Mr.
Chaytor: I shall speak to amendment No. 212 and new clause
16. The context of the amendments is the increased emphasis by
individual admission authorities on effective mechanisms of compliance
with the code of practice for school admissions.
I must admit that I feel a
little ambivalent about the amendments, particularly new clause 16. I
welcome the content of clause 38 and the fact that the Government have
recognised the potential of admission forums, which are comparatively
newly established bodies. Some of them operate fairly informally, and
they might not all have had time to establish their sense of purpose.
The clause will give them an important
role. Clause 38 needs
to be seen in conjunction with the Secretary of State’s letter
to the Chairman of the Select Committee, which spelled out that
membership of admission forums would be changed to ensure that all
schools were properly represented, thereby supporting and strengthening
their new and important role in monitoring admission procedures on the
local level. The
purpose of amendment No. 212 and new clause 16 is to question whether
the responsibilities in clause 38, which will give admission forums the
key role in preparing annual reports on how admission policies and
procedures are operating locally and in identifying any unfair
practice, would not be better conducted by the local education
authority. The arguments are quite straightforward and twofold. In
clause 38, the admission forum simply has the power to prepare and
publish the report on all matters connected with pupil admission. Many
admission forums might decide to use that power; some might not. Given
that participation in the forums is largely voluntary and that they do
not have their own permanent secretariat, it is an open question
whether take-up of the new power would be
significant. Because
the argument about the role of admission forums in monitoring
compliance locally has been won, there is now a further debate about
whether it would not be more effective for the local education
authority to be responsible for producing the annual report and for
that to be a statutory duty and not simply a power. Those are the two
issues. New clause 16
lists fairly precisely what the local education authority should
include when preparing its annual report on the proposed admission
arrangements: detailed analysis of applications to schools and
descriptions of the area from which schools recruit their pupils,
together with the local education authority’s opinion whether
the proposed admission arrangements comply with the code for school
admissions. Whether
or not the Government accept the amendment—whether the function
rests with the admission forum supported by the local authority in
its
secretarial function or transfers to the local authority—it is a
significant step forward in the effectiveness of the compliance
mechanisms and in the potential for building consensus among schools on
what constitutes good practice. As I said in the debates on
clauses 36 and 37, the current arrangements for school admissions, to
secondary school in particular, are unsatisfactory. They provide an
administrative nightmare, and they generate huge pressure on parents to
secure a place at their preferred school and on head teachers to ensure
that their school is not disadvantaged by its position in the league
tables. There is a
powerful argument to have new arrangements locally, involving the local
education authority and the admission forum to try to build a stronger
consensus, establish peer group pressure and ensure that all schools
play by the rules.
Sarah
Teather: I want to make some general comments about the
clause, before turning to our motion, new clause 53, and the amendment
that the hon. Gentleman has tabled.
To put the matter into context,
we must separately consider four stages of the admissions process.
First, there is the setting of admissions policy, which is done by the
admissions authority—either the local authority or, if it is an
own-admissions-authority school, the relevant school. Secondly, there
is the administration of that policy. Thirdly, there is the monitoring
and reporting of it. And fourthly, there is the enforcement of any
breaches of the code.
In common with the hon.
Gentleman, it seems to me that there is an important role for admission
forums in trying to broker practice between schools and advising the
local authority on setting its own admissions criteria for schools
where it is the admissions authority. However, we have tabled an
amendment to which we will speak later, in which we say that it would
be far better if the local authority were to administer the admissions
process. I am talking not about setting the policy, but administering
it. Then, there is
the question of who should monitor and record the process. No matter
who reports on it, there are some general principles in common with
comments already made. First, whoever reports, it should be a duty, not
just a power, because reporting is important and
controversial.
Mr.
Gibb: Is that more or less prescriptive thanthe
Bill?
Sarah
Teather: It is more prescriptive than the Bill, but as I
said, admissions is a matter of discrimination, and it is important
that we ensure fair and equitable access. With respect, I say to the
hon. Gentleman that that is the last time I shall answer that point
because every time he interrupts my flow, my contribution takes longer,
and I am trying to be speedy.
