Schools Admission Code: Consultation December 2006

Key points:

• Children’s experience at school is vitally important in determining their success in adult life.
• Children in low-income families are less likely to do well at school.
• The extra costs associated with sending a child to school can present a problem for low-income families and limit their ability to fully participate in school life.
• Costs of uniforms and trips can vary considerably from school to school and if not kept in check can influence a parent’s decision over which school to send their child.
• DfES guidance recommends that school uniform policies are affordable to all families.  Yet research and CAB client experience finds that school policies still insist on specific items available from specialist stores.  This makes uniform expensive and causes financial difficulties for low-income families.
• The new School’s Admissions Code is an opportunity to strengthen existing guidance and ensure that costs do not play a part in a parent’s choice of school and no child is unable to fully participate in the life of their school because of the extra associated costs.
• Proactive monitoring of compliance with the guidance must ensure that it is not left up to parents to complain to the relevant body.

Introduction

For many years the CAB service has been concerned about the costs faced by parents when sending their children to school.  Citizens Advice first reported on the problems caused by school uniform policies in 2004.¹  Last year Citizens Advice, children’s charities and the National Union of Teachers formed a coalition to continue to highlight these problems.²  All children should be able to participate fully in school life but not having the money to buy the correct uniform, extra kit to participate in school sports teams or to go on school trips, marks them out as being ‘poor’ and can lead to them becoming isolated within the school.  

Costs can be significant and DfES research published in 2004 found that on average parents of secondary school pupils spend £948.11 per year on their child’s ‘free’ education while the average cost of sending a pupil to a state primary school is £563.15.³  These figures are high, but they are averages and so they disguise the wide range of costs faced by parents.  The true costs faced by parents whose children’s schools choose expensive trips and uniforms and fail to understand the needs of low-income families can be much higher.  Over many years Citizens Advice Bureaux have reported seeing parents who have struggled to afford school uniform for their children and we have raised serious concerns about the reduction in support from Local Authorities to meet these costs.

The DfES survey found a worrying 22% of families found it difficult to meet the costs expected of them and this figure rose to 55% of families in the two lowest income groups.  There have long been fears that schools ‘cherry pick’ pupils by deterring applications from low income families with expensive uniforms and other costs.  It very welcome that the new School’s Admission Code recognises that costs may influence parental decisions about choice of school and may undermine fair and equitable access to school places.

We welcome the opportunity to contribute to this consultation based on the experience of CAB clients, acquired from the day-to-day advice work carried out from almost 3,400 advice outlets across England and Wales.  

The Admissions Code

The Code distinguishes between guidance that a school should follow and policies that they must follow.  It explains that the term should is used when exceptional circumstances may mean that it is appropriate not to follow the guidance.  We believe that examples about what might constitute exceptional circumstances are necessary.  In our response to the Code we highlight where we feel some of the guidance should be strengthened by replacing some of the ‘shoulds’ with ‘musts’.

The monitoring role of Admissions Forums is key to the success of the Code.  When schools use exceptional circumstances to justify deviating from the code they should be required to explain their reasons to the Local Authority to ensure consistency and equity across all schools in its area.

Ensuring fair and equitable access to school places

Research has found that for children from low-income families, school can be divisive and contribute to exclusion.⁴  Three issues in particular create problems due to the costs:

• The first is clothes, and the importance of wearing the right clothes, including what is perceived by children as the ‘right’ school uniform.  
• The second is school trips, which provide important developmental opportunities as well as educational ones, and which are critical in helping children to develop and strengthen bonds with their peers.  
• Finally, the availability of good, reliable school transport that parents can rely on and which enables children to get to school quickly and safely is also vitally important in ensuring low-income families have access to choices of school.

School Uniform

1.41

The need for simple, flexible uniform policies

Current DfES guidance states that it is good practice to ‘have a policy that incorporates items that are readily available off the peg from a number of retail outlets.  This enables parents to shop around for the most cost effective options, whilst ensuring their child adheres to their schools uniform.’

Despite this guidance Citizens Advice continues to see many parents experiencing problems with affording school uniform for their children.

