Agenda item

Councillor Dine Romero addressed the Panel, a summary of her statement is set out below.

There may not yet be a lack of school places across the whole of the Bath area, but their distribution is uneven. There is a lack of secondary school places in the SW of Bath. 

As I have stated before at other meetings, encouraging parents to choose 5 out of 7 schools only gives an illusion of choice, but does not allow for a real choice of 5 schools.

The nature of the schools in Bath does not give parents a real choice. Two schools are denominational, and at least one has an admissions criteria that makes a successful application from someone of no religion unlikely. Two schools are single sex, so automatically removes one choice for parents, one is only for children in years 10 and above. Only two are both mixed and non-denominational.

The criteria of the Bath schools means that for most parents they really only have a choice of 3 schools, 4 if you include St Mark’s.

But this also fails to take into account the arrangement between the two single sex schools, this means that a sibling will get admissions priority at the partner school.

Lumping all the secondary schools in Bath under the Greater Consortium Planning Area umbrella does not disguise the fact that the only school with capacity is St Mark’s. This school is the furthest school from children in the SW of Bath. Far away enough that some children will be entitled to free home to school transport as they are over 3 miles away. 

If you are a parent would you want your children to go to a school that is considerable far away? Although Bath is a small city it is quite a distance between St Marks and Odd Down. Far enough away that children will need to take 2 buses to and from school each day - unless they are driven. And I am sure that the Council will not want to be seen to be encouraging more journeys across town, adding to the congestion and already poor air quality. 

You may think this a minor point, but children will find it harder to participate in after school activities, and they may be actively discouraged from joining after school clubs, especially in the darker winter evenings. 

What I suggest is needed is a small change to the Schools Organisational Plan. The whole of Bath is divided into 3 non equal parts, to take into account differences in capacity, and that these 3 areas are allocated to each of the 3 co-ed, non-Catholic schools.

As is now the whole consortium area would be used to allocate places for the two single sex schools, and the Bristol diocese would continue to advise on its catchment, which is significantly larger than Bath, or Bath and NES.

Councillor Liz Hardman asked if she felt that the School Organisation Plan truly reflected reality.

Councillor Romero replied that she did not think it did.

Amanda Whitelock addressed the Panel, a summary of her statement is set out below.

She explained that her son currently attends St. Philip’s Primary School and had been allocated a place at St. Mark’s Secondary School in September having put Ralph Allen and Beechen Cliff on the application form as their first and second preferences.

She stated that it will take two buses for him to get to school and that his participation in sport and ability to spend time with his current friends will be jeopardised if he has to attend St. Mark’s.

She said she had recently heard great things about St. Mark’s but questioned why many local children still don’t choose to go there.

She stated that changes to the process must occur soon to help families in future years. She added that the current decision also affects her other son as he will also more than likely have to make the same journey.

The Chair asked what impact this has had on her son.

Amanda Whitelock replied that he is not happy as he knows that his best friends will be going to Ralph Allen and Beechen Cliff.

Councillor Liz Hardman asked if she had only applied for the two schools or used more of the available five preferences.

Amanda Whitelock replied that she did only indicate the two of Ralph Allen and Beechen Cliff as St. Gregory’s is hard to get into and she felt that St. Mark’s and Oldfield were too far away.

Councillor Hardman asked if she was fully aware of the process to choose five preferences.

Amanda Whitelock replied that she was aware of the process, but did not feel that five options were a real choice for her. She added that it would potentially cost her an extra £100 a month to send both of her children to St. Mark’s.

Councillor Peter Turner asked if there were space on the application form to state why you would like your child to attend a specific school.

Amanda Whitelock replied that yes the form does have a section where you can state your reasons in support of the application.

Councillor Matt Cochrane asked why despite the potentially difficult admissions criteria why she did not put St. Gregory’s as one of her preferences.

Amanda Whitelock replied that after visiting the school she and her son had noticed that they did not have as much science equipment as other schools and that this subject is of particular interest to her son.

The Chair asked what her status regarding schools was now.

Amanda Whitelock replied that she is on the waiting list for Beechen Cliff and Ralph Allen and awaiting the results of the second round of offers.

Councillor Will Sandry addressed the Panel, a summary of his statement is set out below.

He said that many young people in the South of Bath were facing a journey to school which will see them have to battle through a great deal of traffic and the loss of time before and after school to be with friends or participate in before or after school activities.

He stated that he was not a fan of the academisation system and that it was vital for children to go to a school as near to their home as possible.

Councillor Richard Samuel addressed the Panel, a summary of his statement is set out below.

He said that wished to focus on the issue of air quality, as this is currently high on the Council’s agenda as a high corporate priority.

He stated that he found it hard to believe that despite a third of all journeys in the City in term time are pupils being delivered either to or from school that these movements are not even considered in monitoring by the Council.

He said that he intended to speak further on this subject with Travel West as they are sponsored by the four Local Authorities as to how they can quantify transport choices for parents and look to mitigate unnecessary journeys.

He said that he would welcome information of this nature included in future editions of the Plan.

Councillor Matt Cochrane commented that he welcomed the information, but asked how this would affect the allocation process.

Councillor Samuel replied that a solution to this problem must be found, whether it be through pupils being allocated schools closer to where they live, a better public transport supply or through a ticketing system that is financially appropriate for all families across the Council.

Councillor Liz Hardman commented that the one area in which a real difference can be made is through the admission policies of the schools, but unfortunately due to academisation the Council can only challenge and have no direct impact.

Councillor Samuel stated that he believed that a solution can be found to every problem and that the Council should do as much as it can through lobbying to make a case for these policies to change.

The Chair asked if the new congestion zones would affect travel to and from schools and if he were aware of any potential charges that might be incurred.

Councillor Samuel replied that it looks inevitable that parents from certain areas will cross through different zones. He added that he was unsure of the figures involved in any potential charging process.

Councillor Peter Turner commented that discussions on admissions policies should take place with academies trusts as well as single academies.

The Chair thanked all speakers for their statements on behalf of the Panel.