Applying for secondary school: one parent's story of a threat to her child's transition from primary to secondary

My guest blogger today is Jayne Howarth, who writes about her recent experience of the secondary school application process. Her post is particularly interesting because it's a rather frightening tale of what it's like when the process seems to be going wrong (before it's properly begun). What I find unsettling in all of this is how local authorities seem to be contracting out education services to companies which parents find very difficult to deal with. This also came up in a piece I posted on early this year (about a popular school threatened with closure which was eventually saved).

Over to Jayne:

"As every parent who has a child in Year 6 knows: there are some crucial decisions to be made right about now...It is time to send in those secondary preference forms.

It's possible that like me, you’ve spent the past year or two thinking about the next stage of your child’s education. You will have trawled data, visited school websites, spoken to parents, teachers and headteachers. You will have done the all-important, yet exhausting, open evenings at the secondary schools you think are the most suitable for your child.

Imagine, then, what the parents of Year 6 children in Walsall felt a few weeks ago when they opened an envelope from Serco – the organisation that runs education services in the borough – to tell them that a rather important change had been made to one school’s admission policy.

We had one week’s notice before our forms had to be handed in, but thanks to the Schools Adjudicator, the admission criteria for one secondary school – Shire Oak School– had been changed with immediate effect. The adjudicator, Dr Elizabeth Passmore, had agreed with objectors from a nearby primary school in neighbouring Staffordshire that the Shire Oak’s primary partner status did not pass muster.

Under the partnership, Shire Oak works with ten primary schools in the borough, helping with maths and science projects, getting youngsters from year 5 and up engaged in the subjects. It is a partnership – not a feeder arrangement. While there were never any guarantees that those children from the partner schools would gain a place there, they did have an advantage because primary partner school was part of the admissions criteria.  It was criterion four – above the distance criterion that most schools impose.

But Dr Passmore – for a myriad reasons – made a determination that the criterion must not stand and must be removed this year. The decision advantages approximately 20 children at the school that appealed against the decision to the detriment of the 400+ children in the partnership.

For those of us who were including the school as one of the five preferences, it means that we are now significantly disadvantaged. I – and many of my friends – do live outside of the catchment area. So the removal of this criterion now means we have much less chance of getting our children to this school.

Serco disagrees. A spokesman said:
“No allocations have been made and no pupils will be disadvantaged by the decision taken by the Schools Adjudicator. The adjudicator’s decision is final and relates to the admission arrangements for Shire Oak College only, the admission arrangements for other Walsall schools are unaffected and remain unchanged."

But everyone disagrees with the fact that pupils will not be disadvantaged. The headteacher of Shire Oak, the headteachers of the primary schools affected, parents and local councillors all believe that there are significant numbers of children whose chances have been depleted because of the determination.

And as if the decision were not bad enough, parents have had to deal with Serco about this. At no point did the organisation, which won a 12-year contract to run education services in Walsall, think it a good idea to tell parents about the appeal that was lodged in July.

This was done, said Avril Walton, assistant managing director, because they did not want to “confuse” and “upset” parents unnecessarily. Most of the time, she added, the Schools Adjudicator determines no change when an appeal is lodged. If we had been concerned about this, we might not have handed in our preference forms in on time.

This attitude has been criticised severely by parents – including me - who have accused Serco of having treated them with contempt over the issue.  Even the adjudicator seems to have assumed that those affected by the outcome would have been informed.

Serco stands accused of distancing itself from this decision, which can only be overturned by judicial review or going to the Ombudsman, and failing to understand how parents might feel. Its cavalier attitude towards the parents has deeply concerned many of us and has compounded the decision made by the adjudicator. While the adjudicator has wrecked the chances of our children getting places at this school, the company running the education in the borough of Walsall has stood by without thinking of the consequences. Shame on both of them."

Read School Gate:

How to get your child into the secondary school of your choice

Education accused: a teenager responds to Sir Terry Leahy's comments about state education

Comments

[Jayne Howarth]

Thank you for posting this piece.
Since submitting it, things have moved on a little.

While there is nothing we can do for our children, the school (Shire Oak) and the local MP, Richard Shepherd, are investigating the possibility of a judicial review.

From what I have been told - although I haven't spoken directly to him - Mr Shepherd is also looking for an urgent meeting with Ed Balls about this.

He is angry not only about the decision, and the process taken to come to it (which has left Walsall in an inequitable position with regards to secondary admissions), but with the seemingly overarching powers of the adjudicator.

Parents of children with Y5 beware: because of the adjudicator's determination, every school in the country that has primary partner status will have to revisit their policy. It might be that such a status has to be scrapped.

Do keep a close eye on this: ask your LEA, the secondary schools with whom you are closely connected through a primary partner status. Feeder schools will NOT be affected.

[Kim]

Jayne, this is a really interesting story and should be more widely heard. It seems quite wrong that the adjudicator should be allowed to make a decision so late in the day. Fine if the decision meant the admissions rules had to change from next year. But to make the change from this year, when some parents must have already put their applications in, seems extremely dodgy (to use the well-known legal term).

I'm glad you've got your MP on board and that he's talking to Ed Balls. I agree though that you're in a very difficult position because the adjudicator's word is final. Judicial reviews are time-consuming and expensive.

There's a very good education lawyer called Jack Rabinowitz, who is experienced in dealing with this kind of case. It might be worth contacting him (he would probably give you a free initial consultation).

[Jayne Howarth]

Kim - thank you very much for that pointer re the lawyer. I have heard of him, but it didn't even cross my mind when I was going through this.

I might well ask him to take a look!

