1. What can be done to mitigate the persistent social segregation of secondary schools in England? John Coldron Caroline Cripps Lucy Shipton Centre for Education and Inclusion Research Sheffield Hallam University

2. The problem is not access to the good schools The majority of parents gain access to their most preferred secondary school The odds of gaining access do not vary by the social characteristics of the parents If the problem is cast as one of access we are caught in an untenable discourse of good and bad schools and of explaining poorer parents’ choice as some sort of false consciousness Parents overwhelmingly choose on the basis of who they want their child to have as peers and who the parents (usually the mother) want as their social network The problem is not access but segregated schooling

3. Why is the social segregation of schooling a problem? Unfair: not because of unequal access to the ‘good’ schools but because some schools and pupils have a much more difficult task that is under-resourced Some evidence that it adversely affects the attainment of already disadvantaged children Lack of interaction and integration reduces social cohesion, civility, mutual respect – the problem of parallel lives. Admissions in a polarised area leads to harmful denigration and mal-recognition Difficult to administer.

4. Factors put forward to explain segregation a.Residential segregation b.Covert selection by some schools c.Working class parents do not engage strongly with the process of choice d.Working class parents are less capable of negotiating the process e.There are class differences in parents’ criteria for choice f.Working class parents have fewer resources and this inhibits choice

6. Factors put forward to explain segregation a.Residential segregation b.Covert selection by some schools c.Working class parents do not engage strongly with the process of choice d.Working class parents are less capable of negotiating the process e.There are class differences in parents’ criteria for choice f.Working class parents have fewer resources and this inhibits choice

7. 1. Interventions with schools

8. InterventionRationaleComment Strong regulation of admission arrangements:  Codes of practice.  Office of School Adjudicator  Local scrutiny by LA and Admission Forums Reduces covert social selection by schools 1.Protects procedural fairness and has had a small but positive effect on intakes. 2.It does not affect legal social selection by schools e.g. by default through selection by prior attainment or aptitude. 3.Does not affect the segregating effects of residential choice.

9. InterventionRationaleComment Allowing arrangements that balance intakes: Banding Random allocation Rearranged catchments Balances intakes at a stroke. 1.Has potential to fully balance intakes across participating schools. 2.LA wide implementation faces practical difficulties outside large urban areas. 3.May increase travel if done over a large area. 4.Difficult to gain sufficient legitimacy for change that would be politically difficult.

10. InterventionRationaleComment School improvement to make all schools equally good. Some parents gaining access to the better schools would no longer be a problem. 1.Investment was good. 2.At odds with a marketised system -the energy of the market comes from inequality i.e. a perceived hierarchy of good and bad.

11. InterventionRationaleComment Closing schoolsRedistributes poorer children who tend to be concentrated in ‘bad’ schools into ‘better’ schools. 1.Relies on unjustifiable discourse of good and bad schools that systematically ignores the effect of intake on performance. 2.Hierarchy of schools is amended but still exists. 3.Closure is not a victimless policy. It takes a long time during which denigration is rife and it creates many casualties.

12. 2. Interventions with parents

13. InterventionRationaleComment Requirement on LAs to offer advice and information on choice of schools. (e.g. Choice Advice) Addresses assumed information and skill deficit on part of poorer parents. Creates a ‘level playing field’. 1.There have been significant benefits to a few needy parents. 2.But assumes a middle class model of engaged consumer. 3.Can only have a tiny effect on balancing of intakes. 4.The rhetoric of creating a ‘level playing field’ is overblown.

14. InterventionRationaleComment Financial help: Travel subsidies to poorer parents Ban on financial burdens e.g. costly uniforms, contributions to school funds. Addresses financial inhibitions on engaging with choice. 1.May have a positive but small effect for those few parents choosing exit over solidarity. 2.Travel subsidy very limited (nearest 3 schools).

15. 3. Other interventions

16. InterventionRationaleComment Local systemic intervention: Legal requirement on LAs to promote equity and act against social segregation of schools Focus should be not only on procedural fairness and equality of opportunity but also on the ultimate outcome of reduced social segregation. 1.Very different rationale levered in by dissident Labour back benchers. 2.Sunk without trace. Judiciously ignored. 3.Local politicians bound by electoral realities 4.Local officers aim for maximal technical compliance not system upheaval. 5.No strong legitimising arguments from central government.

17. InterventionRationaleComment Pupil premiumProvides incentive for schools to admit poorer pupils. 1.Extra resourcing is good. 2.Providing an incentive not to select is good but we do not know how widespread a problem covert selection is. 3.May have an effect. 4.Needs to be accompanied by reducing the stronger disincentives of performativity.

18. Revisiting explanation The most coherent explanation of segregation is in terms of classed practices but not crudely as the middle class abandoning the working class. The great social distance between the most advantaged and the least, the benefits of solidarity and the restrictive effects of social policing lead the majority of both affluent and poor parents to opt for segregated schooling. School segregation first expresses and then sustains great social distance and the lack of mutual respect and civility that it engenders. It is more symptom than cause.

19. So – what can we do? Critique, construct alternatives, and enact at all levels with a realistic understanding of the where power lies. Act locally to better balance intakes using admission arrangements that have a real effect such as banding. Argue for inclusive practice in the classroom, and in the internal organisation of the school. Critique the vision of education driving the actions of politicians and policy makers and construct and justify practices of mutual respect as the grounds for legitimising interventions at all levels. Reduce the social distance between the most and least advantaged by reducing the inequalities of income, status and respect.

20. The arguments in this presentation are drawn from the following publications Coldron J, Cripps C, Shipton L (2010) Why are English secondary schools socially segregated? Journal of Education Policy. 25 (1) January 2010 Coldron J, Willis B, Wolstenholme C (2009) Selection by attainment and aptitude in English secondary schools British Journal of Educational Studies Stiell B, Shipton L, Coldron J, Coldwell M (2008) Choice Advice: an Evaluation for Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) Coldron J, Tanner E, Finch S, Shipton L, Wolstenholme C, Willis B, Demack S, Stiell B (2008) Secondary School Admissions, Sheffield Hallam University with National Centre for Social Research (Report DCSF-RR020) Reference to the wider literature can be found in each of these papers.