Agenda and minutes

www.swansea.gov.uk/disclosuresofinterests

Personal interests in Item 9 (subsequently move to Item 7) was given by Councillors Mike Day, Angela O’Conner, Francisca O’Brien and Will Thomas.

None

The minutes from the Panel meetings on 20 June 2024, 19 September 2024 and 17 October 2024 were agreed as a correct record.

The letters to the Cabinet Member from the Panel meetings on 20 June 2024, 19 September 2024 and 17 October 2024 were noted by the Panel.

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.

Cllr Robert Smith (Cabinet Member Education and Learning), Helen Morgan Rees (Director of Education) and Helen Howells (Team Manager for Pupil Support)

The Head of the Vulnerable Learners Service provided a report for the Panel and attended along with the Cabinet Member Cllr Smith and the Director of Education to discuss the Panels questions.  The following issues were covered by the report:

·       Background to the issue

·       The current position

·       The Admissions Forum Review Findings

Panel Members raised the following issues/questions:

·       Why are we different from most other local authorities in relation to the points raised in the public questions.

·       How do you collect the data and ensure that it is correct reflection of the cases?

·       By not accepting this policy, you are surely increasing journey times because people are doing 2 school runs instead of instead of 1, how does that impact on the walking routes to school and environmental aims of the Council.

The questions asked in the public questions section and those raised by Councillors were address addressed as follows. 

The Panel heard that the Education Department want to offer families their first preference and do not want to separate siblings. In the response it was said, we believe our arrangements offer the best chance of the highest number of applicants achieving their first preference. We have undertaken modelling on other suggested arrangements which confirms our thinking that the current arrangements offer the best chance to families of gaining their first preference and staying with siblings. We have heard the concerns from a small number of families and we recognise admission applications can be an anxious time. Our further review and revised modelling considered these representations but the findings of these, along with our consistent (year on year) high first preference rate and very low in catchment refusal rates confirm our belief that the long standing and legally compliant arrangements are also the most equitable. The full written response has been attached to the minutes.

The Panel will summarise their views following this discussion in their letter to the Cabinet Member following this meeting.

Cllr Robert Smith (Cabinet Member Education and Learning), Helen Morgan Rees (Director of Education) and Kelly Small (Head of Education Planning and Resources)

The Head of Education Planning and Resources took the Panel through the report and highlighting and discussing the key issues with the Panel members, including

·       The background to the issue

·       Pupil Development Grant amounts and usage

·       The rollout of universal free school meals

·       The cost of the school day

·       School uniform policy and grant

The Panel raised a number of issues including:

·       What sort of sharing and learning on this is happening across the different schools in Swansea.

·       What is done to ensure those previously eligible for free schools meals are still applying, given the roll out of universal school meals, to ensure the school can claim PDG and the parents can claim school uniform grant.

·       Good report and wonderful to hear and see the impact that these things are having with children

·       How are these things linked up with other Council policies to provide for example, meals in schools holidays etc.

·       Portion size of school meals can be small.

·       Is the issue of period poverty also addressed in schools, availability of products etc.

·       Take up of universal school meals lower in some schools, what can be done about this.

A summary of the issues raised and views of the Panel will form part of the letter to the Cabinet Member following this meeting.

Cllr Robert Smith (Cabinet Member Education and Learning), Helen Morgan Rees (Director of Education) and Kate Phillips (Head of Vulnerable Learner Service)

This item was deferred for discussion at the next panel meeting on the 12 December 2024.

Cllr Robert Smith (Cabinet Member Education and Learning), Helen Morgan Rees (Director of Education) and David Bawden (Strategic Skills Co-ordinator)

The Education Strategic Skills Co-ordinator took the Panel through the report on Careers Advice in Swansea Schools including

·       The background to the issue

·       Careers advice, information and guidance in Swansea Council

·       Careers advisers

·       Business engagement advisers

·       Careers Curriculum Team

·       Engaging with parents and carers

The Panel were pleased to see good progress in this area and will put their views in a letter to the Cabinet Member.

The Work Plan was accepted by the Panel.