Agenda item

For Members to undertake pre-decision scrutiny

Members were advised that this item would allow them to undertake a pre-decision scrutiny on a report being considered at Cabinet on 21 March 2024, which informed the Cabinet of responses received following public consultation on the Council’s School Admission Arrangements for 2025/26.

Members were reminded that the SOP Task and Finish Group considered this item in detail on 12 March 2024 and their comments and observations were set out in paragraph 10 and 11 of the scrutiny cover report.

The Cabinet Member made an opening statement followed by an introduction to the report by Richard Portas.

Cllr Merry made an opening statement in which she stated that the Council had to review its Admissions Policy annually.  During this process views were sought from headteachers, governing bodies, church representatives and neighbouring education authorities. There was also close liaison with the Admissions Forum.  The policy which had been out to consultation included references to published admission numbers and the criteria considered  when schools oversubscribed.

Members were advised that some of the changes this year included replacing a section in admissions on children with SEN, ALN and IDP, clarification on changing school during the academic year and clarification of documents in relation to a child’s change of address.  

Members were informed that the changes were relatively minor. One of the consultation responses received included a request to examine changes to catchment areas in a specific area.  The response being that this would be looked at in due course.  

Members were invited to ask questions and make comments; the discussion is summarised as follows:

The Chairperson asked questions around school choices and children going through a transition process, which could give a strong impression that this school was the one the pupil will be attending at Year 7. Officers responded that there was information on the Council’s website every year regarding the allocation of school places, a school admissions booklet and a high-profile social media campaign and other campaigns to advise parents on the process for asking for places. Parents were advised to apply for more than one school as they were not guaranteed to get a place. The reason being that numbers at schools fluctuated.  Cardiff Council was committed to that in language preferred English and Welsh as well. All schools were encouraged to operate transition activities to prepare children for the journey into high school.  Ultimately that life milestone was going to happen as a child was going to transfer from year 6 primary to year 7 secondary.  Activities involved preparing for a larger school, transition, different behaviours, different forms of support, different facilities which were all relevant to all high school transitions. There was no guarantee that children transitioned with others to the same high school.

Members sought further clarity around any requests for out of chronological age requests from parents.  Officers responded that the Council or the School could apply an offset but if the parents wished to apply for a place outside of the chronological age group of their child they would apply to the Council or could offer an alternative year group. Consultation between the school and the local authority would take place in such a case, along with the engagement of the Education Psychologists.

Members asked for clarification on the criteria for “compelling medical grounds”, especially the use of a GP’s letter. Officers responded that parents could ask a GP to send a letter containing details of ‘compelling medical grounds’ and make a statement on their behalf. The letter would need to state what the needs were and describe how a specific school could meet those needs.  However, if an applicant was to submit a letter that said very similar things as from a GP but did not meet the criteria an Appeal Panel could decide on whether the child should be admitted or not.

Members asked whether any suggested amendments made during consultation had not been included in the redraft.  Officers responded that a review of Cardiff Council’s admissions policy had taken place a couple of years ago which looked at different authorities in Wales and UK and the type of oversubscription criteria. Members were advised the report was available online.  In terms of people having more significant issues or more bold suggestions these were considered as part of that review.  It had been found that Cardiff’s admissions policy was sound.

Members asked whether declining birth rates positively impacted school admissions. Officers responded that certain schools would always be popular than other schools. In reality, Cardiff had many good schools and it was not possible to predetermine or predict what parents would want or feel was of significant importance to them. If there was a significant surplus (and there was a growing surplus in Reception classes in both Welsh Medium and English Medium) there would still be schools that were oversubscribed. It was not just a catchment related issues the rationale for choosing schools varied according to the area and the individual.

Members asked for clarity on the impact of under subscribed classes/schools.  Members were informed that there was a constant challenge where the birth rate was cyclical in nature.  Members were advised that at the moment numbers were falling in primary schools, but it was still necessary to accommodate the large numbers of pupils in secondary schools with the knowledge that the numbers would start to dip again. A large part of the school budget was specific to the numbers on the roll and with less pupils the lower the school budget was. At a certain point it became a challenge to offer the same number of facilities to a school.

Members sought clarity on catchment boundary changes (Ysgol Groes Wen as the example).  Officers responded that any changes regarding consultation on boundaries created a mixed reaction. When provision was expanded or a new school was provided a period of time was allowed to understand the demand arose in terms of informing the boundary.

RESOLVED: That the Chairperson writes to the Cabinet Member on behalf of the Committee expressing their comments and observations captured during the way forward.