[Kim]

Jayne, I wish you all the best with this. I was part of a parents' action group that consulted Jack when our children didn't get into the local primary school. We decided not to go to judicial review but it was worth listening to his advice. The system does seem to be stacked up against parents, unfortunately. Would be interesting if you could come back and let us know what happens.

[Jayne Howarth]

Thank you - I will. Although we know there is v little that can be done at the moment, it's always worth getting exposure so that people can understand how already difficult decisions can be made intolerable because of the over-riding power of one person.

[pete]

this is really just yet another example of the extraordinarily unsurprising consequences of having too many parents wanting their children to get into over-subscribed schools. There is no solution to this - if schools expand to satisfy demand , it changes their nature and consequently they become a different and potentially less popular / successful school - the only route is to work to make all schools as successful and popular as each other - a pipedream ? maybe, but that is the ONLY answer.

[Gareth]

I am sorry, but what a load of rubbish. The private company is doing the admin, so why rant about Serco.

The real issue at stake is that you feel aggrieved that your perceived advantage no longer exists. You bandy about figures to show how many children are affected, but for how many years were the children at the non parter school affected.

I applaud the adjudicator for make the system open and transparent. No longer do you gain an advantage just because of a tenuous link.

[Kim]

Gareth, it seems to me the key issue here was not the change to the admissions rules (because local authorities are forever in the process of fine-tuning admissions) but the timing: making the change one week before applications were due in completely stymies the plans of some of the parents. If they'd known at the beginning of the process that the primary school advantage was being taken away, they could have looked at other schools or moved house.

[Diana]

The timing does seem to be a key point - children and parents who have had one system explained to them and have used that system to make choices about secondary schools. But the wider issue is that more schools should be seen as desirable - the fact that some schools have 8 applicants for every place, is an inditement of the provision in that area.

[joseph]

Ha ha ha ..tee hee...'Dr Passmore' - love it!!

[monica]

I have to say I think that the most outrageous thing is that this partnership criteria was ever in place. Jayne Howarth does state that she does not live within the catchment area for the school. I'm afraid that I fail to see why her children should get precedent over other children who live near to the school but didn't attend a partnership primary, that would seem to me to be horrendously unfair. That said it was ludicrous to bring the change in at such short notice, clearly it should have taken effect for the next intake.

[Another mum]

Monica - but that's what lotteries do. In Brighton, you can live next door to one school and have to travel for over an hour to get to the school allocated to you in the lottery.

Either distance is the sole or main criterion or it isn't ...

And when it was, and it pushed up property prices in the school catchment area, the other parents moaned about that.

[Dave]

"Serco Learning, part of Serco Group plc, are providers of learning solutions including the Facility Management Information System and the Skillspace Learning Platform to Schools, Further/Higher Education and the Health Sector." Kinda scary and obviously done to remove direct accountability for decision making

[Robert Jones]

Learning solutions? Any company employing a phrase like that should be kept as far away from schools as possible.
When I was young, you had no choice, you passed your 11 plus or you didn't. And most parents couldn't afford to move in order to be near a given secondary school. All today's system means is that the relatively wealthy parents try to get their children into a "good" school, with the consequence that those schools which aren't "good" never get any better. Given that all schools are now far too big, and these good schools will get even bigger, they aren't likely to stay good for very long. The situation is hopeless, and what's needed is a root and branch reform of education provision rather than extending parent choice - which is then, if successfully exercised, foisted onto children who have no say in the matter one way or the other. What a fraud the whole thing is!

[monica]

'Monica - but that's what lotteries do. In Brighton, you can live next door to one school and have to travel for over an hour to get to the school allocated to you in the lottery.'

Sorry Another Mum replying on my work coffee break so have only skim read the article again but I can't see where it says it was a lottery system. I thought distance was the criterion after the partnership school one??

I think lotteries are bonkers anyway, but then I'm probably prejudiced. I am on a low income and I don't have the luxury of having an ex who pays maintenance (don't ask) therefore I can't afford a car and so I have always needed to send my son to the local school. I would be extremely annoyed and concerned if my son was denied a place at our local school because of a lottery or partnership school scheme or because they lied about their sddress. I totally accept your point about house prices however I'd say that's unavoidable. Don't think there's any way parents can be banned from buying certain houses on the grounds that they may chpoose to send their child to the local school. Maybe because I'm not in a position where I am hightailing up the property ladder it doesn't concern me, (Sorry not very 'alpha', it would appear they'll let anyone comment on this site these day tsk tsk!! ;) )

[Cathy]

Monica: As WC Fields said ... well, I needn't quote it - I don't think he said anything else so often quoted! But you certainly can't please everyone on this.

I find myself agreeing with those who say all schools should be good - because they should. But I dislike the assumption that because all schools are not good therefore someone isn't doing their job properly. I'm afraid IMO there are more inadequate parents than inadequate teachers, but that's only my own experience. And I wouldn't be in charge of this sorry mess for all the tea in China!

[Another mum]

Monica - you're right in that lotteries are not mentioned in this story, but they have been put forward in other threads as the best answer and I feel strongly that they're not ...

I'd do it on catchment myself, and if this results in higher house prices, so be it. But agree that a lst-minute change in criteria is very poor practice.

[monica]

Another Mum, I totally agree with you. Unfortunately catchment does mean house prices rise and that is unfair but then as I keep telling my son life isn't, so tough!!! I also have to put my hands up and admit that I am fortunate in that my local schools are excellent, if I'd been forced to send my son to a failing school I suspect I'd be arguing a different point now. Oh dear that does make me sound somewhat selfish...

[Phil]

personna;y think this is a very'not in my back yard' sort of thelocity and agree all schools should be on a equal footing with local children going to local schools