Public Petitions Committee

Meeting date: Tuesday, October 1, 2013

Official Report 477KB pdf

---

New Petition

---

Primary 1 Class Sizes and Sibling Placing Requests (PE1486)

The next item of business is consideration of PE1486, by Julie Wales. As previously agreed, the committee will take evidence from the petitioner. Members have a note by the clerk, the SPICe briefing and the petition.

I welcome the petitioner, Julie Wales. I invite her to give a short presentation of about five minutes to set the context, after which we will move to questions.

Thank you. Until the upper class limit of 25 in primary 1 was introduced, parents thought that it was an urban myth that five-year-old children could be segregated from the familiar school that their elder brothers or sisters attend. While Scotland is going forward to the historic referendum in 2014, it is ignoring the needs of five-year-olds and relying on a 33-year-old act to claim that schools or classes are too full, which impairs the family unit and sibling bonds by turning younger brothers and sisters away from their elder siblings’ school.

Primary school and effective learning need to be characterised by the findings of Maslow, whose proven research indicates that the basic human needs should be met for effective learning to take place. Primary schools in an independent Scotland should surely be a secure environment, but parents in this developed nation are being forced to consider extracting elder children and moving them to other schools, while younger siblings are displaced into alternative schools. Appeal boards pay lip service when they state that a school is too full before they turn their backs on parents, who are then forced to make repeated placing requests at two-monthly intervals while their professional lives are eroded.

Parents have to try to balance work with multiple impractical arrangements. My associate Lynne Connor, who is with me, runs between two schools that are 7 miles apart, before 9 am, to drop off two children. The irony is that, even where placing requests take cognisance of the siblings in the pipeline, nowhere does it state that the strategy of placing requests for the education of the first child in the family is high risk. Parents who struggle to deliver children safely to school before 9 am are forced into a dangerous rush against the peak-time traffic or, as an alternative, expensive private childcare, which is another hidden tax on the working population.

The cost of breakfast clubs in East Renfrewshire, at £4.95 per day, equates to a forced spend of nearly £1,000 in each academic year. After-school clubs often finish at 5.40 pm, in some cases incurring charges that can vary from £8 to £15 per session in Glasgow city. The 5.40 pm stop precipitates another rush in the rush hour when children have to be collected from multiple addresses.

As the dark mornings draw ever closer, each parent who is in this predicament is faced with the prospect of leaving youngsters alone in dark playgrounds, which is a further impediment to child safety. If the Government is committed to increasing the workforce that contributes to the country, the policy of sibling rejection goes against the direction of the target. Parents are left to struggle with in-service days that vary from school to school, parents’ nights, holidays, clashing homework burdens and so on. Historic investment in college and university education pre-parenthood becomes a waste if skills and qualifications cannot be utilised owing to this barrier, which is so rigidly held in place.

The maximum class size of 25 in primary 1 looks effective on paper. However, the National Records of Scotland states that it is not possible to calculate pupil teacher ratios for primary 1 to 3 pupils separately as it is unable to identify the proportion of time for which teachers work with P1 to P3 classes. Class size information is available for them, but it includes only the class teacher and not input that is received from other teachers such as headteachers, specialist teachers of music, physical education and so on, as it is not possible to allocate their time to a specific group. Might that data not support a movement towards flexibility on 25 as a maximum class size to assuage the possibility of sibling rejection?

There is a wealth of evidence from the UK and elsewhere that lower class sizes improve educational outcomes for children. However, the scale of the effect of a class of 25 as opposed to 30 is smaller than the effect of a class of 18. If the Government could provide resources for lower class sizes in P1, that would be far more effective.

I was forced to consider resigning from my post as a college lecturer because, having invested in childcare to the tune of as much as £1,500 per month for the past four years, I realised—I had a horrible wake-up call—that my placing request strategy had suddenly become very risky. As in most households, it is my role as the mother to deliver the children to school and I had anticipated a drop in the rate of childcare this year with one more child going to school. With the third child still costing me an average of £500 per month, I feel cold at the thought that I will have to put more money into childcare should she not get into school alongside her two sisters.

I represent a significant investment of public money given the years that I spent in education at college and university, and thousands more pounds have been invested in me as a college employee in the form of continuing professional development and training. I feel that, if my last child does not get into the school, I will have to draw the line and say, “No more”, and I cannot be alone in this situation.