The second principle is that
whoever produces the report should have the power to require schools to
provide information allowing them to do so. I would be grateful if the
Minister responded to that point. We have included it in new clause
53(3). In common with
provisions that the hon. Member for Bury, North has tabled, the report
would include an assessment of the social mix. Some aspects of the hon.
Gentleman’s amendment are far better than our new clause, and
some aspects of our new clause are not included in his proposed
provision. I suspect that the ideal amendment includes a combination of
both. Who would be
the most appropriate person to write the report? I have some concerns
about admission forums. Who would sit on them? Every school in the
locality or just representatives? If it were every school, would not
the forum be unmanageably large? Could it be expected to make
decisions? I have some concerns about whether it is reasonable to
expect admission forums to report a complaint to the adjudicator if
they find that one of the schools on the forum has breached the code.
Is it likely that they would do that, especially if representatives of
that school are on the forum? Also, who will chair it, and who will
resource it? One of the problems with admission forums at present is
that they struggle with their resources, and they are often heavily
driven by the local education authority.
Let me return to my earlier
point about whether we need to separate the different aspects of
admissions policy—setting the policy and administering it.
Perhaps the answer is that the local education authority ought to be
the body that scrutinises the setting of admissions policy for schools
where it is not the admissions authority, and that it should test
whether those schools are setting policies that are in accordance with
the legislation. Should it not be the body that reports on that? My
hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole has examples from
her constituency of schools that were found to be in breach of the law
for quite some considerable period, because nobody had monitored them
and noticed things. Perhaps the most appropriate body to produce a
report on that aspect would be the local authority. However, if the
local authority were the body administering the policy, perhaps it
would be more appropriate if the admission forum were to be the body
scrutinising the administering of that policy. Perhaps we need to
separate these two
aspects. That is
perhaps a complicated explanation. I suspect that it would be easier in
practice than I have managed to
elucidate.
Ms
Angela C. Smith: Is there not a role for politically
elected representatives to fulfil as well, by way of scrutiny
boards?
Sarah
Teather: That was exactly the other point I was going to
come on to. When we
have these reports, where will they go, who will read them, and what
will we do with them? It is also important to state on the
record—this does not need to be included in the Bill—what
should happen to those reports. It is vital that they go before a
scrutiny committee to be evaluated; otherwise nothing will happen to
them. It is no good just producing reports that end up on a website
somewhere. Something must be done with them, and there must be power
within the elected and accountable body to implement any changes
brought up by that scrutiny process.
Mr.
Gibb: Clause 38 increases considerably the functions and
powers of admission forums. Admission forums were created by the
Education Act 2002 and are now governed by section 85 of the School
Standards and Framework Act 1998. Each local authority must have an
admission forum, and its function is to advise the local authorities
and admission authorities on a range of school admission
issues. Each
admission forum has to have in its membership between one and five
members of the local authority, between one and three members from the
diocesan board of education, between one and three members nominated by
the local Roman Catholic bishop, and between one and three members from
each school group—not from each school—which are
community and voluntary controlled schools, voluntary aided schools and
foundation schools. The membership must also include at least three
appointed to represent the community, academy representatives and city
technology college representatives, and between one and three
parent-governor representatives. This core group of people then co-opt
other people representing the interests of the local
community. Therefore,
there is an entire school admissions industry, and clause 38 seeks to
extend its role and powers. If one wonders where all the money goes
that is siphoned off by local education authorities before it reaches
schools, this is just one example. There is an entire subsection
devoted to the expenses of these 173 or so admission forums. Subsection
(6)
states: “Regulations
may make provision with respect to the expenses of an admission
forum...the expenses of an admission forum for the area of a local
education authority...are to be defrayed by the local education
authority by whom the forum was
established.” The
clause states that admission forums now need to do extra things. They
need to make reports on admissions in the area, and request information
from local education authorities and governing bodies. They have things
to do in respect of the publication of these reports. They need to
require schools to notify the admission forum of its admission
arrangements. The clause allows the forum to refer admission
arrangements to the adjudicator.
