Equalities Impact Assessment
School Admissions Policy
Date: December 2006
Record of Equality Impact Assessment
1. Department/Service Area
Children and Young People’s Service, Access and Welfare Service
School Admissions Policy
2. Equality Areas Assessed
Race, disability, religion/faith
3. Timescale of the assessment
September 2006 - December 2006
4. Who is involved in the EIA? (There should be a minimum of at least 3
officers)
Officer involvement
Service Manager
Deputy Service Manager
Stakeholder Involvement
Leicestershire parents, in the current transfer cycle, were issued with a
Questionnaire (since coordinated admissions, communication with City parents is
only made by the City Council).
5. Policy, procedure, service assessed
The School Admissions Policy applies to all school age children in Leicestershire who
are requesting access to a mainstream education placement. It sets out the process
and procedure which is adopted and also the priority criteria for allocating places to
an oversubscribed school.
2
6. Data Collection and consultation

A parental questionnaire was sent out at the beginning of September 2006
which asked questions which enabled us to ascertain whether parents feel
that the policy is fair and objective.

The following data was also used as part of this assessment:
Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) population in Leicestershire
Breakdown of religious groups in Leicester
Refusals of requests for a school place by ethnic origin
National and local statistics on admissions appeals
Percentage of successful first preference requests for a school place

Demographic data collected as part of parental questionnaire:
BME group
Religion or belief
Disability

