HC Deb 13 March 1978 vol 946 cc75-6W
Mr. Bradley

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when she intends to make a direction to the Leicestershire Education Authority determining the secondary school to be named in the school attendance orders proposed to be made by the authority in respect of the 11 cases referred to her under Section 37(3) of the Education Act 1944.

Miss Margaret Jackson

My right hon. Friend issued her directions to the Leicestershire Education Authority on 10th March. The Department's letter to the authority is reproduced belowSir, I refer to the Authority's application to the Secretary of State for directions determining the schools to be named in the attendance orders the Authority propose to serve in respect of eleven children whose parents have all selected Soar Valley as the school they wish their child to attend. Enclosed with this letter is the Secretary of State's direction that the Soar Valley school shall be the school to be named in these attendance orders. 2. The Secretary of State has reached this decision only after careful consideration of the arguments advanced by the Authority in their letter of 11th November and in subsequent correspondence, and in meetings between officers of the Authority and of the Department. The Secretary of State wishes to stress that her decision is in no way a criticism of the Authority's policy on the admission of pupils to comprehensive schools. She did not find that the Authority had acted unreasonably when some of these cases were referred to her last year as complaints under section 68 of the Education Act 1944. She believes that in terms of sound and equitable administration the Authority are right to seek to restrict admissions to Soar Valley, and she hopes that they will continue to do so. 3. However, in considering applications under section 37(3) of the Education Act 1944 for her to determine the school to be named in school attendance orders, the Secretary of State is not able to take into account these wider considerations and has to address herself narrowly to the specific criteria laid down in the Act, in this case whether or not the attendance of the child at the school selected by the parent would involve unreasonable expense to the Authority. 4. The Authority, while asserting that the admission of these additional eleven pupils might result in expenditure over the period they were at school in excess of that which would otherwise be incurred, did not satisfy the Secretary of State that such expenditure would be incurred. Further, even if such expenditure in fact arises, she is not satisfied that it would be unreasonable having regard to the fact that the Authority were at one time prepared to admit as many as 284 children to the first year of the school, and that it has staff and accommodation for this number. In the event only 276 children were admitted in September 1977, and by January 1978 the number in the first year had fallen to 264. 5. The Secretary of State has already made clear her concern that small numbers of parents should be able to gain an advantage over other parents in pursuing the school of their choice by disrupting their children's education in breach of their statutory duty. Most parents are rightly reluctant to take such drastic steps to exploit this anomaly in the law. The Secretary of State intends to introduce legislation as soon as the parliamentary timetable allows which will correct this anomaly as part of a wider improvement in the arrangements governing the admission of pupils.

I am Sir

Your obedient Servant

S. F. Denning.