EDUCATION chiefs will reconsider whether Renfrewshire Council’s catchment policy is fit for purpose following a controversial ballot at St Andrew’s Academy.
The high school is at capacity for pupils entering first year, meaning those who live in the catchment area but don’t attend an associated primary had their names drawn from an envelope.
Parents were furious as many children missed out and were split up from their friends or in some cases their siblings.
READ MORE: Families torn apart after Paisley St Andrew's ballot
However, Councillor Jim Paterson, convener of Education and Children’s Services Policy Board, confirmed plans to undertake an immediate review of the catchment policy, which was first approved in 2004.
At Thursday’s full council meeting, Councillor Paterson defended officers who have come under criticism recently for their handling of the situation.
He said: “I accept my part and responsibility in this process. I’ve met with parents and spoken to them. I have spoken to many on the phone, I’ve replied to many by e-mail. It fills me with no joy that this has happened.
“You can only judge a policy when it goes into use. This is the first year that I’m aware of the policy has used.
“It clearly has several failings in it, which is why we will have a review of it.
“The officers were following the policy as written, as agreed by a previous education board. They were doing their jobs.
“It wasn’t clear until we got all of the catchment requests for St Andrew’s that we were vastly oversubscribed.
“I’m happy to speak to anybody about reviewing this policy because this is a policy that will affect the whole of Renfrewshire when we review it.
READ MORE: Names of Paisley pupils to be drawn from envelope with St Andrew's Academy at capacity
“When we review the policy it will have ramifications across the whole of the local authority and we need to be mindful of that.
“When we review the policy it will be brought back to the education board where all members will be able to have their say on whether they think the new policy that we propose is fit for purpose or not. At that time we can have a fuller debate.
“I think the ballot, although unfortunate that it didn’t recognise siblings as a priority, was done in a fair and just manner as the policy was written.”
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article