Who is submitting the proposal?
|
Directorate:
|
People |
|||
|
Service Area:
|
Education Support Services |
|||
|
Name of the proposal :
|
School Admissions Consultation for 2025 - 2026 |
|||
|
Lead officer:
|
Rachelle White |
|||
|
Date assessment completed:
|
08/08/2023 |
|||
|
Names of those who contributed to the assessment : |
||||
|
Name |
Job title |
Organisation |
Area of expertise |
|
|
Rachelle White |
School Admissions Manager |
City of York Council |
Education |
|
|
Claire Roberts |
School Place Planning Officer |
City of York Council |
Education |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Step 1 – Aims and intended outcomes
|
1.1 |
What is the purpose of the proposal? Please explain your proposal in Plain English avoiding acronyms and jargon. |
|
|
To comply with School Admissions Code 2021 by consulting on the School Admission Arrangements for Admissions in 2025-2026 |
|
1.2 |
Are there any external considerations? (Legislation/government directive/codes of practice etc.) |
|
|
. School Admissions Code 2021 |
|
1.3 |
Who are the stakeholders and what are their interests? |
|
|
City of York Council – fulfilling their statutory duty to provide school places for children and young people living in York Multi Academy Trusts – also complying with School Admissions Code 2021 Other Local Authorities – ensuring school place sufficiency in particular in schools close to LA borders Families (parents & guardians, children & young people) – children and young people being allocated and attending school within the city.
|
|
1.4 |
What results/outcomes do we want to achieve and for whom? This section should explain what outcomes you want to achieve for service users, staff and/or the wider community. Demonstrate how the proposal links to the Council Plan (2019- 2023) and other corporate strategies and plans. |
|
|
The report requires the approval of the City of York Council Executive Member for Education to the changes to the admission arrangements of schools for which the City of York Council are the Admission Authority. It also seeks to make reference to any changes being made by other Admission Authorities who are responsible for the admission arrangements within their schools where City of York Council are not the Admission Authority but where City of York Council must ensure school place sufficiency to meet their statutory duty.
|
Step 2 – Gathering the information and feedback
|
2.1 |
What sources of data, evidence and consultation feedback do we have to help us understand the impact of the proposal on equality rights and human rights? Please consider a range of sources, including: consultation exercises, surveys, feedback from staff, stakeholders, participants, research reports, the views of equality groups, as well your own experience of working in this area etc. |
|
|
Source of data/supporting evidence |
Reason for using |
|
|
Survey Monkey
|
To collate consultation responses |
|
|
Pupil Forecast data
|
To show pupil forecasts to evidence possible PAN changes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Step 3 – Gaps in data and knowledge
|
3.1 |
What are the main gaps in information and understanding of the impact of your proposal? Please indicate how any gaps will be dealt with. |
|
|
Gaps in data or knowledge |
Action to deal with this |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Step 4 – Analysing the impacts or effects.
|
4.1 |
Please consider what the evidence tells you about the likely impact (positive or negative) on people sharing a protected characteristic, i.e. how significant could the impacts be if we did not make any adjustments? Remember the duty is also positive – so please identify where the proposal offers opportunities to promote equality and/or foster good relations. |
|||
|
Equality Groups and Human Rights. |
Key Findings/Impacts |
Positive (+) Negative (-) Neutral (0) |
High (H) Medium (M) Low (L) |
|
|
Age |
No impact as the admissions include school age children and also children who may have deferred |
0 |
L |
|
|
Disability
|
No impact as children with an EHCP are dealt with via SEN Team and those without are dealt with through mainstream and there is no impact |
0 |
L |
|
|
Gender
|
No impact |
0 |
L |
|
|
Gender Reassignment |
No impact |
0 |
L |
|
|
Marriage and civil partnership |
No impact |
0 |
L |
|
|
Pregnancy and maternity |
No impact |
0 |
L |
|
|
Race |
No impact |
0 |
L |
|
|
Religion and belief |
No impact |
0 |
L |
|
|
Sexual orientation |
No impact |
0 |
L |
|
|
Other Socio-economic groups including : |
Could other socio-economic groups be affected e.g. carers, ex-offenders, low incomes? |
|
||
|
Carer |
No impact |
0 |
L |
|
|
Low income groups |
No impact |
0 |
L |
|
|
Veterans, Armed Forces Community |
No impact |
0 |
L |
|
|
Other
|
No impact |
0 |
L |
|
|
Impact on human rights: |
|
|
||
|
List any human rights impacted. |
No impact |
0 |
L |
|
Use the following guidance to inform your responses:
Indicate:
- Where you think that the proposal could have a POSITIVE impact on any of the equality groups like promoting equality and equal opportunities or improving relations within equality groups
- Where you think that the proposal could have a NEGATIVE impact on any of the equality groups, i.e. it could disadvantage them
- Where you think that this proposal has a NEUTRAL effect on any of the equality groups listed below i.e. it has no effect currently on equality groups.
