LEA system works

Published Tuesday 10 July 2007 at 11:10

Can we please hold the reigns a little on Stagecoach being the voice of dancing schools? While it is a large organisation, there are around 300,000 children that do not attend one of its part-time schools. In fact, to compare a Stagecoach franchise with a performing arts school is wrong. It does fill a very important gap in the market but, like us, many dance schools operate six to seven days a week, offering classes in ballet, modern, tap, jazz, drama, singing, Greek, national, etc. Most children that attend dancing schools go through the grades, progressing year on year.

While we are happy to agree that there is some difference between some LEAs on the whole, if given the statutory 21 days required, most will grant a licence in that time. It is very rare that a licence is not granted if all the required information is given in on time. Yes, there is a lot of paperwork involved, and yes, it could be streamlined by not requesting the same information each time, within a short period, but in essence, the system does work.

In our 50-year history, we have supplied children to many production companies for various tours and/or pantomime, including the Ballets Russes, English National Ballet, Kevin Wood, Paul Elliott and a great deal to QDOS. These companies, especially QDOS, all understand the importance of child welfare and are very informed as to the requirements needed to licence children. The majority of arts schools like us build relationships with production companies and child employment officers and this is where the system works. We all talk.

I don’t know what bad experience Stagecoach and some others have had, but in our and many amateur organisations’ experience, we know and appreciate that the LEAs do have the child’s interest at heart. Whatever people want changed, a body will still need to know if a child has had too many days off school, or if that child is fit to perform. We think it does need to stay with a body who do not have a vested interest in the production, as this could lead to a great many more problems. While the present system is not perfect, and some changes do need to take place regarding streamlining, it does work, as long as sufficient time is given. Twenty one days is plenty when licensing for a stage production. Up and down the country, right now, thousands of schools will be beginning to organise licensing for the panto season ahead.

In our experience, the LEA and child employment officers do visit venues. West Sussex and Surrey, who we primarily deal with, have made great jumps in licensing chaperones and children. Chaperones are the key to making a production safe, and they have excellent back up from their issuing LEA with proper training and visits. It should not be forgotten that by leaving things in the hands of the LEAs, our children are much safer - education officers wield power.

Like we have said, it’s not a perfect system, but if used correctly and the correct and full information is provided on the licence applications, then there is no reason a LEA should not grant a license, as long as they have been given the stipulated 21 days.

Who is going to monitor the production companies if they have control? I know of an amateur production where the child employment officer with the LEA, and in working partnership with the venue, took a show off as it was clearly breaking the law by exceeding dramatically the hours the children had been rehearsing and performing on one day. Who is going to be able to do this if the granting of a licence is taken away from those that do not have a vested interest?

I know that Surrey LEA (under Ian Hart) produce an excellent guidelines book to licensing, as do others. It clearly sets out the hours and rules regarding children. Licensing a child is not rocket science. It is time consuming and would be much easier if done online with a few changes, but in essence it does work.

Jacob Woodd

Roshe School

Springfields

Newchapel Road

Lingfield

Surrey