Admissions: the minister responds

You put Jim Knight on the spot

As hundreds of thousands of parents discovered which schools their children would attend, we asked Schools Minister Jim Knight to answer some of your questions.

Miss Southam, Clacton, Essex: Why do we get given a form to fill in with our choices if they don't even get taken into consideration? I put three choices down and was not allocated one of them, instead was allocated one of the worst schools in this area which the council have threatened to close down or merge with the other worst school. Why should we be given a school we did not even put down on the list just to try and make it look better with more children being placed there?

Mr Knight: I'm sorry if you feel that your choices weren't listened to - by law, they must be taken into account. You do have a right to appeal to an impartial, independent panel, if you think you have a strong case that the admissions authority has applied its arrangements unfairly or not taken into account other factors. You should contact the admissions team at your local authority to discuss what options are available to you. I don't know which schools you are talking about but it might also be worth talking to staff about your concerns.

Jeremy Noble, London: As a recently retired governor of a heavily oversubscribed secondary school, does Mr Knight regret his high profile and well publicised call to parents to appeal if they are not awarded a place at their preferred school. Appeals are a staggering drain on senior teaching and administrative staff time - occupying the best part of a whole term. Will he agree to give extra funding - per appeal - to schools so that our staff can do what they are meant to be doing - teaching pupils and running the school! Or perhaps he would like to volunteer to help.

Mr Knight: I just want to be clear - I didn't call for parents to automatically appeal if they did not get their first choice. As you are aware, parents feel very strongly they should have a right to appeal and I was simply reminding them that there is an appeals process open to them.

We've have done a lot of work to cut the administrative burdens on schools because teachers should be teaching. Not all schools run their own appeals - many local authorities run this centrally. If a school is finding that the appeals process is a burden they can ask local authorities to run it for them. Also, local authorities have a pool of potential panel members to serve on appeal panels which the school could use.

Susan, Oxford: Why don't we change to an admissions system that focuses on the needs of the child, rather than the address at which they live, or the number on their lottery ticket?

Mr Knight: I want every child to get the very best education that is right for them - wherever they live and whatever their background. I know we're not there yet for all children, but teachers and schools have made massive strides forward for their pupils.

It's not for me, a politician in Whitehall, to tell local parents and schools how they should sort out their admissions. We set out the basic rules through the mandatory School Admissions Code which everyone has to follow. It is councils and schools, however, who have the power to do what's right for their area - and what's fairest to local parents and children.

Parents tell me that they want their child to go to a good local school - that's why the most commonly used criteria to allocate places fairly at oversubscribed schools give priority to children living closest to the school or those living in the catchment area it serves. The handful of schools which use a lottery system use it as a final tie-breaker after local children have been allocated their places.

Richard Fowler, Croydon, Surrey: My daughter has no secondary school to go to at all. I have been advised that I should teach her myself. Her future has been destroyed. What do you think of that? What are you going to do about that?

Mr Knight: I'm sorry that you're unhappy but I can't comment on the detail of your case. Your local authority has a legal duty to make sure that a school place is available for any child in their area who needs one. I think the best thing I advise you to do is contact the admissions team at your local authority to agree a way forward.

Christian Guthier, Oxford: Isn't the whole idea about parent 'choice' one big scam? If there are 1,000 kids contesting for 300 places, there can hardly be 'choice', can there. Wouldn't it be better to focus on bringing all schools up to the same standard in the first place!

Mr Knight: No, it's not a scam. The vast majority of parents get a place at a school that they have chosen - most at their top preference. An independent study by Sheffield Hallam University, which we published in January, shows that most parents are pretty satisfied overall with the way the system works - though I know that's cold comfort to the few that aren't.

There will always be popular, oversubscribed schools and it is always a genuinely tough decision for those governing bodies or local authorities to allocate places in them fairly. That's not because there aren't enough good schools - it reflects the fact that some schools will always have better reputations than others and get more applications than places available.

I want to take on the assumption that children will not get a good education if they go to their second or third choices. Our inspectors, Ofsted, say that there are more outstanding and good secondary schools than ever before. Moreover, we are now turning round underperforming schools, particularly in urban areas, through better investment and teaching.

At the end of the day, parents get more choice through better schools. That's why we will not be satisfied until every school is a good school.

John Davis, Bristol: I don't understand the concept of appeal. Does it mean that over-subscribed schools are not really full, and there are actually still places available? Or perhaps an appellant could be awarded a place at the expense of someone else's place being withdrawn? Surely not! Or does it mean that an increase in class size would be countenanced: not a good idea in my opinion!