A woman came sought help from the bureau because her children were being bullied at school because their uniforms were worn out and she couldn’t afford to replace items.  They were on a low couple on a low income as her husband was disabled and needed care.  Their LA had just cut their uniform grant scheme.

In some cases the difficulties directly result from strict and expensive uniform policies, which directly contravene the guidelines.  For example:

A woman visited a CAB in Essex after her son was told by his school that his blazer was “illegal” because it had been bought from a shop that was not approved of by the school.  It was his first week at secondary school and he was very upset about being in trouble.  She was also worried about saying anything to the school as she didn’t want him to be victimised.

A woman in Essex had two daughters who were about to start secondary school.  The family were on a low income which was further stretched by coping with debts.  For each daughter, uniform plus the mandatory gym kit cost almost £120 and was only available from one shop in the area.  This gave her no choice in price or quality of the uniform items.  The bureau telephoned the local education authority who stated that they were unable to help but suggested that the family applied to a charity for help.

A parent in had two children at a primary school in Suffolk.  Their school was insisting that part of the school uniform could only be purchased from a specified shop.  She told the bureau that she and other parents frustrated that there was no option for them to shop around and concerned about the extra cost this incurred.

A single mother on income support had three children at one school.  Two of them needed new uniforms and, at £85 each from the approved clothier, she was unable to afford them.  She was very anxious as she had no savings and there was no help available for her from her local authority.

Surveys by a number of Citizens Advice Bureaux in the last year have found that most secondary schools require some of their uniform items to be purchased from a specialist outfitter.  Some schools show evidence of having thought about costs when introducing new items, phasing in the changes over a number of years.  One commented that they had withdrawn an expensive coat from the policy as a result of complaints.  But another was about to introduce limited requirements for skirts and coats.

The recent study by the Office of Fair Trading found that 84% of schools with a uniform policy restrict the choice of supplier for at least one item.  Compulsory items purchased from designated retailers or schools were found to be on average 23% more expensive than in uniform retailers generally, and 150% more expensive than in supermarkets.⁵

The new code presents the opportunity to ensure this guidance becomes common practice.  Paragraph 1.41 explains that ‘Governing bodies can ensure that the uniform chosen is widely available in high street shops or on the internet.’  We would like to see this paragraph strengthened to recommend that governing bodies ‘should’ ensure uniform chosen is available in high street shops or on the internet.

Schools that choose to have logos on their uniform can sell sew-on or iron-on logos separately, thereby still allowing items to be bought from high street retailers.  Use of the word ‘should’ indicates that including items not available in high streets stores is only acceptable in exceptional circumstances.  Examples of these circumstances must be listed.

We welcome the suggestion that schools can use its purchasing power to buy in bulk and pass on savings to parents.  We believe that the sentence that follows should be strengthened to say that governing bodies must not seek to raise additional funds through the sale of new school uniforms.  We cannot see what the exceptional circumstances, in this case, could be.  At the very least examples of exceptional circumstances that would permit fundraising in this way must be included in the code to ensure that any acceptance of exceptional circumstances is not abused.  

Paragraph 1.42

Help with the cost of uniform

Local authorities have discretionary powers to provide uniform grants to low-income families.  However the number of local authorities providing grants has steadily dropped in recent years.  In 2004 almost half of local authorities no longer provided any assistance.⁶  Among those that did, the average grant per child was just £51.27.  This leaves many families facing a significant shortfall between the average local authority award and the actual costs of school uniforms.  Most families can therefore no longer rely on support from their local authorise and some have no choice but to turn to charities for help.

A disabled woman on income support, housing benefit and council tax benefit was struggling to buy uniform for her child who was about to move up into secondary school.  The local authority did not have any provision to help with uniform costs and the bureau helped her apply to a local charity.  She was embarrassed to find herself unable to provide the school uniforms required by her son.

A Sussex bureau client had been given a uniform grant in September 2005, which was supposed to last two years.  The grant was worth £35, yet a blazer alone cost £65.  The local authority had since stopped providing uniform grants.  Her daughter needed new uniform but she couldn’t afford to buy it.  She was worried about getting into debt but didn’t want her daughter to be bullied or get into trouble at school for not have the right uniform.