It is important to remember that a proposal may be highly relevant to one aspect of equality and not relevant to another.
|
High impact (The proposal or process is very equality relevant) |
There is significant potential for or evidence of adverse impact The proposal is institution wide or public facing The proposal has consequences for or affects significant numbers of people The proposal has the potential to make a significant contribution to promoting equality and the exercise of human rights.
|
|
Medium impact (The proposal or process is somewhat equality relevant) |
There is some evidence to suggest potential for or evidence of adverse impact The proposal is institution wide or across services, but mainly internal The proposal has consequences for or affects some people The proposal has the potential to make a contribution to promoting equality and the exercise of human rights
|
|
Low impact (The proposal or process might be equality relevant) |
There is little evidence to suggest that the proposal could result in adverse impact The proposal operates in a limited way The proposal has consequences for or affects few people The proposal may have the potential to contribute to promoting equality and the exercise of human rights
|
Step 5 - Mitigating adverse impacts and maximising positive impacts
|
5.1 |
Based on your findings, explain ways you plan to mitigate any unlawful prohibited conduct or unwanted adverse impact. Where positive impacts have been identified, what is been done to optimise opportunities to advance equality or foster good relations? |
|
The Admission Arrangements have a low impact as the process is fair, transparent, consistently applied and equitable for all.
|
|
Step 6 – Recommendations and conclusions of the assessment
|
6.1 |
Having considered the potential or actual impacts you should be in a position to make an informed judgement on what should be done. In all cases, document your reasoning that justifies your decision. There are four main options you can take: |
|
|
- No major change to the proposal – the EIA demonstrates the proposal is robust. There is no potential for unlawful discrimination or adverse impact and you have taken all opportunities to advance equality and foster good relations, subject to continuing monitor and review. |
||
- Adjust the proposal – the EIA identifies potential problems or missed opportunities. This involves taking steps to remove any barriers, to better advance quality or to foster good relations.
- Continue with the proposal (despite the potential for adverse impact) – you should clearly set out the justifications for doing this and how you believe the decision is compatible with our obligations under the duty
- Stop and remove the proposal – if there are adverse effects that are not justified and cannot be mitigated, you should consider stopping the proposal altogether. If a proposal leads to unlawful discrimination it should be removed or changed.
Important: If there are any adverse impacts you cannot mitigate, please provide a compelling reason in the justification column. |
||
|
Option selected |
Conclusions/justification |
|
|
- No major change to the proposal.
|
- the EIA demonstrates the proposal is robust. There is no potential for unlawful discrimination or adverse impact and you have taken all opportunities to advance equality and foster good relations, subject to continuing monitor and review. |
|
Step 7 – Summary of agreed actions resulting from the assessment
|
7.1 |
What action, by whom, will be undertaken as a result of the impact assessment. |
|||
|
Impact/issue |
Action to be taken |
Person responsible |
Timescale |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Step 8 - Monitor, review and improve
|
8. 1 |
How will the impact of your proposal be monitored and improved upon going forward? Consider how will you identify the impact of activities on protected characteristics and other marginalised groups going forward? How will any learning and enhancements be capitalised on and embedded? |
|
|
We will consider and complete an EIA for each admission consultation going forward to take into account the impact of any changes
|