Day of Shame for Sheffield City Council (Lydgate)

Yesterday (2/45/02) 27 tearful and angry parents watched an incredible event in the Council Chambers, bringing shame to our city, and highlighting the heavy handed and arrogant approach of the LEA.

These parents were given firm written and verbal promises of school places for their children at Lydgate School. Because of a major management bungle, the LEA got their numbers wrong, and this promise was broken. Instead of apologising and admitting that they "screwed up" Labour councillors have reacted insteading by heaping abuse on parents. 27 parents were told yesterday that they cannot understand English or comprehend the verbal information provided by the LEA and its representatives.

This is a massive management bungle, and an almost exact clone of the bungle only a few years ago. Unfortunately small children (aged 7) have to bear the brunt of this. We observed the spectacle of Labour councillors voting to smash these parents with small children, in an action which was as immoral as it was almost certainly illegal.

Anone who wonders why Sheffield has the problems it has, and the status it has (compared to Manchester or Leeds for example) should visit a council meeting and watch the circus. 27 parents watched with disgust while Labour councillors told crude jokes and ate sweets while dispensing their injustice.

Our Labour council do not seem to posess enough concern about just and moral principles to realise that they are cutting the ground from under their own feet. Fighting against discrimination and for the "little people" seems to be a forgotten principle of this administration. Labour cannot afford to alienate its core supporters. If our Labour Council fight against descrimination, racism and the usual evils of our society they deserve our support. But that is not what they are fighting for anymore.

Sick sick sick!!

I for one will never vote Labour again.

You have my every sympathy.

They are as laughable as ever.

(Lydgate parent of 1997)

This sounds intriguing. Not being a native Sheffielder - the way it's council works is obvisouly alien to me.

May just have to find out about these meetings.

Moon Maiden

This is a sad day for Sheffield. Councillors seem to have forgotten their role. The role of technocrats such as the LEA is to do the Councils bidding. In this case, the LEA screwed up, and parents were shafted.

Instead of seeing that the right thing was done, Labour council members concentrated instead on protecting a bungling LEA against criticism, and forgot completely about

I would guess that this issue and its aftermath are going to become a defining event for this administration. No wonder folks don't bother to vote. The anger out there amongst parents I have spoke to is intense.

Pity I missed this council meeting! From previous encounters I presume much was made of the global good of Sheffield (stuff individual people).

Right on. Thanks for the support!

ShefEd, I'm a journalist. If you can message me your contact details I might be able to help you out.

Cheers, and obviously confidentiality guaranteed.

The council has always been pro public consultation but only took notice if the outcome was what they wanted. In the 1980's they balloted all parents of school children in the city on whether to make the wearing of school uniform compulsory. The exercise must have cost a fortune and came up with an overwhelming YES vote. So what did the council do? Totally ignored the vote result and abolished school uniforms.

So nothing new here.l

While I feel for the children and parents who are in this situation sometimes it necessary to put the needs of the many before the needs of the few, unfortunately for these parents this is one of those occasions.

The truth of the matter is that it was the previous administration that fudged this issue 3 years ago.

While ever the standard number of children for the infant’s school was higher than that of the junior school it was never going to be possible to accommodate all of the children from the infant’s.

As a parent I have received prospectuses for schools and it always say a place cannot be guaranteed a child and there good reasons for that because cannot legally guarantee a place.

To just place a mobile on the site to accommodate these children would not be right for all the cities children, including the particular children concerned. The school is not built to take more children and their education and that of other children in the school would suffer. To provide extra accommodation at this school would not fair to surrounding schools which have spare places and as a consequence would suffer.

While I can understand the parents would like their children to carry on their education at what is an excellent school there are schools much closer to where many of these parents live, for example Walkley Primary which in itself is a well thought of school. And in my experience children make new friends at that age very easily and would have the advantage of living near their new friends.

Sometimes Politicians have to make hard decisions for the benefit of all and on this occasion Cllr Angela Smith has in my opinion made the correct one in dealing with this problem and sorting it out once and for all, making sure that parents in the future will not face the same problem, something that the previous Libdem Cabinet Member for Education failed to do 3 years ago. If anyone is to blame for this mess it is the Libdems for giving the impression 3 years ago that all would alright when clearly it could never be.

While that is no comfort to these parents, I would always say be careful of promises given by Politicians near elections sometimes they little more than mere words.

While I feel for the children and parents who are in this situation sometimes it necessary to put the needs of the many before the needs of the few, unfortunately for these parents this is one of those occasions.

The truth of the matter is that it was the previous administration that fudged this issue 3 years ago.

While ever the standard number of children for the infant’s school was higher than that of the junior school it was never going to be possible to accommodate all of the children from the infant’s.

As a parent I have received prospectuses for schools and it always say a place cannot be guaranteed a child and there good reasons for that because legally cannot guarantee a place.

To just place a mobile on the site to accommodate these children would not be right for all the cities children, including the particular children concerned. The school is not built to take more children and their education and that of other children in the school would suffer. To provide extra accommodation at this school would not fair to surrounding schools which have spare places and as a consequence would suffer.

While I can understand the parents would like their children to carry on their education at what is an excellent school there are schools much closer to where many of these parents live, for example Walkley Primary which in itself is a well thought of school. And in my experience children make new friends at that age very easily and would have the advantage of living near their new friends.