A CAB reported a single mother with three children, aged five, 13, and 13.  Her two eldest children were about to start a new school and both needed a new uniform.  For each child the cost was £83.50.  She was on income support and could not afford this.  There were no uniform grants available to her and she was advised to apply to a local charity.  The client was very anxious about being able to afford the uniforms.

Paragraph 1.42 advises that schools that have uniforms that cost more than the ‘national average’ should have arrangements in place to ensure that no family feels unable to apply for a school on the account of their costs.  We understand that uniform policies and their associated costs are not collected by the DfES.  Therefore a reference to a ‘national average’ with no explanation of what this might be is unhelpful.  

This paragraph should instead refer to schools that because of exceptional circumstances have policies that include more expensive items, or extensive uniform and sports requirements.  Schools must have remission policies that they apply sensitively.  A school’s policy should not just be based on low income but include a discretionary element to ensure they have the flexibility to help families under exceptional pressure.  In the following case the understanding of one woman’s school was a significant help in a difficult time.

A pregnant woman with three children faced considerable difficulties after her husband left her.  They had numerous debts and she was trying to cover all the repayments on her own, as she had no address for him.  Her sons’ school had recently changed their uniform and the local authority had no grant scheme to help.  He wanted to attend the school football club, which had a membership fee and she was extremely worried that her inability to meet these costs would mean her children would lose out.  The school’s new headmaster was extremely understanding.  The school has allowed the client to re-pay the dinner money owed at £1 per month.  They also gave her second hand uniform and allowed her sons to attend the football club and music club for free.  They also told her to ignore requests for funds for trips.

It is important that remission policies and all other forms of help are clearly explained in school’s admissions literature.  The following case illustrates how although a school was able to help a parent with the full cost of her child’s uniform she had to go through several other avenues before finding this out.  Information needs to be clearly available to parents not only to avoid problems for their children in school, but also to ensure that their decisions about the school they choose are not influenced by perceptions of cost.

A woman with three dependent children sought help from a bureau in South London.  Her son had just started at the local Roman Catholic school, which had an expensive uniform that she was unable to afford from her income support.  She had made an application to the local borough for help but was refused.  She was planning on applying for a budgeting loan to meet the costs.  The adviser called the school and the school agreed to cover the full cost of the uniform for her.  

Where schools have specific team kits that have to be bought by parents in order for their children to be part of the school sports teams, the school must either meet these costs, or have sensitive remission policies applied to ensure that ability to take part in these activities is not associated with parents’ ability to pay.

A woman receiving help with debt problems from a CAB had to buy new uniform for two of her sons.  She was also worried that the cost of allowing them to join the football team and learn musical instruments would add to her debts.

In addition to remission policies we would like to see the code highlighting good practice such as holding regular uniform recycling/second-hand stalls.  This is helpful for families of all income groups regardless of cost.  These schemes should be widely advertised in the schools admissions or other literature.

School trips

Paragraphs 1.43-1.47

Whilst schools can charge board and lodging for school trips, children entitled to free school meals do not have to pay for these costs.  Schools cannot charge anyone for activities that take place mainly or wholly in school hours, however they can and do ask for voluntary contributions.  

With the average cost of a residential trip at secondary school⁷ costing well above the weekly income of a family on income support, how a school operates its charging policy is vital in determining whether children on low income families take up the opportunities to attend.  It is clear that some schools do not comply with legislation and do not make it clear that families on income support are not required to pay for trips.

A CAB in Essex advised a single mother with three children on income support.  Out of this she was repaying a social fund loan and debts to gas, electricity and water companies as well as having £2 85 a week deducted for a council tax debt.  She was struggling to buy school uniforms and PE kit for her two older children.  Her eldest was due to go on a residential school trip but she could not pay the £100+.  Although families on income support should not have to pay these costs, she had been told her child would have to stay behind.

An Oxfordshire CAB reported that one of its local schools requested £16 for a day trip with no mention of it being a voluntary contribution at all.  The letter stated that ‘cheques need to be returned…. with the attached consent form.  Please note that we are unable to take girls on this visit without the completed consent form having been returned.’ There was no mention of help with the costs.