The number 25, as a maximum limit for P1, restricts choice for parents and forces children to be separated. The practicalities of five-year-olds being managed into separate schools creates an enormous struggle on the ground for parents. Stressed parents result in stressed children, resulting in a negative learning experience. Flexibility on the number 25 can be supported with sustainable improved contracts for probationers, investment in information and communications technology and greater use of composite classes to improve the pupil teacher ratio significantly. Any parent would rather see a five-year-old happily settled into a class of 26 than see them forced into a separate school.

Thank you for your submission. I should also have welcomed Lynne Connor. Please feel free to intervene at any time if you wish to answer a question or just make a point. I will ask a couple of questions and I will then throw the discussion open to my colleagues.

You mentioned some statistics. According to the Scottish Government information that I was given, in 2012, most primary 1 children were in classes of between 21 and 25 pupils. Do you object to the numbers that are put forward?

I object where children who would otherwise, before now, have managed to get a place are squeezed out. The increase in the birth rate in 2008 has caused this situation. There has also been an increase in the population that is migrating to Scotland—a further 43,000 people aged between 16 and 34 came to Scotland between July 2010 and July 2011—so I only see another problem for the future. The volume of primary 1 pupils has increased but the schools have not kept up.

11:45

The statistics show that three local authorities have average P1 class sizes of between one and 18. In effect, there is a postcode lottery, which is something that the committee sees a great deal in other spheres. Do you agree that it is a bit of a lottery, given that some authorities have an issue while others do not?

Yes.

Yes. I am in the same situation just now. My daughter goes to a school in East Renfrewshire Council’s area, but when I placed a request for my son to go there, he did not get in. I am now going between two schools in the mornings, which is ridiculous—it is an absolute nightmare. Julie Wales talked about stressed kids and stressed parents—well, that is what I am.

Because of the various other factors that you have mentioned, these things sometimes take time to implement. I do not wish to defend my Government but, in 2006, 32.9 per cent of pupils were in classes of 26 or more, and that figure has now dropped to 0.9 per cent, while 15.9 per cent of pupils were in classes of one to 18, and that figure has now risen to 27.7 per cent. It is clear that you want to see another nudge, but do you think that things are moving in the right direction?

Class sizes might be moving in the right direction, but a percentage means nothing to a five-year-old who is not allowed to attend school with their bigger brother or sister.

So, is the real issue that the petition raises the placing of siblings?

Yes. In essence, it concerns the sibling’s right to attend the same school as their bigger brother or sister. I cannot imagine that the Government would publicly perform a significant U-turn on the number 25, which is why—

The Government’s objective is to get class sizes down to 18 as soon as possible, and the figures that are presented indicate that that is happening, although perhaps not as fast as we would like. I am trying to get to the real rationale behind the petition, which seems—understandably—to be the placing of siblings and the impact that that might have on sibling attendance.

Yes. Siblings are certainly the motivation for the petition.

As a parent who used the placement request system for my daughter when she went into education, I know that, due to economic and other circumstances such as childcare problems, issues sometimes arise regarding placement requests. When someone makes a placement request, the system is often perceived to be a lottery because local authorities have to make the catchment area a priority, and they will then consider placement requests beyond the catchment numbers.

The petition concerns not just placement requests, but requests that would favour applicants who already have children at a particular school, which could be to the detriment of other people with children who live in the catchment area.

You make a couple of statements in your written submission about playing around with the number 25, which is the maximum P1 class size that the Scottish Government allows. You give an example from Glasgow, where the catchment limit for a school is 50 children, which gives two classes of 25, and you suggest going for three classes of 19 because of the seven placement requests that were rejected.

You also ask why we do not just go for class sizes of more than 25 because it is an arbitrary number and changing it would not make any difference to children and how they are taught. Are you, in effect, saying that you want to turn round the perceived thinking on educational attainment and class sizes to accommodate placement requests where there are siblings in the school?

If every class was full and the opportunity did not exist to improve the pupil teacher ratio by adding another classroom to the school, I would not—if it was Battlefield primary school, where my daughter goes—like to see another P1 class being created and taught in the unsuitable environment of the dining hall. Unless considerable investment is made in the physical resources of schools, it is not possible simply to add classes. However, if there are 25 pupils in a class and one more has to be squeezed in, that additional pupil will surely not make a significant difference to the 25 pupils who are already in the class, if it has been proven that 18 is the effective number to aim for.

