeals—a draft of which the Government recently issued—the Education (Relevant Areas for Consultation on Admission Arrangements) Regulations 1999, the Education (Objections to Admission Arrangements in England) Regulations 1999—[Interruption.] The Government Whip yawns, but it is the Government who oblige parents to examine these regulations, which I am sure are seared on his heart.
There are other documents that parents should read: the Education (Infant Class Sizes) (Transitional Provisions) Regulations 1998, the Education (Grammar School Ballots) Regulations 1998, the Education (Aptitude for Prescribed Subjects) Regulations 1998 and the Education (School Information) Regulations 1998. If parents are going to do a thorough job in relation to the code, they should also read the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.
The admissions practice that is contained in the code is clearly underpinned by a complex series of regulations. I have several specific questions about the code. The Minister will not be surprised to learn that I want to discuss the fact that, in relation to admissions policies, the code refers to the issues of no selection and no interviews in schools, except in a restricted framework, and it raises the question of aptitude versus ability.
I shall begin with the question of selection. As we know, grammar schools are under threat in so far as the Government have given parents the opportunity to ballot against the retention of selective education in an area or for a particular grammar school in an area. On page 27 in paragraph A.58, the code states:
``The new admissions framework applies to grammar schools. Their selective admission arrangements will not be affected for school intakes before September 2001 by the 1998 Act.''
It goes on to refer to the Education (Grammar School Ballots) Regulations 1998. I assume that that reference is intended to indicate that that is the first stage at which it would be possible for parents to decide to abolish grammar schools in their area. I would like the Minister to confirm that statement, because it could be interpreted as implying that after 2001 the Government have other intentions for grammar schools. It is important that the Minister clarifies the matter.
Partial selection is also referred to in the code of practice. Some members of the Committee sat through long hours on the Standing Committee that considered the School Standards and Framework Bill—
Mr. Don Foster (Bath): Bravely.
Mrs. May: Indeed, and the Committee did a very good job of raising issues and holding the Government to account. One issue on which we scrutinised the Government was partial selection and there were different views on the subject in the Committee. It is interesting that the Government are allowing a decision on whether partial selection can continue to be made not by the local education authority or the Secretary of State, but by the new adjudicator who will oversee school organisation proposals and admission arrangements.
Many people would question why as few as 10 parents will be able to refer a complaint about partial selection to an outside person—the adjudicator—who may know nothing about the local area. During the Standing Committee on the School Standards and Framework Bill the Minister for School Standards said that the adjudicator would probably not know about the local area and that it would be better if he did not. The adjudicator will be appointed by the Government and will be able to make a decision on the basis of a complaint from just 10 parents. The adjudicator can do away with partial selection in a school, notwithstanding the fact that it may be preferred by the majority of parents whose children attend the school or are likely to attend it. That is a step in the wrong direction, both in terms of the Government's attack on partial selection and the adjudicator's powers.
The adjudicator has duties beyond partial selection. He is able to look at disputes between authorities over admissions and can make decisions on those disputes. Again, here is someone who comes in from outside and sits in judgment on what is happening in the area, perhaps with no knowledge of the local area. He is not elected, but is appointed by the Government to take decisions on what is right for children in the area over and above decisions taken by schools and the local education authority as the admissions authority. We are worried about the role of the adjudicator in relation to school admissions and organisation plans. We are concerned about the way in which he will be parachuted in, having been appointed by the Secretary of State, to undertake the various functions that I have outlined.
I referred earlier to interviews. There was much debate about that in the Standing Committee that considered the School Standards and Framework Bill and it remains a matter of concern. It was referred to in paragraph 5.25 of the code of practice. I understand—perhaps the Minister will confirm this—that the only interview that any school can hold with parents concerning the suitability of their children to attend the school is to determine whether they are of a particular religious or denominational commitment. Parents cannot be asked questions to determine whether they are committed to the ethos of the school or any other arrangements set out in the home-school agreement, which the Government now require every school to put in place. The school cannot require parents to abide by that home-school agreement in an interview or as a condition of admission to the school.
