Item
Southend on Sea Borough Council
11
Report of Director of Children & Learning
To
The Admissions Forum
On
11th October 2005
Report prepared by : David Jarvis and Alastair Robertson
The Eastwood School – report of the Schools Adjudicator
Public Agenda Item
1.
1.1
Purpose of Report
To advise members of the Forum of the determination of the Schools Adjudicator in relation to the
Council’s complaint against the admission arrangements of The Eastwood School
2.
Recommendations
2.1
That the Forum notes the determination.
2.2
That a review of secondary school catchment areas be undertaken.
2.3
That the governing body of The Eastwood School be consulted about both a change in the
catchment area and a possible increase in their admission number.
3.
Introduction
3.1
On 11 May the Council lodged a formal objection against the admission criteria of the Eastwood
School for the academic year commencing September 2006 in relation to:
a) the continued use of a random basis for the allocation of places within its admission criteria;
b) the continued use of a zone A and zone B catchment area;
3.2
On 16 June the Adjudicator met with representatives of the Children & Learning Department and
the school to discuss the Council’s complaint further.
4.
Report of the Schools Adjudicator
4.1
The report of the Adjudicator includes the following paragraphs:
Consideration and Conclusion
I asked for details from the school and the Council of the numbers of pupils admitted over the past three
years from zone A and zone B. They were as follows:
2003
2004
Admitted zone A
73
90
82 (+ 18 siblings)
Admitted zone B
23
12
5 (+ 18 siblings)
Siblings
55
49
64 (inc 28 out of
catchment)
Admissions Forum The Eastwood School report
20/09/05
2005
Report No:
Specialist
17
17
17
Total Admitted
168
168
168
Total Applicants
573
465
653*
Appeals Heard
96
44
70**
Appeals Granted
12
8
24**
** Actual figures although not available to the Adjudicator
In each of the three years all the children living in zone A were admitted to the school and none of the
children from outside the total catchment area was admitted, unless they were siblings or pupils with
aptitude for sport or arts. The only children subjected to the random selection process were children living
in zone B. For 2005 there were only 146 eleven year olds living in zone A and they could all have fitted in
if they had applied. There were 172 eleven year olds living in zone B of whom only 28 were admitted. The
Council has projected only a small decline in pupil numbers for the next few years so it seems unlikely that
the situation will change much. For the foreseeable future, the present arrangement will result in the
following: all the children who live in zone A will get a place without any selection; the applicants living in
zone B will be subject to random selection using a computer programme and only a small proportion of
them will get a place; and no children from outside the total catchment area, apart from siblings and sport
and arts specialist pupils, will get a place.
My first conclusion is that the present arrangement is unfair to the parents and children living in zone B.
All other parents and children in the borough have a reasonable chance of gaining a place in their local
school if they want one. Children in zone B live in the catchment area of Eastwood School but there is
only a small chance that they will get in. They have to apply for other schools in the knowledge that all
those schools will give priority to children who live in their own catchment area. This arrangement is
simply not fair.
My second conclusion is that the solution proposed by the Borough Council would do nothing to improve
the position. The Council suggests that zone A and zone B are merged into a single catchment area and
distance is used as a tie-breaker to decide which children get in. Since there will always be more
applicants from the two zones than there are places, the children living furthest from the school (the
children in zone B) will stand no chance of a place.
My third conclusion is that the only way to resolve the difficulty faced by these children is to embark on a
fundamental re-organisation. This should involve:

increasing the size of Eastwood School so that more children from the total catchment area can
gain a place; and/or

reducing the numbers of children admitted from outside the catchment area under the criteria
giving priority to siblings and pupils with an aptitude for sport or arts; and/or

re-allocating some of zone B to another neighbouring school where the demand for places is not
so high as at Eastwood and there will be a more realistic chance of children in that area getting a
place; or