Sometimes Politicians have to make hard decisions for the benefit of all and on this occasion Cllr Angela Smith has in my opinion made the correct one in dealing with this problem and sorting it out once and for all, making sure that parents in the future will not face the same problem, something that the previous Libdem Cabinet Member for Education failed to do 3 years ago. If anyone is to blame for this mess it is the Libdems for giving the impression 3 years ago that all would alright when clearly it could never be.

While that is no comfort to these parents, I would always say be careful of promises given by Politicians near elections sometimes they little more than mere words.

Originally posted by "Mo"

 

The council has always been pro public consultation but only took notice if the outcome was what they wanted. In the 1980's they balloted all parents of school children in the city on whether to make the wearing of school uniform compulsory. The exercise must have cost a fortune and came up with an overwhelming YES vote. So what did the council do? Totally ignored the vote result and abolished school uniforms.

 

So nothing new here.l

Agreed - I know this isn't quite on topic, but I've seen virtually nothing of the results of the 'public consultation' that took place on Fargate last year about the proposed city centre developments. And LEAs seem to be a universal menace - they're inefficiently run and make decisions based on their own prejudices against schools.

Originally posted by "tug"

 

While I feel for the children and parents who are in this situation sometimes it necessary to put the needs of the many before the needs of the few, unfortunately for these parents this is one of those occasions.

Originally posted by "tug"

 

As a parent I have received prospectuses for schools and it always say a place cannot be guaranteed a child and there good reasons for that because legally cannot guarantee a place.

Originally posted by "tug"

 

While I can understand the parents would like their children to carry on their education at what is an excellent school there are schools much closer to where many of these parents live, for example Walkley Primary which in itself is a well thought of school. And in my experience children make new friends at that age very easily and would have the advantage of living near their new friends.

 

While that is no comfort to these parents, I would always say be careful of promises given by Labour Politicians near elections sometimes they little more than mere words.

This really isn't the point. You should consider standing as a Labour Councillor TUG. There is a FUNDAMENTAL difference between getting promised something in great detail over and over again and then not having delivery of that promise, and simply expecting something that was not promised.

These parents made detailed life-decisions based on the promises. Some chose where to live, where to place other children, and where they could afford to work. Just as a rather simple example, some are renting just outside the catchment area - had they known the promise was not going to be fulfilled they could simply have moved down the road, might have found another school from the start, or might have chosen not to live in Sheffield at all.

School prospectuses are also irrelevant - the information we were given totally over-rode any statments in any prospectus.

There is a fundamental issue of justice here, and if you believe that the good-of-the-many (and an easy ride for those paid to carry out Councils wishes) automatically takes precedence over a great injustice done to a few, then we clearly have a problem. Presumably this is the way our Labour Councillors think?

By the nature of what happened here, these parents who are being abused here are (on the whole) alraedy pretty vulnerable. Many have moved recently to Sheffield (directed to Lydgate by the LEA), quite a few do not own their own homes, are students, or have very complicated childcare arrangements which enable them to work. It also has absolutely nothing to do with the quality of individual schools.

Angela Smith is absolutely and totally wrong. Strangely enough these parents are (or at least were) almost all Labour voters (not that this is relevant either).

The other major issue is the whole way in which this was done, the reason this was done, and the timing of the deed. It is largely based on treating individual children as numbers in an accounting exercise, and I guess this drove the last minute notification of reversal of the promise.

If Angela smith had simply said "Sorry, we screwed up badly, lets work together to get this thing sorted out" it would have been a lot better. Instead the parents have been abused, have been accused of "not understanding" the very straightforward and very explicit verbal and written information we were given (how condescending!), and have not had any apology at all.

This whole story stinks, and no amount of this sort of "do the greatest good for the most people" will get around this.

I'm glad to see that a few people voted in the poll to say that "the council does not have to keep promises it makes" - this shows how far we have sunk.

Originally posted by "tug"

 

TUG Wrote: .... sometimes it necessary to put the needs of the many before the needs of the few...

So much of what you say is wrong TUG, I just don't know where to begin. This was the philosophy of Hitler.

Originally posted by "tug"

 

The truth of the matter is that it was the previous administration that fudged this issue 3 years ago.

You must be a Labour Councillor TUG. Truth indeed. That is what this whole sorry issue is about. The Liberal Democrats have at least stood by the parents, even though they were to blame in at least a small part. It is however clear who deserves the blaim for the last years of this and most importantly the entirely horrendous way in which parents have been betrayed.

Originally posted by "tug"

 

While ever the standard number of children for the infant’s school was higher than that of the junior school it was never going to be possible to accommodate all of the children from the infant’s.

Do you actually know what happened here TUG? The LEA was charged with maintaining the numbers. They didn't. - whether due to mismanagement or for reasons relating to the budget of Lydgate Infants, who knows. This is a bit like saying :

"this hospital was never designed to take 200 patients. It was never allowed to take more than 200 patients. You were the 100th patient. 250 more patients entered after you. You died. Tough."

This is such and absurd and irrelevant argument it is hard to counter.

Originally posted by "tug"

 

While that is no comfort to these parents, I would always say be careful of promises given by Politicians near elections sometimes they little more than mere words.

What truth. Why you think they lie only before elections is hard to say.