The best example of the problem, which has been quoted on a number of occasions, is the London Oratory School, which the Prime Minister chose for two of his children to attend—[Interruption.] I assume that the Government Whip is tut-tutting at the Prime Minister's decision to send his children to a school that is not local but on the other side of London. Admission to the London Oratory, which is a Roman Catholic school, includes an interview process in which more is discussed than whether the parents are practising Roman Catholics. A description of that interview process, which was given in another place on 10 June 1998, stated:
``The places available will be offered to the most suitable candidates and the decision will be made in the light of the following factors: whether the boy comes from a family in which the Catholic parent or parents are practising members of the Roman Catholic Church; acceptance by the parents and boy of the conditions under which the boys are admitted to and allowed to remain in the school; acceptance of firm discipline and the school regulations; commitment by the parents and by the boy to 11-18 schooling and an undertaking to remain at the school for the sixth form''.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 10 June 1998; Vol. 590, c. 1112.]
I assume that those conditions were fairly applied to the Prime Minister, just as they are applied to any other parent who wants his children to attend the London Oratory. However, it is such conditions that the Government want to prevent schools from applying. The are taking away the power of schools to discover, through interview, whether parents and children will be compatible with their ethos. That will reduce the ability of schools such as the London Oratory to retain their distinctive ethos.
Ms Claire Ward (Watford): The hon. Lady should realise that the Government are not seeking to alter the discipline and standards that schools maintain. We want to stop schools deciding on the suitability of parents according to the image that they present and the argument that they advance, and using that information subsequently to discriminate against the child by failing to offer the best opportunities. It is not a question of altering the rules and standards in schools.
Mrs. May: I suggest that the hon. Lady looks at the case of the London Oratory. Its headmaster has stated publicly that he fears that his school's ethos will be changed if he is unable to conduct such interviews, which ensure that its clear behavioural rules and guidelines are supported by parents and adhered to by pupils. It is important for schools to be able to maintain such an ethos should they wish to do so, and to ensure that prospective pupils will support it.
I move on to a number of other issues relating to the code of practice. The question of infant classes in relation to admissions procedures has been debated long and hard, particularly given the Government's imposition of a class size limit of 30. However, a number of exceptions can be applied to that limit. I should be grateful if the Minister would clarify the question of standard numbers and admission numbers in relation to infant class sizes, because paragraph A.35 of the code of practice states:
``The legislation requires admission authorities to adjust standard and admission numbers so that they are compatible with the class size limit.''
When we debated the exceptions to the class size limit, which are set out in regulations, the Minister answered a question from the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) by giving a commitment that schools will be able to set admission numbers that are higher than the limit of 30. Will the Minister clarify the Government's position? The statement in paragraph A.35 that admission numbers must be
``compatible with the class size limit''
could be interpreted in two ways. It could mean that admission numbers must be compatible with the limit of 30, or with the higher limit to which the Minister referred.
Exceptions to the class size limit are set out in the code of practice. However, paragraph A.36 states that, in certain cases,
``the class may only be above 30 for the remainder of that school year.''
I assume that that relates to those children in the categories of exceptions that have been set out. In the following year, there may be other children who fit into the category of having a statement of special needs, for example, which names that particular school when the child moves into the area, outside of the normal admissions round. The ability to exercise such exceptions must apply across years, although I assume that the one-year time limit applies to a particular child who is an exception to the class size limit of 30.
I should also like to refer to the question of compulsory school age, as set out in paragraph A.56. Many hon. Members will have considerable difficulty with the dates that are set to determine when a child can enter school. The dates are 31 August, 31 December and 31 March. A number of concerns have been expressed to me on this matter, mainly by constituents whose children's birthdays are in early April. Such children miss the summer term and can only start in the autumn term. I recognise the difficulties of administration in that regard, but I wonder whether it might be possible to consider those deadlines again. I tabled a question on the matter, and the Government's answer was that they had decided on the three dates as a result of consultation. Parents have expressed a great deal of concern about the rigidity of the deadlines, especially those whose children miss the summer term and must wait, nothwithstanding that they may attend a nursery, until the autumn term before being categorised as of compulsory school age.
The first of my last two points relates to the issue of aptitude and ability. I will not indulge in a long discussion about the difference between aptitude and ability—we have had many such discussions in Committee Rooms in the past 18 months or so. It is noticeable, however, that the Government's code of practice—which is intended to clarify the position for parents—does not make it clear what aptitude is and how it can be tested. Paragraph 5.16 is one of the best examples of that. After a paragraph that deals with priority on grounds of aptitude and considering whether a pupil has an aptitude for a subject, the Government state:
``A test for aptitude must test for the subject aptitude concerned and not test for ability or any other aptitude.''
That is as clear as mud. Yet again, the Government have caught themselves with their insistence on selecting on aptitude but not on ability. When does a child have an aptitude for a subject but not an ability for a subject? Paragraph 5.16 shows the difficulty that the Government have got themselves into with such an insistence.
| 
