Few secondary schools are using powers to explicitly prioritise disadvantaged pupils in admissions – despite the financial benefits, new research has found.
But some settings, particularly free schools, are turning to more “innovative” approaches to make their intakes more inclusive.
The report, by the University of Bristol and funded by the Nuffield Foundation, includes the first national analysis of school admissions arrangements since widespread academisation of the system.
Lead author Simon Burgess, professor of economics at the University of Bristol, said the report “provides a much-needed comprehensive overview of how secondary schools are accepting pupils”.
“Its findings raise important concerns about the chances of England successfully levelling-up achievement and opportunity for children and young people from all social backgrounds.”
The report was released to coincide with secondary school offer day, and comes as school leaders called for a review of the school admissions code.
Geoff Barton, general secretary of the ASCL leaders’ union, said the review should “should examine the impact of requiring schools to prioritise all children eligible for the pupil premium, or in persistent poverty”.
1. Just 170 schools prioritise poorer pupils
Since 2014, schools have been allowed to explicitly prioritise disadvantaged pupils for admission.
However, the research found just 170, or 5 per cent of the roughly 3,250 secondary schools in England, actually did so.
Many of the schools using the criteria are also grammar schools, whose admission also hinged on passing the 11-plus test. Researchers said this meant only 42 schools nationally “meaningfully” used the criteria.
The report said the finding was “fascinating and puzzling” given the “progressive” ethos of many schools and the “explicit aim that the introduction of the policy would facilitate access for poorer students”.
“Neither the additional funding allocated to schools for each eligible student nor any school’s social goal of improving diversity appears to be sufficient for schools to explicitly prioritise the admission of pupils eligible for the pupil premium.”
2. Most schools now set own admissions
In the past, councils used to set uniform admission arrangements for most schools. But the introduction of academies has “progressively changed” the system, and 90 per cent of schools now set their own policies.
The decentralisation of the system “naturally produces a great richness and diversity of
admissions arrangements”, the report found, noting the “sheer diversity and complexity of the system”.
“This to a degree honours the different missions that schools may follow, but it does create a complex puzzle for parents trying to navigate their way.”
3. Siblings and geography most common criteria
According to the report, the most common admissions criteria used are prioritising siblings of existing pupils, used by 96 per cent of schools, and geography, used by 88 per cent.
The use of geography by so many schools means the “scope for indirect selection is large”. Higher demand for popular schools leads to higher house prices, which “therefore reduces the chances of lower-income families to access the school”.
Burgess said picking pupils by where they live “can be exclusionary”, and that prioritising local pupils “can reinforce inequalities”.
But doing so “also has benefits”, like fostering a “sense of community”.
“There’s a trade-off between value of community and value of inclusion (chance of poorer pupils accessing effective schools). We’re not at the best point on trade-off, favouring only community.”
4. Aptitude tests’ ‘negative’ effect on equality
Schools with specialisms, such as music or dance, are allowed to admit up to 10 per cent of pupils according to aptitude.
But the effect of aptitude or specialism quotas on equality of access for lower social-economic groups is “expected to be negative”.
This is because “high relative attainment in any of the subjects (even sport) will involve expense of resources of time and money for travelling, equipment and training”.
5. Few schools turn to ‘innovative’ approaches …
A small number of schools are using more “innovative” admissions arrangements, the report found.
These include lotteries to randomly allocate available places to some applicants without reference to distance, used by 104 schools.
Another approach is banding, which uses a test to assure a mixed-ability entry.
The report also found that geographical criteria could be modified to be more inclusive, for instance by reserving places for pupils outside catchment areas.
These schools are “showing that other approaches to admissions are possible and may offer exemplars for other schools to follow”.
6. … and free schools lead the way
Early research into the free schools programme suggested their admissions were exclusive, rather than inclusive.
But today’s report found the “opposite now seems to be true”, with free schools more likely to design admissions to include disadvantaged pupils.
Free schools are more likely to use the pupil premium criteria and banding approaches, for example, and show “less reliance on traditional admissions arrangements such as catchment areas”.
The report said this could be due to the “blank slate” offered to new schools, their mission or ethos, or guidance from the DfE that promotes innovative approaches.
Your thoughts