The issue that I am raising is that the class size—26—will be, or should be, its size throughout primary education, until the pupils go to high school.

I have in mind a question that I need to ask. What are the school rolls in the area where you live? Placement requests could result in school rolls in some areas falling dramatically and the local authority deciding to close primary schools—as Glasgow City Council did—because there is not sufficient uptake or demand in their catchment areas. Is the school to which you should send your children oversubscribed or undersubscribed? Do you know the size of classes in that school?

You are asking about the school to which I should send my children.

Yes—the designated catchment school.

My catchment school is in Dalry, which is in North Ayrshire. However, I work on the south side of Glasgow, so it is impossible for me to drop my children off at that school and get to work and to get back home in time to pick them up. It was always our intention to move house to be closer to work but, by the time my children started school, the economic climate meant that that was impossible.

I have been in the primary school in Dalry. It is a beautiful new-build school that received an excellent report from Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Education, but it is not physically possible for me to school my children there without missing out on being able to drop them off at school, pick them up, complete their homework with them et cetera. I do not know what the uptake is at the local school.

It is clear that the issue is about more than just class sizes; it is about the economic circumstances in which the petitioner finds herself and her ability to maintain her economic status. I thank the petitioner.

My question has just been asked. It was about the designated catchment school that the petitioner’s children should have gone to.

I would like us to ask the Scottish Government and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities whether they are minded to look at class sizes. I hear the petitioner’s pain—I have been there. Difficulties are being experienced, so I think that we should ask the Scottish Government and COSLA whether they are minded to look at the situation.

That is really a question for the Scottish Government. Thank you for that.

I have toured the school in Dalry. It is a nice modern facility.

I hope that this does not sound unfriendly, but I will try to get to a point at the end of it. You referred to a sibling right, but I am not sure that I recognise it as such. I have no evidence that siblings who have been educated at different schools have suffered. In fact, some parents have consciously chosen to have their children educated at different schools so that one is not bound by the reputation of the other and they can both operate individually.

I understand the desirability of sending siblings to the same school from a parental point of view, and I respect the fact that, in some families, that might be what the children would like and it proves to be of benefit to them. However, I do not know that I would accept that their not being at the same school is in some way fatal or will undermine their confidence or their education.

I think that the essential point that you are trying to make is that, with the anticipated or forecast increase in the primary 1 population, the current drive to reduce class sizes will, in the years immediately ahead of us, exacerbate the problem for siblings that you have identified. What is needed is some flexibility through this bubble to ensure that things are not totally prejudiced against siblings in the way that you think is currently the case. Is that essentially your point?

Yes. That was beautifully put. Thank you.

That has made Jackson Carlaw’s day. Lynne, do you wish to add anything?

All that I want to add is that, when my son was seen by a child psychologist about his development and his behaviour, it was suggested that it would be beneficial for him to attend the same school as his sister. He still does not understand why he is not doing that. Every day, when he goes to school, he says, “Why am I not going with Grace?” He just cannot understand it. It is difficult for me as a parent to say, “Tough luck, son. You need to go there.”

That is why I tried to say that there needs to be a degree of flexibility. Some families might take the contrary view, as I know that some siblings cannot stand the sight of each other in the room and would hate to think that they had to attend the same school. What you are saying is that the system precludes any judgment based on the appropriate need. Although the current drive is towards a perfectly desirable objective, we are in a situation where a population bubble is exacerbating the problem. I think that I understand that point.

As someone who has dealt with many requests from constituents about certain highly sought-after primary schools in my area, I know that schools in certain areas tell any parent whose child gets a place that, given the predicted rolls in two or three years’ time, there is no guarantee that any further children will be admitted. At the same time, parents who live within the catchment areas of certain schools cannot get their children into those schools because the number of placement requests that have been accepted is so high. For me, someone who lives in the catchment area should be the first priority.

I agree to a certain extent. However, if the school is so good, why can we not invest in providing a portakabin and a probationer teacher—perhaps from among the 25 per cent of probationers who did not get into work between 2011 and 2012—to bolster that fabulous school so that it continues to produce fabulous pupils and a sustainable workforce for Scotland in the long term?

One of the schools that I mentioned has so many portakabins that the playground has totally disappeared. That is because the school is so popular and there is such a big population in the local area. That school is now struggling to accept any placing requests because, for example, new houses have been built in the catchment area. There is real strife between parents who live in the area and are trying to get their children into the school and those who want a second child to attend the same school as their sibling.