Mr Knight: To be clear, once an offer of a school place has been made, the admission authority would only withdraw it in very limited circumstances and once a child has started at school, only where it was fraudulently obtained.

An appeal panel must first consider whether the decision to refuse admission was made in line with the school's published admission arrangements. Even if the panel decides that it was proper to refuse to admit the child, for example because the school had already taken pupils up to its published admission limit, the panel must go on to a second, discretionary stage of consideration.

Here, it weighs up the right of parents to have a fair hearing and the right of schools to be protected against admitting more pupils than originally planned, if that will have a detrimental effect on children's education. No child should be disadvantaged because an appeal is upheld, the school must take measures if necessary to meet the needs of all children, including the additional child.

Schools sometimes have extra capacity to take on a few more children - and the panel takes this into account. If the appeal succeeds, the admission authority must offer the child a place at the school.

Jill Jackson, Leatherhead, Surrey: Why do different schools in the same area have different criteria for admission? In my own area I live between two secondary schools with different criteria and am unlikely to get into either. The nearer one has a criteria where you have to be in a feeder school and the other has a criteria of nearest to the school. How are parents supposed to be able to make an informed choice when there is no choice?

Mr Knight: I know the admission process sometimes seems complicated. Since last year, however, all admission arrangements must be clear, fair and objective by law. That means that whatever the criteria used, it should be clearly and accurately described, so that parents have as much idea as possible of their chance of securing a place at their preferred school. Local authorities have to publish clear admissions prospectus and information for parents to help parents navigate the system.

Alison Morgan, York: Are there any plans to change the admissions policies of voluntary aided 'faith' schools? It seems absurd in 2008 that children are discriminated against because they are not religious, and segregated from their friends.

Mr Knight: No there are not. Many faith schools have a broader ethnic and social mix than neighbouring non-faith schools. However, we are absolutely clear that any test of faith membership or practice is in line with the mandatory School Admissions Code, which outlaws unfair admissions practices which may penalise low-income families. All the major faith bodies have signed up to it and every school now has a duty to promote community cohesion.

Faith schools are popular with some parents and it is right that they have the choice to send their children there. Ultimately, it is up to the individual admission authority to decide whether to give priority to children of a particular faith or denomination. Finally, it is vital to understand that faith is only an over-subscription criteria, so if there are spare places you can't be refused a place because of your faith or lack of faith.

Julien Crown, Morden, Surrey: Will the siblings rule continue for the foreseeable future or is this currently under review?

Mr Knight: No, there are no plans to review this. The School Admissions Code allows individual admission authorities to decide whether they prioritise the siblings of existing pupils at oversubscribed schools. The Code advises that this is good practice in primary schools because families are at the heart of the admissions system and we expect admission authorities for primary schools to take the needs of parents with young children into account when deciding on oversubscription criteria.

Debbie, UK: Having got a child whom I could push to be statemented, I'm left wondering why a statemented child automatically gets high priority in the school of their choice. Fair enough if there is a reason (eg. stairs for wheelchair user, or even that they will be with friends who are used to the disability and not need to ask the questions) It does mean that some parents are pushing for the statements, not because they need help and extra funding, but just to get them into a more desirable school.

Mr Knight: Children with SEN statements get higher priority because those with the most severe and complex needs to go to schools which can best support them.

Following a request from parents, local authorities are under a duty to assess children's special educational needs and draw up SEN statements where necessary. This is a clear, independent process which means parents cannot simply get a statement on demand because they want to get into a particular school.

However, a parent does not automatically get the school they want. The local authority must decide whether the school the parent requests is suitable for the child and whether placing the child there is compatible with the efficient education of other children at the school and the efficient use of resources.

A local authority may consider, for instance, that where two schools could equally met a child's SEN and one is full but the other has spare places it would be a better use of resources to name the school which has spare places. Local authorities also have to consult schools before naming them and schools can put forward arguments as to why they should not be named. Once named on a finalised statement the maintained school must accept the child.

Charlotte Kelley, Cambridge: The notion that parent choice is compatible with social cohesion and fairness to me seems ridiculous in the context of state education. Allowing the concept of choice inevitably creates appealing and less appealing schools. The less appealing ones will suffer, as they inevitably won't get the children with motivated parents behind them. To raise the standards in all state schools, it will be necessary to abolish parent choice and send children to their local school. If this happens nationally differences in terms of pupil ability and social makeup should soon level off.

Mr Knight: Thirty years ago there was no choice. Children simply went to their local schools and it was a real hit or miss affair whether they got a good education or not. I am not sure that many parents would want to go back to those days.

