The Schools
Adjudicator, whose role is to ensure that school admission arrangement are fair
and conform to the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, has issue a
determination in the case of objections to revised admission arrangements at
the state-funded Islamian Primary School in Brent. The governing body at the
school determines its own admission arrangements.
The case
raises important issues regarding class (in the guise of professional status)
and race (relating to the Somali population).
The
objection by two individuals relates to the criteria applied when the 60 pupil
intake school is over-subscribed.
The
adjudicator summarises the criteria as:
a. Looked after
Muslim children and previously looked after Muslim children.
b. Children of
staff.
c. Muslim children
of at least one parent who has reverted to Islam (not born in the Islamic
faith). Up to a maximum of 25 per cent of the PAN (Planned Admission Number).
d. Muslim
children of parents who are former pupils of the school (alumni) since it
became a Voluntary Aided school (1998). Up to a maximum of 15 per cent of the
PAN.
e. Muslim
children who have a sibling at the school.
f. Other Muslim
children.
g. Other looked
after children or previously looked after children.
h. Other
children.
The
objectors argument is summarised:
1.
Taken
together, the objectors argue that newly-introduced oversubscription criteria
giving priority to Muslim children of at least one parent who has reverted to
Islam and Muslim children of parents who are former pupils of the school
(alumni) are in breach of paragraphs 1.9 e) and f) of the School Admissions
Code (the Code), which prohibit the giving of priority to children,
respectively, on the basis of any practical or financial support parents may
give to the school and according to the educational status of parents applying.
2.
Both
objectors point out that, as a result of the introduction of the new criteria,
the priority for children with siblings at the school has become the fifth
rather than the third oversubscription criterion. The objectors refer to the
“disadvantage” and “hardship” this will create and describe the change as
“unfair.” Paragraph 14 of the Code requires admission authorities to ensure
that the practices and the criteria used to decide the allocation of school
places are fair.
The
objectors felt that the priority given to alumni was made on the basis of
their ability to give support to the school including financially through
voluntary contributions. One objector said:
“During the [consultation]meeting the panel explained to the parents in
attendance that they wished to encourage alumni to come back to the school as
they tended to be professionally successful, therefore they could ‘share their
skills to drive standards up, hold the school to account and give something
back thanks to their professional status.’
The
Adjudicator comments:
My task at this stage, though, is not to come to a conclusion about what
the true reasons for the new criteria are, but to determine whether those
criteria are in breach of the Code. In order to qualify under either of the
criteria, parents are not required to make any financial contribution to the
school or to give it practical support, or indeed to pledge to do. The
governing board may hope that parents may do so, but it is not necessary to
gain priority for a place. I therefore do not consider that they are in breach
of paragraph 1.9 e).
Similarly, with reference to paragraph 1.9 f), there is
not a requirement that parents demonstrate that they are employed in a
particular occupation. In order to be considered alumni of the school, parents
must, of course, have attended it. I do not regard this as conferring an
“educational status”, which I take to relate to educational achievement,
including qualifications obtained at school and in further and higher
education. I do not uphold the objection on the grounds that the criteria
giving priority to the children of alumni and reverts breach paragraph 1.9 of
the Code.
The
Adjudicator adds on this and the issue of 'reverts' LINK (people
who become Muslim as did the original founder of the school Cat Stevens/Yusif
Islam):
Whilst it is clear that there is strong disagreement about the
appropriateness of the reasons the admission authority has given for giving
priority to children of alumni, those reasons could not be described as
arbitrary or irrational. With respect to the priority of children of reverts,
it is common practice for schools with a religious character to differentiate
between adherents of the faith of the school in their admission arrangements,
for example, on the basis of for how long or how often they attend a place of
worship. It is not unreasonable to take account of when someone became a member
of the faith (provided this can be established objectively) and to give their
children priority for places at the school as they may need more support than
children born into the faith. I therefore consider that these criteria meet the
test of reasonableness.
There was a
further argument made in correspondence that the Adjudicator termed 'very
important':
In her
initial objection, this objector argued that the proposed changes “will
directly impact families from poorer socio-economic backgrounds.” She develops
the argument in subsequent correspondence, explaining that there has been a
change in the demographic profile of the school, due to a large number of
Somali families being housed in what was previously the catchment area. She
says,
“This has translated into a net increase of Somali children and their
siblings securing spaces at Islamia due to closeness to the school, being
within the catchment area and having sibling priority. l believe these
changes are aimed at reducing that through decreased sibling priority.
Moreover, since there are close to no Somali alumni from 20 years ago
and traditionally no reverts from Somali heritage these changes will
effectively exclude a large portion of parents and directly affect their
ability to secure spaces for a second, third or fourth child. I believe these
changes are discriminatory and aimed at curbing the access of poorer families
from specific ethnic and socio-economic backgrounds usually in need of more
spaces.”
The
Adjudicator found that the revised arrangements discriminate against siblings
and adds a warning (my stress) regarding the above point:
I have found that the arrangements unfairly disadvantage siblings. Although
the objector’s arguments appear to me to have some merit, it would be difficult
to establish whether the effect of the proposed changes would be specifically
to disadvantage the Somali racial group. Indeed, any finding in this matter
would not add materially to my conclusion relating to unfairness. I therefore
make no further comment, other than to stress the importance of the admission
authority’s monitoring of the effect of the arrangements in future years to
ensure that they do not run the risk of a successful challenge that they may
cause indirect discrimination on the grounds of race. Indirect discrimination
occurs when a practice or criterion, which applies to everyone in the same way,
has the effect of disadvantaging a group of people who share a protected
characteristic listed in the Equality Act 2010. It is a defence against
indirect discrimination if the criterion is a proportionate means of achieving
a legitimate aim.
Summary of Findings
1.
The
consultation conducted by the admission authority prior to the introduction of
new criteria prioritising the children of alumni and reverts met requirements.
The criteria do not contravene paragraphs 1.9 e) and f) of the Code as they do
not give priority to children on the basis of practical or financial support
parents may give or on parents’ occupational or educational status. I do not
uphold these aspects of the objection.
2.
Children of
alumni and reverts (up to 40 per cent of the total to be admitted) have a
higher priority to siblings, some of whom might not obtain a place. The
disadvantage to siblings and their families is not outweighed by the benefits
the new criteria bring. The arrangements do not meet the requirements of
fairness in paragraph 14 of the Code. In this respect, I uphold the objection.
Determination
3.
In
accordance with section 88H(4) of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998,
I partially uphold the objection to the admission arrangements for September
2021 determined by the governing board for Islamia Primary School, Brent.
4.
I have also
considered the arrangements in accordance with section 88I(5) and find there
are other matters which do not conform with the requirements relating to
admission arrangements in the ways set out in this determination.
The Chair of
Governors at the school has been contacted for a comment but has not yet
responded.
The full
report can be found HERE
