Top comprehensives 'more socially exclusive than grammar schools'

11-4-2010

Top comprehensives 'more socially exclusive than grammar schools'

• Report says heads use 'wiggle room' over admissions

• Poorer pupils struggle to secure top state school places

England's top comprehensives are more socially exclusive than the country's remaining grammars because schools are letting middle-class parents play the system, according to a study published today. The exploitation of "wiggle room" in the rules on admissions means not enough poor children are getting into the best comprehensives, the report published by the Sutton Trust said.

Researchers found that only 9.2% of children at the top 164 comprehensives came from "income-deprived" homes, even though those schools drew their pupils from areas where about 20% were poor. At the 164 remaining grammar schools, which serve areas with the same proportion of deprived homes, 13.5% of the intake were from poorer backgrounds.

The Worlds Apart report, from the Centre for Education and Employment Research at the University of Buckingham, found that of the 100 most socially selective schools in the country, 91 were comprehensives. Only eight were grammars and one was a secondary modern.

The authors, Alan Smithers and Pamela Robinson, said the problem was letting parents choose which school they wanted their children to attend, which inevitably led to the "best" schools being oversubscribed. These schools could then impose selection criteria such as which families lived closest or religious affiliation.

Some former grammars have retained the right to select a proportion of pupils by ability, and some specialist schools are allowed to pick up to 10% by aptitude.

"[The government's admissions code] would seem to have been painstakingly put together, but there is still wiggle room for schools that want to ensure a favourable intake to enable them to show up well in league tables," the report says. It goes on to suggest that the best way of tackling the problem is to introduce ballots for school places, as Brighton has done.

Smithers described the situation as unhealthy. "If the selection criteria is closeness to the school, the more prosperous parents will pay a premium to buy or rent a house there and they will be able to send siblings to the school, too," he said. "If it's a faith school, they will take pains to demonstrate that they are practising members of that church.

"The schools are interested in getting the best placings in the league tables, so they and the parents can work together to get the children into those schools."

Poorer parents may not be able to ferry their children to and from good schools too far away or afford other transport, or they may be put off by a school's reputation for needing costly extras such as expensive uniforms and music lessons.

"The consequence is we will remain a segregated society," said Smithers. "Research shows that bright children in leading schools are much more likely to be entered for A-levels than those in financially poor schools, who may well be asked to take vocational courses. What's available can greatly influence life chances and affect social mobility."

The report uses a new indicator of deprivation based on the number of children in families on income benefits in a postcode. It is seen as more useful than the measure normally used – the numbers on free school meals – because it accounts for children whose parents are working but on low incomes, and those who do not claim the free meals they are entitled to.

The findings suggest that the 100 comprehensives with the least advantaged intakes seemed to be taking more than their fair share of poor students. Although deprivation in their areas affected only 30% of homes, nearly 40% of their pupils were from disadvantaged backgrounds.

In the 100 schools with the most deprived intake, only 26.3% of pupils got five top-grade GCSEs, while in at the other end of the scale, the figure was 67.2%.

Peter Lampl, chair of the Sutton Trust, said: "Politicians often oppose the use of ballots, arguing that no child's education should be decided by the roll of a dice. But ballots are the fairest way of deciding school places in oversubscribed schools. There has to be some way of choosing which pupils are admitted, and ballots offer the same chances to all children, irrespective of their background." (Guardian)