completely reorganising the system in the borough, perhaps abandoning the catchment area
system altogether.
It might be possible to combine two or more of these options – for example increasing the size of
Eastwood and at the same time reallocating some of the catchment area.
I recommend that the school and the Council set out on a re-organisation of this kind as soon as possible.
In making this recommendation, I should make clear that I do not suggest that the school needs to
abandon the some use of an element of random selection. Random selection (like all other methods of
allocating school places) has advantages and disadvantages. The main advantage is that is that it
provides schools with a good social mix of children from families who live in different areas of a town. The
main disadvantage is that some children are not allocated in schools very near their homes and have to
travel some distance to the school where they are allocated places. It is for the schools in the area, the
Admissions Forum The Eastwood School report
20/09/05
Report No:
admission forum and the Council to decide on these matters. They should, however, avoid a situation in
which a small group of parents in the town is treated differently from everyone else.
It is clear that there is not now time to undertake and complete an exercise of that magnitude before
parents have to make their choices in the autumn. I have therefore decided that the present system
should remain in place for the 2006 admission round. At the same time, I make a firm recommendation
that the Borough Council, the admissions forum and the school make a concerted attempt to reach an
agreement which will deal with the unfairness to zone B children. I am aware that the relationships
between the school, the LEA and some other schools in the area are not good and that it may be difficult
to reach an agreement. There would then have to be a further referral to an adjudicator.
Meanwhile, I have also decided that the existing admission criteria are unclear and some of them should
be amended. In particular there should be a footnote spelling out the chances of getting places for
children living in zone A, zone B and elsewhere.
Furthermore, I have decided that only children living in zone A and B should be admitted under the
criterion for aptitude in sports or arts. This will release a small number of extra places for zone B children.
Criterion 2) should read “Pupils living in zone A or zone B who are granted preferential admission up to a
limit of 10%.”
There are two further detailed points on the notes on Preferential Admissions (the places reserved for
children with a specialist aptitude). First, note (b) says “Eastwood is unique in being one of the few
schools in the Country with a purpose built Performing Arts Centre on its site.” Whether or not it was ever
“unique” in this regard, it certainly is not now and the words should be replaced by “Eastwood has a
purpose built Performing Arts Centre on its site.” Second, note (d) says “The total number of places
allocated for entry under Sport and/or the Performing Arts will not exceed 10% of the Approved Admission
Number for the relevant year of entry”. This implies that the school will attempt to rank applicants with an
aptitude for sport against applicants with an aptitude for performing arts. The school should decide now
how many places it wants to reserve for sports and how many for arts and (provided they do not add up to
more than 10%) publish separate sports and arts figures.
Determination
In accordance with section 90 (3) of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, I partially uphold the
objection to the admission arrangements determined by Eastwood Foundation School.
I determine that for admissions in September 2006:



oversubscription criterion 2) should now read “Pupils living in zone A or zone B who are granted
preferential admission up to a limit of 10%”.
There should be a footnote explaining to parents living in zone A, zone B and elsewhere their
prospects for admission, as set out in this determination.
The footnotes on preferential admissions should be amended a set out in paragraph 19 of this
determination
Admissions Forum The Eastwood School report
20/09/05
Report No:
5
Issues arising from the Schools Adjudicators report
5.1
The main conclusions reached by the Schools Adjudicator involve the need for a fundamental
reorganisation of the admissions arrangements into the school. (Proposals for amendments to
catchment areas will be included in discussions with headteachers and governing bodies in relation
to the proposed reorganization of secondary schools in the Borough). The determination regarding
only pupils in Zone A and B being eligible for specialist places will only slightly increase the
numbers of pupils from zone B that may now be able to be offered non-selective places. In
accordance with the determination amendments have been made to the school information that is
include in the Secondary Admissions 2006/2007 booklet, copies of which are sent to the parents of
every year 6 pupil.
5.2
The main conclusion of the Adjudicator relates to the size of the school and the catchment area. At
the April 2005 meeting of the Forum it was agreed to retain catchment areas and it is assumed that
the Forum would not wish to revisit this decision.
5.3
A review of secondary school catchment areas will be undertaken and this is considered in the
following report. The Governing Body of The Eastwood School would be consulted as part of this
process.
5.4
It would also be proposed to consult with the Governing Body of The Eastwood School about the
possible increase in admission number. This is likely to be in line with proposals to be considered
by the Cabinet in relation to the reorganization of secondary schools. A verbal update will be given
at the meeting.
4.
Background Papers
4.1
Letter to the Schools Adjudicator – May 2005
4.2
Report of the Schools Adjudicator – July 2005
5.
Appendices
5.1
There are no appendices
Admissions Forum The Eastwood School report
20/09/05
Report No:
Admissions Forum The Eastwood School report
20/09/05
Report No: