Some choose, some lose

The Guardian

Labour claims school choice is a priority, but children from poorer families miss out, says Peter Lampl.

Education is one of the most important issues in the general election - in particular, "school choice". Currently, those who can afford to buy a house in the right area, or are able to drive their children to schools further afield, exercise "choice". And now the government's new admission policies, although well intended, have restricted choice still further for the less privileged (the concern of the Sutton Trust). There is a good example of this in Cheltenham.

A few years ago, I received a telephone call from Richard Kemp, the headteacher of my old school, the excellent Pate's grammar. I was shocked by what he told me. In my day, Pate's had many bright working-class boys. But it had become virtually the sole preserve of the middle classes.

Not all of Cheltenham is as affluent as people imagine. Pate's sits next to a council estate, in a ward with higher than average unemployment. Despite this, typically only half a dozen or fewer of the 120 places at the school each year went to pupils from poorer neighbourhoods.

Kemp believes passionately that, whatever one's view of selection, grammar schools must offer able children opportunities, whatever their background. This is why the Sutton Trust funds a project to open Pate's up to the young people living on its doorstep.

While local primary schools do a good job, Pate's wanted to offer something extra. So we jointly fund an outreach teacher to work with bright primary school pupils. This gives them the chance to work with other gifted youngsters on challenging projects, boosting their confidence and raising their aspirations.

Each primary school nominates pupils to take part. About 130 10- and 11-year-olds have access to a specially designed classroom at Pate's and receive extra classes at their own school. The project is in its fourth year, and results are encouraging. In the first two years, the proportion of disadvantaged pupils admitted more than doubled, to 14% of the year group. In one year, 20 of the 120 pupils admitted were from target schools - almost three times the average before the initiative began.

Until this year, when Pate's operated its own admissions policy, a parent who applied to the school did so safe in the knowledge that should their child be unsuccessful, they could then choose a non-selective school instead. But the government's new code of practice expects all schools to operate within an admissions scheme coordinated by the local education authority.

Greater coordination is intended to make it easier for parents - for example, by stopping some from holding on to offers from several schools for too long, reducing choice for other parents. However, the new system has created perverse consequences. Gloucestershire, like other LEAs, is now required to coordinate admissions for all schools. Parents have to consider all maintained schools when ranking their choices. Pupils are offered a place at the highest available ranked school for which they are eligible.

The trouble is that schools which set their own admissions criteria can use "first choice first" as a criterion. This enables them to consider all first-choice applicants before any second-choice candidates, irrespective of other factors. For parents considering applying to Pate's, this creates a dilemma, as six of the eight local comprehensives take this "first choice first" approach.

If parents put down the grammar school as their first choice and their children do not get in, they risk missing out on their top comprehensive school choice and their children ending up at a poor school. If, however, they put the grammar school as their second choice, but the children get into their top comprehensive school choice, then they can't go to the grammar school.

Of course, those who can afford to send their children to independent schools face no such dilemma - if they get into the grammar school, it's a bonus; if not, they can pay to go elsewhere. But poorer families face a starker choice, and the impact on Pate's has been dramatic.

There has been a sharp fall in less advantaged applicants and admissions have suffered accordingly. This year, only four students will join Pate's from schools within the target zone, just 3% of the cohort. By contrast, the number of children from independent preparatory schools has doubled from 29 to 57, nearly half the total intake.

Too many of the best state schools are already middle-class bastions. Only 3% of those attending the top 200 performing state schools receive free school meals - the standard poverty indicator - compared with 17% nationally.

Many of those schools could emulate our outreach work - provided there is a fair admissions system. The message to the government is clear. If it seriously wants to extend choice, it must change its admissions code to give less privileged children a better chance.