The number of local parents appealing against the County admissions criteria for DJ has grown rapidly and the Schools Adjudicator has decided to hold a hearing on the issue later this month.

My information is that the Adjudicator will hold public meeting at the school on Thursday 26 June at 6 pm. This is to allow parents to make representations.

If there is more information, I will post the details.

In addition, a letter has gone out today from the parent governors of Neville’s Cross Primary School drawing attention to what is going on and letting them know how to make their view known if they have not already done so.

I have been getting a lot of e-mails in the past few days over the changes that were made in April to the DJ admissions criteria (see earlier postings on the subject).

In particular, I was contacted by Vanessa Kind, a Governor of St Margaret’s Primary School, who has now arranged a meeting at St Margaret’s on Tuesday 20 May for local parents to discuss the issues.

Vanessa has allowed me to re produce the letter to parents for those who want to know about the meeting.

Over the weekend (in between marking examination papers) I hope to put together a side of A4 setting out the history of the situation and where things now stand and I will post it here.

Here are some recent photos of progress with the new DJ school building

I spoke representing the Lib Dems at a small public meeting hosted by the Public and Commercial Services union (PCS) in Shakespeare Hall yesterday evening. Alongside me was Albert Nugent, Labour Leader of Durham County Council. The Conservatives were invited but failed to send anyone.

In my speech I mentioned my opposition to Academy Schools and particularly those sponsored by the Emmanuel Schools Trust (funded by the Vardys and promoting whacko ideas about evolution).

This elicited a strange response from Albert. He agreed with me. He was also against Academy Schools.

Why strange? Because Durham County Council, led by him, has just decided to proceed with two Academy Schools and are still looking at a third!

No wonder things are going off the rails at County Hall.

The other thing I found out was that the County are in discussion with the Civil Service about using a building at Aykley Heads to deal with ID cards. The building concerned is the detached council block where the County Library Service used to be run from.

Apparently this could attract another 500 workers onto the County Hall site with who-knows-what impact on traffic and parking in local streets.

The thing that annoyed me is that my County Council division includes County Hall, yet no-one in the administration had the courtesy to let me know what was going on so that I could represent the serious and legitimate concerns that residents of North End already have about parking and transport issues.

Yet another cavalier example of how Labour deals with local people.

There was an extraordinary last-minute meeting of the County Council Cabinet this morning to decide the admissions policy for Durham Johnston, when it was agreed that the villages served by the school (Shincliffe, Bowburn, Park Hill etc.) would have ‘associated transport’ which takes them up the priority list for admissions.

As a governor of the school I have supported the wish of the governors to continue with the educational investment the school has made into those communities over 25 years or more.

As the elected representative of Neville’s Cross, however, I am very well aware that we are now returning to the arrangements pre-1995 when the admissions criteria together with the number of children involved ended up totally skewed and worked against families in my area.

Pupil numbers have declined significantly over the past decade, however, so I don’t think there will be a problem in the coming few years, but I did speak up strongly in the meeting to point out that there was a risk of the mid-1990s situation happening again in the future and if it did, then the current criteria would be untenable.

I also pointed out the anomaly that the ’siblink link’, criterion, which gives preference to brothers and sisters of children already in the school, was too weak and could give priority to families living a considerable distance away or those where the elder child had only been in the sixth form. Many other councils discount this. I did extract a promise from the meeting that this would be reviewed next year.

The next legal step is for the Council to advertise in the local press that the arrangements have been approved, then local residents have 6 weeks from the advert to object. If there are any objections, these are considered by the National Schools Adjudicator, who’s ruling is binding.

One final comment - it is now just three years since the rebuilding of Durham Johnstion was confirmed by the government (conveniently during the 2005 General Election campaign!), but it is only at the last minute that the Council has got this issue settled. Another example of how well Labour runs County Hall?

We were called to a meeting with the Director of Young People’s Services yesterday to discuss the DJ admissions situation.

The key thing that we got clear is that by the criteria that the Council use, Gilesgate Comp is closer to Shincliffe and Bowburn than Durham Johnston - not by road (see earlier posting on this) but by ‘walking route’.

It appears that walking routes allow for the use of any road and any public footpath. This means that going across country via Bent House Lane brings Gilesgate 0.36 miles closer than the Johnston. The fact that no parent with any serious consideration for the safety of their child would allow them to use that route on a dark winter afternoon is not a consideration it seems!

The rest of the discussion then revolved around bussing arrangements and the duty of the authority to provide for transport for any child whose parents selected the closest school, together with the fact that families on free school meals or family tax credit will necessarily have their transport costs covered to any school between 2 and 6 miles.

Basically the whole thing is a mess so I wait with anticipation for the Council Cabinet meeting which will make the decision (due on 14 April).

One futher thing about the meeting that I was not happy with.

It was scheduled for 10 and as we Lib Dem Councillors arrived, the local Labour members accompanied by our MP (who appears to have turned up without a direct invitation) left the Director’s office.

I told the Director and Councillor Vasey, the responsible cabinet member, that I was not impressed by there being separate meetings, especially as no-one had told me that this was the case. But that’s how things get done at County Hall.

A meeting is being held on Monday morning (31 March) with the Director of Children’s Services, Councillor Vasey (Cabinet member with the education portfolio) and several Durham City County Councillors (including yours truly) to discuss the way forward. I will report back after.

In the meantime I have been doing some research on the issue of whether Shincliffe and Bowburn are closer (by road) to the Crossgate Moor DJ site or to Gilesgate Comp.

Logically, as all shortest journeys would have to pass the junction on the A177 just along from The Rose Tree, the answer to which is the shorter will be the same for everyone irrespective of the particular house they live in.

