School selection

ePolitix.com Stakeholders respond to an Institute for Public Policy Research study which urged the government to ban schools from selecting their own pupils.

The IPPR said on Monday that the move would increase fairness without comprising any schools' individual "ethos".

 

Stakeholder Response: ATL

To comment to ATL click here

Dr Mary Bousted, general secretary of the Association of Teachers and Lecturers, said: "It is good to see that ATL’s views about the unfairness and inequality of schools admissions are being adopted by other organisations. 

"We are totally opposed to any state schools – be they academies, trust schools, faith schools, or foundation schools – being able to pick and chose the pupils they want to admit. 

"We hope the weight of opinion influences the government to make changes so that getting into a state school is no longer a postcode lottery."

 

Stakeholder Response: ASCL

To comment to ATL click here

ASCL deputy general secretary Martin Ward said: "This is hardly an appropriate time to be proposing changes, when the government’s new admissions code has not yet even come into effect.

"The new code is overly bureaucratic and prescriptive, but it does mean an equal starting point for all schools.

"It would be much more sensible to review the effects of its implementation before proposing yet more changes.

"Schools need time to embed the new code and work through the snags that will inevitably occur.

"The last thing that will benefit parents is yet more upheaval to the system.

"Irrespective of the new admissions code, there already exist local admissions forums to decide on local admissions systems. Where conflict occurs, it is much more appropriate to address them through the existing forums."

 

Stakeholder Response: NUT

To comment to ATL click here

An NUT spokeswoman said: "The IPPR report repeats exactly what the NUT has been arguing for some time.

"The current position allows some parents to work the system to the disadvantage of children from more difficult backgrounds enabling schools to cherry pick their pupils to boost their league table position, giving a not wholly accurate picture of the community.

"Schools should serve their surrounding community rather than being solely concerned by image."

Stakeholder Response: The Institute of Education

To comment to IoE click here

Professor Geoff Whitty, the Director of the Institute of Education, told ePolitix: "the IoE welcomes the IPPR’s contribution to the long-running debate on school admissions policies.
 
"The evidence that the report cites on the differences in pupil intakes where schools are and are not their own admissions authorities is compelling. 

"The research is particularly valuable in having also looked at the impact of ‘peer effects’ on individual student performance.
 
"Professor Whitty broadly supports the recommendations to emerge from the research. 

"The strengthening of the admissions code as part of the 2006 Education Bill was a welcome revision to the original White Paper proposals, and we wait to see what impact this has on the segregation of pupil intakes between schools. 

"But even when coupled with free transport and assistance from ‘choice advisers’ for less well-off families, it remains unclear how significant that impact will be.
 
"If further steps are needed to achieve greater balance between intakes, then a stronger role for local authorities and the use of banding by ability represent appropriate measures. 

"Another option would be the use of admissions lotteries.
 
"Importantly, such measures could be promoted as a way of reducing what is at stake for all families when selecting which secondary schools to apply for. 

"This approach might address the concerns outlined in another forthcoming IPPR publication (Beyond Liberty), where one contributor suggests that concerns about the middle classes using choice to their own advantage need to be balanced against the dangers of these families ‘opting out’ of public sector provision."