You are also assuming there is a fixed number of good schools every year. That's not true. Parents now have more options because there are undeniably growing numbers of good schools. We are turning round previously low performing schools with better teaching and better solutions - previously those schools would have been left to drift as parents voted with their feet and stayed away. That's why so many academies, which were once struggling comprehensives, are now many times oversubscribed.

Coupled with this, is the principle that all children should have a fair and equal chance of getting into a school of their choice, regardless of background. That is why we brought in the new School Admissions Code. Giving parents a wider choice of decent schools to go to and fair admissions process are not contradictory - they go hand in hand.

Mark Jones, Rushden: Would it not be fairer if all school places were allotted by ability? Those who are academically minded can flourish in the right environment and those who are better with their hands can train in areas such as plumbing, carpentry and building, thus ensuring society has the right mix of skills and talents.

Mr Knight: Every child should get a fair chance to get into a school of their choice, regardless of ability or background. All political parties oppose the introduction of any new selection by ability - which has been prohibited by law since 1997. We will never go back to an education system where children were sorted into sheep and goats at 11 - that was clearly grossly unfair to the eight out of 10 children who did not get into grammar schools. Research shows that the most able pupils perform just as well in non-selective schools and in many cases, progress much faster.

Bright children from poorer families find it more difficult to get into grammar schools because their parents are less able to access additional help for their children to pass the test compared to affluent families. Therefore grammar schools are less fair, socially selective, and have fewer children who receive free school meals than other schools.

David Priddy, Slough: Wouldn't it simply be easier to draw up catchment areas around each school and then where a child goes to school is based on where they live. This means that schools will not be able to pick and choose who they take resulting in a more even spread of abilities and backgrounds, and an end to the situation where schools are more concerned about maintaining their league table ranking than actually educating the local children.

This would also end the crazy scenario where people drive their children past their local school in order to get to another, or where they have children at different schools because of an arbitrary selection process, so good for education and good for the environment as well.

Mr Knight: The new School Admissions Code outlaws covert, unfair ways which some oversubscribed schools used to cream off high-achieving children. We must draw a distinction between admission policies which were purely based on distance from the school gate, as the crow flies, and catchment areas, which are drawn up to take into account where people live and the distance and time it takes to travel to schools.

The first, used purely on its own, would mean that intakes to a good school would be purely dominated by those who could afford to pay a premium for houses, while less well-off families would not get a choice. The second, however, gives far more parents a better choice of getting into the school they want.

The new School Admissions Code gives both as options for local authorities and schools. But it stipulates that admission arrangements must not disadvantage any social group. Many schools consequently using a combination of the two - with those living in the immediate vicinity getting priority, with a wider catchment area for the rest. Ultimately, however, it's down to local authorities to choose the admission arrangements most suitable for them.

Nic Boatman, London: Every time a family buys next door to a good school for the sake of their children's education, the catchment area gets smaller and a local child is denied a place. There is a simple way to stop the perceived injustice of middle class queue-jumping without the inbuilt uncertainty and anxiety that lotteries will bring. All schools should come with a fixed catchment area and, if over subscribed, places should be allocated to children who have lived in the area the longest. Not perfect but what system is? What do you think?

Mr Knight: Giving priority to those who have lived in an area longest may discriminate against those who, for example, have to move house for their work. However, it is the Office of the Schools Adjudicator (OSA), not me, which considers whether admission policies are unlawful, do not comply with the Schools Admission Code, appear to be unfair, unclear, subjective or encourage social segregation. If an admissions authority was considering your suggestion, it would have to be something that their lawyers and the adjudicator would need to look at carefully.

J Douglas, Chippenham, Wilts: Is the government trying to tell me that they know what is best for my child? My very sporty and talented child has now been denied the opportunity to attend a high performing sports college and has instead to attend a school with a Business and enterprise specialism which also has poorer GCSE and A level results. Mr Knight: I am sorry if you feel frustrated. As I said earlier, there will always be popular, oversubscribed schools which are not able to offer places to all applicants. There are many schools with a specialism but the vast majority of them do not select pupils by reference to a child's particular aptitude in that specialism. Where they do it is only allowed for up to 10% of pupils.

Visiting the school, talking to staff and pupils and looking at Ofsted reports are just as important as raw exam results and could give you a much broader sense of what the school you've been offered is really like. The Specialist Schools Programme aims to raise attainment and achievement both in the specialist subjects and across the whole curriculum - so it is it worth discussing how the school can help your child get the most out of the sports provision.