Lessons to be learned from school places row

IT'S an estate agent's dream. A family house in pleasant area, near to a primary school.

But after contracts are signed the family find that the school is full in all year groups and there is no room for their children.

Multiply that by 30 or 50 when a new estate is built and the dream becomes a nightmare.

In the meantime, in the town centre in a 100-year old school, staff and governors are struggling with falling numbers of pupils, which means less money and consequently fewer teachers. Parents worry and move their children.

This is a consequence not of one school being better than the other but of the shift of population from towns to suburbs and country areas. Taken to extreme, in fact, neither school would be able to offer children the best education and both would find that they had to mix age groups more and more.

For a parent, finding the right school for their child is paramount. For many the "right" primary school will be the nearest. The little ones will feel better if they are in a familiar area. They may well have been to pre-school with fellow pupils and, perhaps most importantly, they can play with them in the evenings, at weekends and during the school holidays. So when you hear that your child cannot be admitted to the school just across the road you are understandably devastated. The next school, a mile down the road, suddenly seems alien, unfriendly and totally inaccessible.

Somebody is obviously to blame and, even though you have the right to appeal for a place, you are convinced that the local education authority just hasn't done its sums.

Given this scenario which unfortunately happens all too often as families move around the county, it is not surprising that people find it hard to believe that there is actually an over-provision of primary school places in Lancashire.

Despite the predictions of a baby boom for the Millennium, there are clear indications that during the next few years the trend will continue downwards. In fact, by the year 2003 we are likely to have 94,000 children in our primary schools compared to the present 102,000.

As we have space for 107,000 children, that would mean more than a 10th of primary school places would be vacant.

That is why the School Organisation Plan, which is currently out for consultation, suggests that primary places could be reduced by 5,000 in four years' time.

Given the statistics, it seems to me entirely reasonable that the education authority should look at whether we ought to remove less than half of the surplus places.

This is not an "all or nothing target." Our first concern must always be to give each pupil the best chance to achieve his or her potential. That is why I welcome the government initiative to reduce class sizes for infants and hope we are able to carry it through into junior age groups as the children move through our schools. I understand that people find it difficult to equate the reduction of class sizes with taking out spare places. During this year we will be adding 61 classrooms to schools to help them arrange their classes appropriately.

With this, and the extra money for teaching, we are very confident that almost 100 per cent of our schools will have their infant pupils in classes of fewer than 30 by September next year - a full year ahead of the target date.

The two aims, in fact, can run together very well. An easy example is that of two small schools, both with empty places, serving the same catchment area. Because neither has a full intake they both have mixed aged classes with all the difficulties that can create for teachers.

Amalgamating them can create a viable one-form entry school. Its income (based on pupil numbers) is the same as the total of the two small schools but there is only one management team and one set of building costs to pay. In other words, there is more money for teaching and no mixed ages in classes.

In East Lancashire I know of another very good example. Two schools serve a popular and growing part of the district. They are both highly regarded by parents and there is pressure for places at both.

As part of the class size strategy, one school has reduced its intake to 30 from 35 while the other is able to move more quickly to two forms of entry from its previous one and a half

The fact that the nearby school is full will enable us to bid for extra buildings at this school and all the parents in the area can gain a place for their children.

Despite the publicity given each year to families who are devastated by not getting their child into the school they prefer, we do try very hard to make the process of placing children as easy as possible.

Well over 90 per cent of children get the school that was their first preference and, at primary level, the majority of those who go to the independent appeals panel win their case. At secondary level the picture is more difficult in some areas. Parents have a different view of what they want from a school. At high school level the dreaded league tables, the school's facilities, children's friendships, fear of bullying and many other criteria enter the equation.

I have great sympathy with parents at this stage. Again, the vast majority of children are admitted to the school that they placed first on the form. However, every year we find parents who have put three popular schools down are allocated a different one altogether and do not understand why. Sometimes, if they had just changed the order of first and second preferences they would have got something more acceptable to them.

Of course, we are not the only admissions authority. Church-aided schools have always had their own criteria, as have the grant-maintained schools. Neighbouring authorities and the independent sector can each pull youngsters out of the county in differing numbers each year.

We have one secondary school where more than half the pupils come from outside the county. If next year parents decided to opt for their local school within their own town there would be a massive effect for our school.

The School Organisation Plan shows that we will need all our secondary places for the next few years as the current levels of primary children move through the system.

But, as a local authority, we recognise that the places are not always in the schools where people most want them. Schools do not have elastic walls and temporary classrooms do not increase the size of halls, gyms or dining rooms. Also, in order to increase the size of a school we have to prove there are no places within a three-mile radius. So what can parents do to make the whole business easier? Firstly, people have to recognise that whichever politician talked about "choice" misled a lot of families. As parents we can express a preference for a school and the education authority and school will endeavour to meet the request.

But if the preferred school is popular and over-subscribed and you live a long way from it, then you may not have a realistic chance.

So I would advise talking to the relevant headteachers if you are doubtful about your chances of getting a place. Look carefully at all the options and remember that league tables can be flawed.

The best school for your child is the one where they feel happy and supported and you feel welcome and part of the team. In the meantime, please ask to see the School Organisation Plan at your local school or library. It's about our children's future and we welcome your views.

Converted for the new archive on 14 July 2000. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.