Members of the public are invited to put questions to the Chair and Executive Councillors on any matters within the powers and duties of the Executive, subject to the exclusions set out in the Code of Practice. (Questions must be submitted no later than 30 minutes prior to the commencement of the meeting on the card provided. These are available at the meeting. You can also submit via the Council’s website at www.stockport.gov.uk/publicquestions)
Minutes:
Members of the public were invited to put questions to the Executive on any matters within its powers and duties, subject to the exclusions set out in the Code of Practice.
Six questions were submitted relating to agenda item 13 ‘Admissions Consultation Report 2016/17’. The Executive Councillor (Lifelong Learning & Achievement) responded to the questions.
(1) The first question asked the Executive to confirm that if the interim oversubscription criteria proposed in the report were in place in 2015, no sibling in the catchment area being transferred from the Tithe Barn to St Thomas’ area would have obtained a place at Tithe Barn Primary School, and would the Executive agree that the proposed criteria was not fit for purpose?
In response it was stated that it could not be confirmed how the 2015 allocation would have been impacted by the proposals at this stage, as the allocation was not yet complete and data exchanges with other Local Authorities’ admissions teams had not yet happened. The date for primary school place offers to be sent out to parents was 16 April 2015.
The intention of the interim criteria “E” was to grant a higher priority to those parents living in an area that had been transferred to another school catchment, and not to give a guarantee of a place at their previous catchment school, as Section 2.1 of the School Admissions Code of Practice prohibits admission authorities from giving any guarantees that a preference would be met. The criteria would meet that intention and was therefore fit for that limited purpose.
(2) The second question sought clarity on the process for agreement of the proposed changes to the criteria as the closing date for consultation was Sunday 8 February 2015 and officers had stated that the revised proposal was agreed at SMT [Senior Management Team] on 9 February. Could the paper to SMT be put in the public domain and it be confirmed what date the paper was written?
In response it was stated that the revised proposals were agreed at SMT on the day after the consultation exercise ended. Officers began incorporating response data into the consultation report template from 7 a.m. on 9 February for presentation to the SMT meeting later that day.
The report was also taken to the public Admissions Forum and had therefore been put into the public domain. Details on accessing the report could be obtained from the Admissions Section. It was confirmed that a copy of the report would be provided.
(3) Question three asked:
(a) if the Executive could indicate which decisions (plural) it had relied on in addition to the Adjudication from the Office of the Schools Adjudicator dated 2013 regarding Tithe Barn Primary School, from which the quotation in paragraph 5.5 of the report was taken, relating to the disadvantage caused to parents of catchment families without a sibling outweighing the advantage to those out of catchment with siblings?
In response it was stated that the quote had been taken from the November 2013 determination of the School’s Adjudicator, however reference has also been made to Section 54 of the Office of the Schools Adjudicator’s Annual Report (published December 2014). Although this had been directed towards schools that had become their own admission authority, it was reasonable to infer that this would also apply to a Local Authority acting as an admissions authority.
(b) if the Executive could explain how it believed a decision relating to parents who have chosen a school from out of their catchment related to parents who have chosen their catchment school?
In response it was stated that should the proposal be agreed and the boundary changes be made, then parents would be making the choice to apply for a school that was no longer their catchment school.
(c) if the Executive was aware that in the quoted Adjudication, the Local Authority was criticised for carrying forward a previous Adjudication decision into future years?
In response it was stated that it was aware, and that was clear in the November 2013 adjudication that effectively overturned a previous direction from a previous adjudication made under a different Admissions Code.
(d) if the Executive was fully satisfied that the ”rationale” quoted in paragraph 5.5 in the report was relevant to the current circumstances?
In response it was stated that the rationale was relevant because the November 2013 adjudication made a decision which was binding on the Council by virtue of Section 88K of the Schools Standards and Framework Act 1998 which remained in force today.
(4) Question 4 asked:-
(a) if the Executive was aware that those parents submitting questions did not wish to have priority at two schools and instead only seek continuing priority for their current catchment school, despite the statement in the report that dual priority may arise?
In response it was stated that the proposal presented tonight did not propose placing the interim “E” category above criteria “D” so this situation should not arise.
(b) if the Executive were willing to make a minor amendment (to exclude relevant parents) to the criteria for St Thomas’ School to overcome the perceived problem?
In response it was stated that the suggested minor amendment to the St. Thomas’ oversubscription criteria would only be needed if interim criteria “E” was placed above “D” and if it were to be needed this would also impact applicants who were happy with their new catchment area school (St. Thomas’) and wished to apply for it as a catchment area applicant. The Executive would be mindful of that.
(5) The fifth question quoted the report at paragraph 5.5 that “Regardless of how many children this would apply to, it would still be viewed as giving an unfair priority to a small number of children over others living within the area, thus contravening the School Admissions Code of Practice”. The Executive was asked to indicate on which particular clause of the Code it had relied upon in making this assertion?
In response it was stated that the particular clause in question would be Section 1.8 of the School Admissions Code of Practice, but in this instance informed by the Office of the Schools Adjudicator Determination of November 2013 that out-of-catchment siblings should not disadvantage first entry catchment children. Section1.8 stated that oversubscription criteria must be reasonable, clear, objective, procedurally fair, and comply with all relevant legislation, including equalities legislation.
(6) The sixth question asked if the Executive could explain how it gets from the statement in the Office of the Schools Adjudicator Annual Summary from 16 January 2015, “the prioritisation of any non-catchment child above a catchment child essentially gives the non-catchment child a high priority at two schools” to “This unfair treatment would contravene the Admissions Code of Practice and would therefore be unlawful”? The Executive was asked to confirm how and why it considered the Office of the Schools Adjudicator’s interpretation was as per second statement.
In response it was stated that the excerpt referenced in the question had been lifted from the report out of context, however references made within the Council report never quoted verbatim the words of the Adjudicator but merely summarised her words. The statement that a situation such as this could be considered unfair and therefore in contravention of the Admissions Code of Practice was an opinion of Local Authority’s officers and ratified by the their legal advisers.