Issue - meetings

Questions can be submitted in writing to Scrutiny scrutiny@swansea.gov.uk up until noon on the working day prior to the meeting. Written questions take precedence. Public may attend and ask questions in person if time allows. Questions must relate to items on the open part of the agenda and will be dealt with in a 10 minute period.

Questions can be submitted in writing to Scrutiny scrutiny@swansea.gov.uk up until noon on the working day prior to the meeting. Written questions take precedence. Public may attend and ask questions in person if time allows. Questions must relate to items on the open part of the agenda and will be dealt with in a 10 minute period.

Questions can be submitted in writing to Scrutiny scrutiny@swansea.gov.uk up until noon on the working day prior to the meeting. Written questions take precedence. Public may attend and ask questions in person if time allows. Questions must relate to items on the open part of the agenda and will be dealt with in a 10 minute period.

Questions can be submitted in writing to Scrutiny scrutiny@swansea.gov.uk up until noon on the working day prior to the meeting. Written questions take precedence. Public may attend and ask questions in person if time allows. Questions must relate to items on the open part of the agenda and will be dealt with in a 10 minute period.

No public question were received.

Questions can be submitted in writing to Scrutiny scrutiny@swansea.gov.uk up until noon on the working day prior to the meeting. Written questions take precedence. Public may attend and ask questions in person if time allows. Questions must relate to items on the open part of the agenda and will be dealt with in a 10 minute period.

Public questions were received for Item 9 (subsequently moved to Item 7) relating to the Schools Admissions Policy.  These questions asked were as follows:

·       The data suggests that cases of over-subscription do occur, and we accept the fact that that there will be some children who will not be granted their preferred school choice. Until this fact can be rectified should consideration not be made to minimise the negative impact upon children and families who are affected by this?    Assuming that is the wish of the Education Department, it is vital to recognise that their report and recommendations give no mention or consideration to the children most negatively affected by the current policy, and that is the elder siblings already in attendance at the school.  When a second sibling is denied a place at a school the family has two options:

1.        To separate siblings and send them to different schools.  Having two or more children of primary age at different schools which start and finish at the same time is completely impractical.  It negatively impacts education by lateness and places huge stresses on family life and finances.  It divides families and prevents siblings having a shared education journey. 

2.        To disrupt the elder child’s education by changing schools.  This is potentially very distressing and damaging for that child’s welfare, mental health and education.  

This disruption is completely unnecessary and avoidable.  There is a simple, fair and easily applied alternative policy available as proposed by the Education Department report itself and as is used in all other 20 Welsh Local Authorities (Swansea and Neath are the exception) and every single one of the 317 English Local Authorities.  This policy would have an over-subscription criterion which ranks children living in catchment AND already have a sibling in attendance, higher than children who live in catchment with no sibling in attendance.  This policy would have the following benefits:

1.        It would be significantly less damaging to those who are affected.  As mentioned it is the eldest sibling who is at risk of being disrupted and distressed by being forced to move schools.  If only the eldest child is affected then they are not settled in a school and not at risk of such negative consequences, and any subsequent siblings would be protected to attend the same school by the change in policy.

2.        It would negatively impact less children overall – as mentioned the Education Department figures do not include the elder siblings affected by the current policy, so the figures quoted of children affected are actually at least double than that stated.  The proposed policy would by definition only affect the eldest child of any family and so the current figure quoted would be correct, and by definition affect less than half the number of children overall.

3.        It would be welcomed by the stakeholders of Swansea.  This policy is not controversial and there are no negative effects on the families of Swansea by its implementation.  Every parent would agree that if you live in catchment and your first child is offered a place at a school, then providing you remain in catchment then subsequent siblings should have the right to attend the same school as their sibling.  The Education Department have argued that it would result in children living closer to the school being declined a place.  However, it is important to appreciate that this is only applied to children who live within catchment, and the difference in distance these families live from the schools is in the order of 10’s of metres, not large distances by definition of living in the catchment area.  The Education Department also mention that it could lead to vulnerable children being excluded.  However, there is no reason that vulnerable children would be any more affected by this policy change than the current policy, they are equally likely to benefit from it if they have a sibling at the school.  This claim by the Education Department is unsubstantiated and there is no group of children that will be adversely affected by this change in policy.

I also believe there is an unfairness in the policy that has not been addressed.  This is that in the current policy, if over-subscription criteria got as far as considering families living outside of catchment, then sibling attendance would then take priority over other families without a sibling regardless of distance from school.  However, when all applications are from within catchment, sibling attendance is irrelevant, and distance alone is used as a tiebreaker.  This is clear evidence that the prioritisation of siblings is possible in the policy and a major discrepancy between how families living outside of catchment and those within catchment are treated when places are allocated.  When all applications are from within catchment it is simply a case of whoever lives closest, and sibling attendance is irrelevant. 

The data suggests that cases of over-subscription do occur and so there will always be some children who will not be granted their first choice of school.  Until this can be rectified should efforts not be made to minimise the number of children this affects and reduce the negative impact upon those children who are affected?  If so, then is the negative impact on the family who already have an elder child settled at the school not significantly more than that of the family with no pre-existing ties to the school?  That family has the option to either separate their children or cause huge disruption and distress to their eldest child by moving school.   

·       When considering the children and taking a common-sense, family orientated approach, do you not agree that if a family lives in catchment of a school and their eldest child is offered a place, then providing they remain living in catchment, subsequent siblings should be given priority to also attend the same school? This would keep the family unit together and prevent the unnecessary movement (and distress this causes) of children between schools. This does not seem an unreasonable request and is all that we are asking the Panel to consider.