Not only do the admission
forums have extra things to do; doing them will require schools and
governing bodies to do things and supply information to enable the
admission forums to do those extra things. That is why council taxes
keep going up and why bureaucracies keep expanding; it all starts here.
The hon. Member for Bury, North laughs but it all starts in Committee
Rooms like this one, passing clauses like this. That is why we need to
employ officers and bureaucrats locally and nationally, but to what
effect? What effect does all this expenditure and employment
have? I have already
rehearsed the arguments against over-obsessing about admissions and I
will not repeat them. But the effectiveness of these bodies and
initiatives on the very children that they were intended to help has
been zero. Government figures from the Department for Education and
Skills show that in 2002, at key stage 2, the gap between the
achievement of children eligible for free school meals and those who
are not eligible was equivalent to 2.8 terms’ worth of school
time. The gap had widened to 2.9 terms by 2005. The amendments tabled by the
hon. Gentleman would simply add to the functions and role of admission
forums, increasing their cost and the cost to schools and local
authorities with no consequent increase in the quality of
education.
Jacqui
Smith: As we heard, the amendments relate to the
interaction between an admission forum and its local authority. Forums
already consider how well local admissions arrangements work and advise
admissions authorities about any changes that they feel are necessary.
We think they should play a more active role in ensuring that the
arrangements operate fairly for all children. It falls under the stage
of the process, outlined by the hon. Member for Brent, East, which
comes under the monitoring role. It is appropriate that the admission
forums be reconstituted; I shall come in a moment to some of the hon.
Lady’s questions about the new
arrangements. The Bill
gives admission forums extra powers to object to the schools
adjudicator about the admission arrangements of any school in their
area and to publish reports on how admissions operate in their area. As
my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North said, it is a power, not a
duty, but it is pretty inconceivable that an admission forum would not
carry out the very important new responsibility, which we are giving it
the power to carry out, not least because of other changes that we are
making to the arrangements for the admission
forum. The hon. Lady
raised several issues. First, she questioned the membership of the
admission forum. We propose that the membership should change to
facilitate the additional powers we are giving to forums. Well
researched as the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton always
is, he was wrong about the new membership of the admission forum. Yes,
it will continue to contain the core members that he outlined, but we
will add in the membership of every school in a particular area. That
will not make the process of the admission forum unwieldy;
sub-committees of admission forums which consider the situation in
particular areas may be appropriate where there are big local
authorities. It will not be necessary for every school to attend every
meeting, but they may want to attend when, for example, the
consideration of a referral to the adjudicator is relevant to their
school or to a neighbouring school.
The hon. Member for Brent, East
asked in so many words if the admission forums will be willing to shop
another school. I think that they will, not because they want to shop
another school but because, when the stakeholders concerned about the
efficient and fair operation of admissions arrangements in an area are
brought together, they will act together to identify the relevant cases
and, where necessary, object, although the identification and what my
hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North called peer pressure will have
an important impact on admissions arrangements in the
area.
6.30
pm Let us also
remember that we are providing for admission forums to have the power
to object to the adjudicator which local authorities and other schools
in an area already have. The hon. Lady may fear that admission forums
would not object, but the power already exists, and will continue to
exist, for local authorities and other
schools. It will be
for the core members of the admission forum to decide who will chair
it. The local authority will need to provide administrative support for
the admission forum as it does now. The hon. Lady asked where the
report would go. Significantly, and importantly, it would go to the
schools commissioner to help in the preparation of the two-yearly
report on fair access. That will be important information in ensuring
that the objective of fair access is achieved in a given
area. Dr.
Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab): I am sure
that the Minister is aware that the Select Committee was very concerned
that the monitoring of compliance with the code should be as rigid as
possible. Will she confirm that the schools commissioner’s
reports on compliance with the code will be public
documents?
| 