Whether the Local Authority complies with the national Code of Practice on
Admissions was also considered.
7. Findings
Parental Questionnaire
14,219 questionnaires were sent out to Leicestershire parents and a total of 5821
were returned; a 41% return rate.
Of the respondents, 232 (1.6%) considered that either they or their child has a
disability.
The ethnic origin of respondents was as follows:
3
White British
Asian Indian
Mixed White Caribbean
White Irish
Asian Bangladeshi
Asian Other
Black Caribbean
Mixed White African
Mixed Other
Black African
Chinese
Asian Pakistani
White Other
Mixed White Asian
Other
Not Disclosed
85.2%
5.9%
0.8%
0.3%
0.5%
0.5%
0.1%
0.2%
0.7%
0.2%
0.6%
0.3%
1.0%
0.7%
0.1%
3.0%
The total White British population of the County is 91.2%. This means that there was
a higher percentage response from BME groups than the total population of the
County as a whole.
The response in terms of ease of application was as follows:
Ease of Application
no comment
4%
not easy
1%
easy
32%
very easy
63%
The vast majority of respondents found the process of application either easy or very
easy, with only a small percentage, 80 people ( 1%, rounded to the nearest whole
number), finding it difficult. Of these 12 (15%) considered themselves to have a
disability and 13 (16.25%) were from a BME group.
Application can be made in several ways including written request, on line or by
telephone. This is in an effort to make application as easy as possible for parents.
Some of those who found the process difficult did so because the new on line
process had minor initial problems which have now been eradicated.
4
The response in terms of whether the process is fair was as follows:
Is the Admissions Process Fair?
no response
4%
don't know
13%
no
3%
yes
80%
Further analysis of this question produces the following information in relation to the
definition of siblings:
5
Ethnic Origin of Respondents Who disagreed with
the Definition of Siblings
60
50
40
30
20
10
te
ed
os
isc
l
td
Af
ric
an
er
O
th
no
ity
ic
et
hn
As
M
ix
ed
W
hi
r
th
e
As
ia
n
la
d
ia
n
Ba
ng
te
O
es
hi
sh
Iri
n
W
hi
be
a
te
C
ar
ib
In
M
ix
ed
W
hi
As
ia
n
W
hi
te
Br
iti
sh
di
an
0
This question is important given the different definition of the term sibling within
different cultural groups. However of the 80 people who responded that the definition
of siblings used within the policy is unfair, the vast majority were from the “White
British” group.
Just one respondent out of the 5821, made the point that within some cultural
groups, cousins are considered to be siblings.
A further question was asked regarding the general rule that only one address is
recognised per family, and only one family per address were we are considering
catchment entitlement in a full year group.
6
The Ethnic Origin of Respondents Who Disagree With the One
Address per Family / One Family Per Address Rule
M
ixe
d
W
h it
e
Br
itis
As
h
ian
W
I
nd
hit
ian
e
Ca
rib
be
an
W
As
h it
ian
e
Iri
Ba
sh
ng
lad
es
As
hi
ian
Ot
he
M
r
ixe
d
Ot
W
he
hit
r
e
Af
ric
M
an
ixe
d
Ot
Bl
he
ac
r
kA
fri
ca
n
Ch
As
i
ne
ian
se
Pa
k is
ta
W
ni
h
M
i
t
ixe
e
O
d
th
et
W
er
hn
hit
ic i
e
ty
A
sia
no
td
n
is c
los
ed
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
This question is also important in terms of extended family members residing
together and this being more evident within some BME cultural groups. Again it can
be seen that the vast majority of the 317 respondents who felt the rule was unfair
were again from the “White British” group.
This would indicate that most BME respondents did not believe that they were being
discriminated against . It is important to note that there will be circumstances where
two families residing in one property will be allowed a place in an oversubscribed
catchment school providing they can show this is their permanent address. So
families who do genuinely live together as an extended family group will not be
discriminated against because of this.
The biggest negative response was to the question of the allocation of places on
denominational grounds. The following responses were received:
7
The Religion Of Respondents who
Disagree with Priority on Grounds of
Faith
d
isc
lo
se
on
e
N
ot
D
N
er
O
th
lim
M
us
Si
kh
u
in
d
H
C
hr
is
tia
n
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
816 respondents felt this kind of prioritisation was unfair; a total of 14.8% or almost
1:6. Interestingly the largest objection was from the Christian respondents; the
group who are given priority for faith schools in Leicestershire.
More
understandably, the second largest response was from those who stated they had no
religion.
Given the fact that most of these schools are their own admissions
authority and that the schools are based on a religious foundation, it is not possible to
prioritise without priority being given to adherents of a particular denomination.
Refusal of Places
For admissions into the academic year 06/07 there were a total of 377 Leicestershire
residents refused a place at their preferred school. Of these 71% were “White
British”. This means that the number of refusals for children falling into BME
groupings was higher than the corresponding percentage of the Leicestershire
population as a whole; 29% of applicants refused were from BME groupings,
whereas these groups make up only 9% of the population as a whole. A significant
amount of research would need to be undertaken to find out the underlying reasons
for this. One reason may well be that the area of the County with the most popular
and regularly oversubscribed schools, i.e. Oadby and Wigston, is also the area of
the County with the highest BME population (19.3%). This does not , however,
account entirely for this discrepancy.
This is only a snapshot of one year and may not, therefore, be indicative of an
ongoing problem.
Other relevant considerations may be whether the BME population in a particular age
group is higher than others and whether the importance placed on gaining a place in
an “excellent” school by some ethnic groups has a bearing, i.e. a higher percentage
8
of applicants for the “best” and therefore most oversubscribed schools in the County
may be from BME groups.
Appeals
The most recent year for which comparative data on the numbers of appeals heard
and the number of appeals which were successful is the 2004/2005 academic year.
The average of our statistical neighbours of the number of appeals heard as a
percentage of the total number of children in the year group is 3.74%. In
Leicestershire the percentage was 0.3%. This would indicate that there is a lower
number of dissatisfied parents in Leicestershire.
The average of our statistical neighbours of the number of successful appeals as a
percentage of those heard is 44%. In Leicestershire the percentage was 27.35%.
This would indicate that in Leicestershire the panels felt that the decision of the
Local Authority was correct in a higher percentage of cases.
The School Admissions Code of Practice
The Code of Practice is followed closely by Leicestershire in terms of what criteria
are used for prioritising applicants for places.
The Code of Practice sets out criteria that are not appropriate in terms of equal
opportunities and avoiding discrimination. Leicestershire’s policy is fully consistent
with this guidance. Over many years there has been no successful challenge to
Leicestershire’s admissions policy.
Accessibility Issues
Account of particular need, i.e. disability which makes a particular school suitable, or
unsuitable, is taken account of within the policy. For example, a young person with a
disability would receive priority for an accessible school if their catchment school was
inaccessible under the Social, Medical and Domestic category.
8. Conclusions
9
Responses to the questionnaire indicate that Leicestershire parents are happy that
the process for allocating school places is fair and is not discriminatory. Statistics on
appeals also support this view.
The policy and procedure does not appear to have an adverse impact on BME or
disabled groups although there is a small amount of evidence from one year that a
disproportionate number of BME applicants were refused places.
9. Actions
Further monitoring of refusals by ethnic groups should take place in 07/08 to
discover whether this is an ongoing issue or whether 06/07 was unusual.
10. Monitoring
Monitoring of the number of refusals by ethnic group should be undertaken in
November 2007 for admissions in September 07. If necessary further investigation
should be undertaken to feed into the annual review of the admissions policy.
11. Authorisation
a) Name and position of officer
Head of Pupil Support
authorising the EIA (this should
be the head of service)
12. Contact
a) Contact details of officer to
discuss EIA with if different from
section 11. above
Service Manager, Access and Welfare
10