Parents on low incomes can find themselves under considerable pressure, especially if told that the activity will not go ahead if the majority do not contribute.  Often the wording of letters home explaining a school trip and contributions requested towards the cost of the trip, although written with the best intentions, can cause concern for parents.

For example, a head teacher told a parent on a low income that a school trip might have to be cancelled if her children went for free, or else everyone else would have to pay for them.

Another CAB client living on income support was asked for £150 towards her son’s school trip to the Isle of Wight.  She managed to save £85 but was struggling to find the rest.  She was also worried that he would need a waterproof coat, a second pair of shoes and tracksuit bottoms.

An Oxfordshire bureau highlighted how another school had given three days notice for the receipt of a £30 deposit ensuring pupils inclusion in a residential trip.  Such short notice would exclude many low-income families

Schools must adopt and practice sensitive charging policies to ensure that children avoid missing out on educational opportunities presented by trips, and ensure they are not marked out as poor by having to stay at school whilst their classmates participate in a trip.  Charging policies should include model letters to make it easy for teachers to ensure that they are following the code when advising parents about trips.

Paragraph 1.43 states that schools should not imply in their prospectuses or in other documents that donations and voluntary contributions are expected.  We fail to see any circumstances in which it might be acceptable to ignore this guidance and therefore feel that this sentence should be strengthened to read ‘must not’ rather than ‘should not’.

Paragraph 1.45 states that school trips should not be described without also highlighting the voluntary nature of contributions and describing what help is available for low-income families.  CAB evidence shows that meeting the costs of trips is a very real worry to many families and including information on assistance available to meet these costs wherever trips are mentioned would remove much of the stigma associated with having to ask for help and make a real difference to these families.  We believe that the wording should be strengthened to read ‘must not’ and ‘must’ rather than ‘should not’ and ‘should’.  The actual practice of schools as well as the content of prospectuses can be important in influencing parents’ decisions when choosing a school.  Word of mouth is very important and if a school gets a reputation for arranging lots of trips without providing support for low-income families then the practice can dissuade a parent from applying.

In addition to the guidance in paragraphs 1.43-1.47 we recommend inclusion of the following:

• Schools must regularly review their schedule of trips to consider whether they offer the best value for money.  Are there cheaper, more local alternatives that meet the same educational objectives?
• Schools should provide parents with a provisional schedule in September of all the trips planned in that year, along with expected costs to allow parents to budget for the year ahead.
• Schools should know let parents know which trips are essential for the curriculum and which are recreational, and allow them to choose the ones they feel are most important.
• Schools should include as much information as possible on the above in their prospectus’ to help reassure parents that where they may have to contribute to costs they will have the opportunity to budget for them.

Schools Admissions Forums - Enforcement

The responsibility for complaining about incidences where a school deviates from the guidance should not fall solely on parents. Families on a low income are among some of the least able to make their voice heard. School’s policies should be routinely audited by the Admissions Forum to ensure that schools are not employing practices which may either exclude some parent from applying to that school for their child or which directly contravene the guidance.  The Admissions Forum must have a clear duty to ensure a school’s compliance with the code of guidance.

Admissions Forums should also ensure that where schools have relied upon “exceptional circumstances” to justify an action, the onus should be on a school to justify their choice to go against the guidance.  These instances should be monitored by the Admissions Forum to ensure that an equal policy is applied across all schools within the area and to ensure that a particular school does not consistently go against the guidance.

^{1.  Help with School Uniform Costs, Citizens Advice 2004}

^{2.  The Cost of a Free Education, Barnardos, The Bedford Charity, Child Poverty Action Group, End Child Poverty, Family Welfare Association, National Union of Teachers, One Parent Families, Save the Children and Citizens Advice, 2005, 2006}

^{3.  The cost of schooling, DFES 2004}

^{4.  Ridge, T Childhood proverty and social exclusion: from a child's prespective.  Bristol: The Policy Press (2002)}

^{5.  http://www.oft.gov.uk/News/Press+releases/2006/135-06.com}

^{6.  School uniform: Help with school uniform costs: Update, Citizens Advice (2004)}

^{7.  Cost of Schooling, DfES, 2004 found averageg cost of residential trip at secondary school was £186}