A 'minorities issue'? Some reflections on Gil Sweetenham's SSA presentation to parents at Downs Junior school and on the current review.

Robert Eastwood
19 July 2006

Gil's presentation defined the problem we face in secondary admissions as a 'minorities issue' relating to 'disadvantaged areas'. The main point of this note is to argue that this: (a) is fundamentally and demonstrably wrong, (b) confuses matters in a way that risks us losing sight of a genuine minorities issue that the City should address.

What is a 'minorities issue' in the area of public policy?

I think most people use this term to imply unjustifiable discrimination in the allocation of public resources. And some discrimination is indeed, without argument, unjustifiable – racial discrimination, for instance, or discrimination against (rather than in favour of) the poor. Other discrimination is, however, justifiable. People who live in rural areas, thus further from A&E departments, are presumably at relatively high risk of death if they suffer a heart attack. But I don't think we would use the term 'minorities issue' in that context – although we might put more defibrillators in rural pubs.

So when we have a 'minorities issue', the key thing is that it is then assumed without further discussion that a policy response is needed, because the unjustifiable discrimination involved should be eliminated, by definition. So this usage, in our local situation, neatly bypasses the crux of the debate.

Is the geographical concentration of disadvantage in SSA admissions in Brighton and Hove evidence of unjustifiable discrimination?

Let's concentrate on the 101 children directed to Falmer. They are – I understand – mostly concentrated in Regency and QP. The 101 are certainly a minority and they are geographically concentrated as a result of discrimination, rather than by chance. But I think that the discrimination, as in my A&E example, is justifiable, so I therefore don't think it correct to represent this as a 'minorities issue'. Why do I think the discrimination is justifiable?

First, all will agree that it is INDIVIDUALS not AREAS that actually experience advantage or disadvantage. Neglecting (i) differences between individuals other than place of residence, and (ii) other criteria (distance, environment, walking to school, etc), it then really makes little difference which 101 individuals get directed to Falmer. In principle, it is probably better, if anything, that they should all live near one another rather than inhabiting a city-wide archipelago, but I don't want to make anything of that here. The main point is that the 101 will be (or will consider themselves, more accurately) a disadvantaged minority wherever they live and whether or not they live near other members of that minority.

So is there unjustifiable discrimination? If we neglected (i) and (ii), the answer would have to be 'yes'. Nobody could then justify a system that produced such geographical disparities. But allowing for the criteria under (ii) – but not yet for differences between individuals (see below) – changes things completely. This is because the criteria in (ii) justify discrimination. Given that before those criteria are taken into account it makes little difference which 101 are directed to Falmer, then it makes sense to devise a system to get the best outcome in terms of the criteria in (ii), perhaps by using distance as at present. And this will justifiably produce outcomes that are unequal across areas, while not – of course – changing inequality across individuals at all (you always get 101 'losers').

The 'disadvantaged area' rhetoric here is (a) powerful, because it suggests discrimination (rightly) (b) misleading, because it invites the inference that this is unjustifiable (wrongly), (c) inevitably used by councillors afraid for their seats and by self-interested residents of those areas. Council officials accordingly have a particularly strong obligation to avoid this rhetoric. But there it is, alas, in the last sentence of the public letter of June 14.

But doesn't the current system discriminate unjustifiably against the poor?

Yes, it does, and this leads us to the social justice agenda, which has been championed by Working Group member Martin Powell, in line with the advice contained in the draft 2007 Code (http://www.dfes.gov.uk/sacode/). There is a genuine 'minorities issue' relating to poverty in Brighton and Hove. And I think we all agree that it is very desirable to try to even out the percentages of kids from poor backgrounds across the schools. This (a) helps the disadvantaged kids at the schools which currently have too many such kids – perhaps at some justifiable cost to the advantaged kids, and (b) will, crucially, promote 'parity of esteem' across schools, thus getting rid of our problem over time.

So what changes should we make?

We should introduce (a) equal preference, and (b) free school meals (or working families tax credit based) banding.

Any other changes?

Unfortunately I can't say. Back in January, CFS committee recommended that alternative allocation models be simulated, so that one could see whether the outcomes generated looked reasonable. Six months on, no such simulations have appeared in the public domain. I would first simulate (a) plus (b) above, and then have the Working Group consider the results. After that, if necessary, I would look at catchments in preference to feeder schools, and forget nodes. But perhaps (a) and (b) would produce a reasonable outcome. My guess is that plenty of poor individuals in QP and Regency would get their kids into the oversubscribed schools, for instance. So maybe there is a case for allowing (a) and (b) to bed in for 3 years to see whether, indeed, there was after that still much discontent around, as Patcham and Hove Park became more popular. There is, potentially, a very good outcome along these lines. We should go for it.

Is this year's process a good one?

In many ways, yes, but the delay in producing simulations of alternative models has prevented any meaningful public consultation so far, and it is difficult to see how there will be time for any such consultation if the present timetable (CFS decision in early November) is adhered to.

Public consultation, not a referendum, is essential and we need to work out how to do it. Perhaps, after the proposals are finalized by the WG, there could be a period of, say, one month during which members of the public could submit written evidence. Then a small body of independent people could be asked to prepare a summary of this evidence for CFS.