That makes me wonder why the council planners did not consider that when they allowed the houses to be built. It is clear that family homes are likely to house more primary pupils, who will then be within the school’s catchment area. It does not make sense if the school has not kept up.

Most primary schools in Kirkcaldy have occupancy rates of less than 60 per cent. Many primary schools have high underoccupancy rates because of placing requests. I can see where you are coming from, but I have had to deal with both sides of the argument. In certain areas, there is real strife between parents who live in the area and those who want siblings to go to the same school.

The petition suggests that there is a fairly simple solution to the problem of the displacement of siblings in areas of high population growth, such as Falkirk and—according to our briefing—Stirling, Perth and Kinross and East Lothian. The petition asks:

“Could each council not facilitate better planning for sibling requests by requesting information about family members likely to want to join same schools in the future?”

I hope that local authorities already do that to a degree, but it strikes me that local authorities cannot plan to take into account situations such as that of Julie Wales, who commutes from Ayrshire to work in Glasgow. Local authorities cannot second-guess what will happen a few years down the line and whether there will be situations such as hers. That is just an observation.

12:00

In your experience, when a placing request has been made from outwith the area, is the decision based purely on the capacity in the school or is an informal approach taken that involves considering whether the family has other children at the school? I know that that is not necessarily in legislation, but is it a factor?

Not in my experience. I am in the enviable position that my daughter got into her school. However, there was no guarantee that my son could get in, and if I wanted my children to go to the same school, I would have to move my daughter.

So, in effect, the regulations would need to be changed to establish a statutory right for siblings to be schooled together. That is what the petition argues for. Have I understood that correctly?

Yes.

As my colleagues have no more questions for the petitioners, we will now consider our next steps. Anne McTaggart suggested that we ask the Scottish Government and COSLA for views on the petition. Do members agree to that course of action?

Our briefing refers to a Government response in March, in which it said that there would be a consultation on class sizes. It would be useful to write to the cabinet secretary to ask how the population bubble over a specific period might be accommodated in any consultation or strategy. The situation does not require additional building in the long term but, in the immediate term, it requires us to take account of a population bubble. In the light of that, it would be interesting to know what the policy is in the areas of the country where it is necessary and whether the consultation will take that into account.

I basically agree with Jackson Carlaw, but school planning and building take time and the reaction is not immediate. Given the various elements that Ms Wales introduced of increased immigration and another baby boom, as well as asking COSLA, it might be worth asking some of the city councils how they are applying their priorities and what account is taken of issues such as catchment areas and sibling representation.

I support Chic Brodie’s suggestion about writing to local authorities. Our briefing mentions a range of local authorities, from those that have the lowest average class sizes, such as East Renfrewshire Council, through to local authorities such as Glasgow City Council, which has been mentioned today. I am keen for the committee to write to a couple of local authorities to find out how they make decisions on class sizes and about potential constraints on increasing the number of classes. If memory serves me correctly, Battlefield primary school might be bursting at the seams and might have no spare capacity to actually—

There is spare capacity in the school.

It would be useful to check that out.

Another interesting point goes back to class sizes. I note that East Renfrewshire has one of the highest figures in Scotland on educational attainment in secondary school—I am sure that Jackson Carlaw, as a close follower of what happens there, will be able to confirm or deny that. It would be interesting to know whether there is a correlation between the average primary 1 class size of 15.5 and educational attainment in years 5 and 6 in secondary school because of the advantages that have been given to pupils from an early age.

That is a useful point. It might also be useful to contact a mixture of urban and rural local authorities that have lower class sizes.

One of the things that concern me—although I know that there are reasons for it—is that a parent can ask where their child is on the waiting list and receive no information. That keeps a closed lid on the matter, but it is important that there be some communication, because that could inform decisions by a family about where they stay and about their children’s education. I wish that councils would get the message that they must be much more open with information than they currently are.

Do members agree that we should continue the petition? We shall ask the Scottish Government when it expects to consult on class sizes and we shall write to COSLA and a cross-section of local authorities, as John Wilson suggested.

Members indicated agreement.

I thank our two petitioners for coming along. I know that it is always difficult to come into Parliament to give evidence, but you were both models for how that should be done, so thank you very much.

12:06 Meeting suspended.

12:07 On resuming—