School Places (Thurrock)

Jackie Doyle-Price Excerpts

Thursday 6th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con)]

This year, all over the country there has been a shortage of primary school places. I wish to highlight the issue of pupil place provision in the Chafford Hundred area of my constituency and address the human consequences of the state failing to deliver against the legitimate expectations of parents for a local school place. Before I do, I must welcome the Minister of State, Department for Education, my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr Laws). It is his first time at the Dispatch Box for some time and I think that I speak for many hon. Friends when I say that it is good to see him back as a member of the Government.

In theory, we have a system for managing school place allocations in which parental choice is the guiding principle, but for too many parents in my constituency there is, frankly, no choice. The changing demographics of the area have led to insufficient capacity in the west of the borough, where the population is increasing, and over-provision in the east. The result is that parents, far from choosing schools, too often are expected to take what they are given, as inevitably the most popular schools are over-subscribed. This has been a particular problem in the Chafford Hundred area for a number of years.

To put the problem in context, Chafford Hundred is a settlement of modern, high-density housing that started to come together only in 1989. It is an attractive suburb, especially for families, and a self-contained community hemmed in by major roads such as the A13. It is widely accepted locally that when the modern housing was built insufficient attention was paid to ensuring satisfactory public service provision for the area. Complaints about inadequate GP provision and insufficient school places have been a common complaint ever since. This year the problem has been particularly acute.

The area’s changing demographics have been accelerated by the fact that rising property prices and inward migration have led to families occupying less space than would have been expected in the 1980s. Flats in Chafford that were intended for young single people are now occupied by families with children, which has led to increasing demand for school places. Taken together, these factors have made it a considerable challenge for the local education authority to ensure that the provision of school places keeps pace with demand.

This year the three primary schools in Chafford offered some 270 reception places between them. That number was short of the demand by 51. What has made that particularly difficult locally is the fact that many parents had no awareness of the under-provision and the news that they could not send their children to any of the three local schools that serve the suburb came as a real shock and caused considerable distress. Many of the parents have accepted the alternative places offered by the local council, but as of today there are six children without a place.

Thurrock council argues that reasonable offers of alternative places have been made to the parents. I would like to explore with the Minister what constitutes a reasonable offer. The parents object, in particular, to the fact that some of the school places they have been offered are more than 3 miles away from their home, distances that are clearly not walkable for five-year-old children. The area is also not well served by public transport. Furthermore, five of the six children had attended pre-school at the schools where they were seeking a place. Again, the parents had every expectation that their demands to stay at the schools would be met.

The parents are chastising themselves for being so naive as to assume that their children would automatically get a school place locally, but it really should not be too much to ask. All the families work hard and pay their taxes. The only things they expect from the state are to have their bins emptied, to be able to go to a local doctor and to have a school to send their children to. This seems to be one of the occasions when those who work hard, do the right thing and do their best for their families end up being poorly supported.

One of the worst outcomes is the degree to which this pits parent against parent in the scramble for a place when all are equally entitled. Indeed, one of the parents was told that the LEA cannot discriminate against people who are less articulate than they are, as if being one of the unfortunate ones who missed out on a place was not itself an injustice.

I have been impressed by the spirit that the parents have shown in continuing to press their case. Earlier this year, the children themselves went to Downing street to present a petition to the Prime Minister. The image of the children chanting “Walk to school” as they marched up Downing street will stay with me for some time. I am sad to say that the parents have largely been seen as a nuisance by the LEA and are very bruised by their attempts to press their case. They should not be made to feel that way. These people have not failed; they are victims of a failure by the state to deliver against their expectations. All they want is the best for their children, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. In failing them, the local authority should not be causing further distress.

All of us, as public servants, need to be more honest about where we fail, because we will undermine trust in politicians and the state if we are not. Good leadership is acknowledging when something has gone wrong and doing something constructive about it, not shooting the messenger and hoping they will go away. I am sorry to report that members of the council have been more interested in debating the potential replacement of the GCSE than in exploring practical responses to this problem. It is incumbent on all local councillors to realise that it is their job to ensure that the authority delivers on its obligations rather than debate matters of national policy.

For my part, I am not satisfied that the offers made by the council are reasonable given the circumstances of these children. There are very strong reasons why parents are relying on a local school place. For example, Madison Horwood has a little brother called Mason who requires regular treatment at Great Ormond Street hospital, and her mother relies on her friends and neighbours to get Madison to school while she is taking Mason to hospital. Hayden Agambar has a little brother called Tommy who is attending pre-school at one of the local schools the children wish to attend. When his mother asked the council how she could be in two places at once, she was advised that as there was no legal requirement to attend pre-school she should remove Tommy from his place. That is not an acceptable response at all.

The appeals process should overrule the LEA where there is a strong case for doing so, and understandably the parents have gone through this process, but they report to me that the system lacked integrity. For example, Hermione Williams’s paperwork was lost twice. I am also advised that Thurrock council did not run the appeals process in line with the current guidance issued in February this year. Parents are meant to be given 20 days to prepare and lodge their appeal, but they were given only 14 days. Appellants are supposed to be given 10 days’ notice of their appeal hearing, but one parent received one day’s notice. Panel members overseeing the appeals were often not presented with papers until the day of the appeal. Another parent felt that the admissions officer made comments regarding her dealings with the council that were prejudicial to her getting a fair hearing. Furthermore, the rules say that an authority should not limit the grounds for appeal, but I am advised that Thurrock council’s letter to appellants tried to imply that they could appeal in only two areas. As a result of all this, the parents do not feel that they have had a fair opportunity to appeal against the decision made by Thurrock council and believe that the process was run in a way that would have only one outcome.

In the meantime, five of the parents of these six children still have no school place. The parents are considering developing ways of home educating rather than accepting the offers made to them, which they continue to argue are unreasonable. At the same time, they are worried that removing their children from school may not be the best thing for them. They are wrestling with a very distressing conflict that I am having to witness.

In the longer term, we can deal with these problems. We obviously need additional school provision in Thurrock and in the Chafford Hundred area, and I am pleased to say that the local community has got behind a proposal for a free school. I hope that the Minister will look on that bid with sympathy when it is ultimately submitted. I think that lessons have been learned from this episode. Certainly, as the population of Thurrock grows there will be much more focus on ensuring that we have satisfactory school provision in future.

In the meantime, we have to think about these six children. We are not talking about numbers but individual people: Hayden, Ava, Hermione, Madison, Holly and James. They deserve a school place. I am not generally in favour of forcing schools to take more children against their will, but we have nine reception classes in Chafford, and I would like to make one final appeal to see whether we can make every effort to get a school place locally for these children.

I look forward to the Minister’s observations on a very unhappy episode that I know has been repeated elsewhere in the country. I also invite his observations on how LEAs should ensure that they meet their obligations under the Education Act 2011 to ensure that there is adequate provision, particularly against the backdrop of free schools. Bids for free schools will be more forthcoming in some areas of the country than in others, but local authorities still have a responsibility to make sure that there is an adequate supply of school places. I would also welcome the Minister’s observations on what he expects of local authorities when they handle an appeals process and on what constitutes a fair hearing.