So try the following: go to the AA journey planner web site and find the distance between DH1 2YJ (Telford Close in High Shincliffe) and DH1 4SU (Crossgate Moor DJ site) and the distance from DH1 2YJ to DH1 1HN (Gilesgate Comp).

When I did this they both came to 4.03 miles! [But please tell me if I got this wrong - although I did do it twice]

Now I have to issue a word of caution here, since the AA routes may not be the ’shortest safe route’ as defined by the County Council, but this does explain why families in both Bowburn and Shincliffe are confused and upset over the future admissions arrangements.

The current county bussing policy talks about conveying children to the closest appropriate school, and no-one at County Hall has bothered to tell people in that area which this is, even though all that has to be done is to measure the shortest difference from the junction mentioned above.

Forgive me if I go on further about this. Suppose, for the sake of argument that it turns out that Gilesgate is closer and that the County sticks to its policy as stated. Then families can still apply to DJ and may well get a place on the final distance criteria, but then they will have either to drive their children over (great for the environment!) or to pay for bus fares. Either way this disadvantages familes with fewer resources to spare.

DJ Governors repeated their view yesterday at their latest governing body meeting that they wish to maintain their commitment and association with the villages concerned, and indeed this was promised by Councillor Vasey’s Labour Cabinet predecessor in public less than nine months before approval for the new building was finally given. 

There is a way out for the Council, though. The actual admissions criteria that the Cabinet want to adopt also mentions a phrase like ‘economic efficiency’ in relation to bussing arrangements, so they have the chance to decide to retain the existing bus arrangements on economic grounds.

But this all shows how useless Labour are at getting things right. One reason this has blown up is because the local county council members have not been properly consulted as the decision making process has gone on. Now, at the eleventh hour, after a massive rumpus, at last we are.

Do they deserve to be relected in May?

Governors of DJ have just had a progress note on the new building. Apparently the high winds have slowed some things, but construction is still well on target.

Residents can also expect the Orange mast to be removed during the Easter holiday.

At the monthly Cabinet meeting at County Hall yesterday, the decision on the admissions criteria for Durham Johnston was deferred to a special meeting to be held early next month.

In a somewhat acrimonious debate, the Labour portfolio holder for Children’s Services, Claire Vasey, asked the Cabinet to make the admissions criteria the same for Durham Johnston as everywhere else.

This would mean that children living more than 2 miles away who were assigned to the school by the County bussing policy would take priority over local Neville’s Cross children living closer to the school.

I pointed out that in the mid 1990s this approach had led to a position where children living perhaps a few hundred yards from the school were in real danger of being denied a place, and that if the criteria reverted to the old ones, then there was a real risk of this happening again.

I also pointed out the the ’sibling link’ criterion which gives preference to brothers and sisters of children already in the school had also created anomalies because of the popularity and success of the DJ sixth form [Durham Johnston is in the best literal handful of true comprehensives in the country for A-level results].

There had been occasions in the past when students had come into the school just for the sixth form from up to 20 miles away and the families had then claimed priority for an eleven year old on the basis of sibling link.

This is clearly unfair to local children. The governors got a special rule inserted into the DJ criteria some years ago to prevent this, but the proposals on the table would take that protection away.

Add to the mix the fact that the Mac Williams, Labour councillor for the area covering Shincliffe and Bowburn, complained bitterly that he had not been consulted at any stage (neither had I, although I contributed to the debates on the school governing body), and the Cabinet suddenly split on the issue.

Claire Vasey was supported by the Deputy Leader Clive Robson, only for the Leader, Albert Nugent, to move that the decision be deferred for further discussion.

There was a vote and for the first time in public in my 23 years at County Hall, the ruling Labour leadership split. The vote went 7 - 3 in favour of deferring the issue for more consultation with the interested parties.

What is more, the Deputy Leader voted against the Leader!

So, if you have got this far, you will perhaps agree with me that it is a good job there are elections in 6 weeks time so we can get rid of this divided and ineffective lot.

A paper is going to the County Council Cabinet on 20 March proposing to change the admissions criteria for Durham Johnston.

Many local residents will remember the crisis around 12 years ago when children being bussed in from Bowburn and Brandon were taking priority over those living a few hundred metres from the school.

After a concerted campaign by parents, supported by me, the then Education Committee agreed to change the criteria to give priority to “pupils for whom Durham Johnston is the nearest suitable school”. Distance was measured from the closer of the Whinney Hill and Crossgate Moor sites.

This sorted the problem with most children from the villages still getting a place, but as the school is moving to a single site next year (another successful campaign) things had to be reviewed as the “closest school” for Shincliffe, for example, will no longer be Durham Johnston.

The proposal on 20 March is to revert to the previous regime where bussing arrangements take priority over sibling links with distance last.

The argument is that the criteria for all schools in the County should be the same, but I am really concerned that the problems that we had 12 years ago might return.

There is another issue to do with sibling links.

Durham Johnston has a fantastic sixth form with recent results placing it in the top handful (literally) of truly comprehensive schools in the whole of the England. Many students choose to come to its sixth form from other schools, often from a considerable distance.

The sibling link criterion means that a family living 25 miles away can get a child into the sixth form and then claim priority over a local family for a second child at age 11.

This did indeed happen a few times in the past and the governors asked for this loophole to be closed - and it was. Now it is going to be re-opened again.

Maybe falling numbers of children will mean that the risks to local families of not getting a place are very low, but we are told that the birthrate is now rising again, so the risks will also rise.

There are questions that need to be answered here. How over-subscribed is Durham Johnston? What are the risks? How have they been assessed?

Perhaps the main question is - why does it have to be “one size fits all”?