Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Mr. P. Storey, Mr. M. Robertson and Mr. G. Lancashire.

The minutes of the previous meeting of the Local Admissions Forum were accepted as a true record.

The minutes of the meeting of the School Organisation Committee, held on 20^th January, 2005, were received and their content noted.

The meeting considered the content of a letter from DfES dated 19^th May, 2005 regarding the admission arrangements for 2005/06.

As part of this year’s consultation process all voluntary aided schools had made available their admissions criteria on the internet.

The letter from DfES confirmed that, provided there were no changes to the voluntary aided admission arrangements for 2007/08, those schools did not have to go through the process of consultation this year.

In accordance with minute No. 18 of the previous meeting of the Local Admissions Forum held on 17^th March, 2005, the meeting considered the content of a draft protocol for sharing hard to place pupils.  The protocol had been drawn up following guidance from DfES and at present only applied to Secondary Schools.   The main aim of the protocol was to give a more equal distribution of these pupils to Secondary Schools. 

The document included an Appendix relating to a Rotherham Secondary School’s approach to the reintegration of permanently excluded pupils and the arrangement for managed moves, whereby a child who may be in danger of being permanently excluded is offered a trial reintegration programme into a receiving school. The system on Managed Moves was already in place (agreed in 2002) and the Acting Head of Inclusion Support Services has been requested to provide a progress report.

The draft protocol was to be considered by Secondary Head Teachers at a meeting to be held on 6^th October, 2005 who would then need to sign up to this document.

There appeared to be very little problem in Rotherham but there are cases each year where pupils either cannot get into schools quickly and come to appeal, or as had happened in several other Authorities, where lots of schools are full, and children  who are hard to place were being placed in schools with surplus places.  These could be vulnerable children or children with challenging behaviour. which could add to the problems at those schools.

The LEA had an existing policy for children in public care and those who had been permanently excluded and it was believed there would not be too many additional children affected by it, but it did mean that some vulnerable children may get into a school quicker than they would have done before.

The meeting expressed some minor concerns regarding the policy and raised the following issues:-

(1)        The possible reorganisation of classes as a result of additional pupils being          taken on roll.

(2)               The financial implications for schools – do these children bring resources with them?

(3)               What constituted a “full” school?

The meeting was informed that some of these children were presently gaining a place at the appeal stage.  These children were in the transfer groups.

Although DfES had asked that the number of previously permanently excluded pupils should not be allowed to exceed a percentage of the total number of pupils in the year group as a result of this protocol, they had not given an indication of what that figure might be.  This would also be discussed at the Secondary Head Teachers’ meeting.

Advice was given regarding what could happen if the Secondary Head Teachers disagreed with the protocol. The policy could be amended or the DfES could impose a policy on the LEA.

Agreed:-  That, whilst some Members of the Local Admissions Forum had reservations, the draft policy be agreed, subject to the agreement of Secondary Heads and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 24.

The meeting was informed that the co-ordinated admission arrangements for admission to schools 2005/06 had worked extremely well.

Communication with other admission Authorities had been excellent and everyone had cooperated very well.

Information from Rotherham’s Aided Schools had been very good and very few problems had arisen.

One of the main differences for the LEA and parents, as part of the new arrangement, is the equal preference system.  This had meant, for example, that if a parent had applied for three schools and one was a catchment school, they would at least have been guaranteed the catchment school.

The following figures were given:-

Reception/Foundation Stage 2

7 primary schools were oversubscribed and had waiting lists

2 others had reached the Published Admission Number exactly

Y2/3 Transfers

2 schools were oversubscribed and had waiting lists

One other school had reached the Published Admission Number exactly

Y6/7 Transfers

10 out of the 16 secondary schools were oversubscribed with waiting lists

The number of on-line applications received was:-

44 Reception/Foundation Stage 2

2 for Y2/3

24 for Y6/7

The number of children whose parents had not expressed a preference by 1^st July, 2005 was:

11 for Reception/Foundation Stage 2

3 for Y2/3

4 for Y6/7

In accordance with the co-ordinated scheme, on 1^st July, the LEA allocated a place at a school for these children.

For admissions in 2006/07 the secondary booklet was issued on 1^st July, 2005.  To date the LEA has received 34 online applications.

The reception figure was slightly higher but this was due to the fact that details for children due to start in reception/Foundation Stage 2 were received quite early but, in some cases, were more difficult to trace if they moved out of the area.  Any child not receiving education would be referred to the Education Welfare Service in September.

There seemed to have been less parents changing their minds later on in the process because they had been offered a high ranking preference, in particular with one Secondary School bordering with Barnsley.

There had been fewer appeals, particularly by Y6/7 pupils in comparison to previous years. 

There are still a great deal of transfers, and waiting lists appear to be shorter.  People had been placed on the waiting list mainly for higher ranked preferences.

With Primary Schools, one or two Aided Schools had experienced slight difficulties with ranking applications but had worked very well with the LEA in terms of expectations from them to comply with the LEA’s computer system and ranking.

One particular problem regarding a school’s admission criteria on baptism had been sorted out for next year.

Rotherham LEA had built up trust with other admission Authorities which had been a major feature of the work, with everyone working together to achieve results.

Agreed:-  That, on behalf of the Local Admissions Forum, the Admissions staff of the LEA be congratulated for their hard work and the smooth running of this year’s admission process given the new co-ordinated  ...  view the full minutes text for item 25.

The meeting was informed of the new co-ordinated admission arrangements with Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire Authorities which starts next year.

The national offer day is 1^st March, 2006 so everyone will work towards that date.

There had been some children who had been offered two schools, one in Rotherham and one in Derbyshire for 2005/06.  The difference in none co-ordination had been obvious this year, particularly for secondary schools, where two systems had been operating.

This means that for all neighbouring applications, from next year there will only be one offer of a school place.

The Secondary Booklet for children entering Secondary Schools 2006/07 has been sent to parents and some applications had already been received.  Information was also on the internet and already 34 online applications had been received from 1^st July, 2005.  This was very good compared to the fact there had only been 24 applications during the whole of last year.

The Primary Booklet will be issued on the 30^th September, 2005.  E-Government targets regarding online admissions have been set.  Parents are being advised regarding the online facility and Admissions staff are undergoing further training in computer skills.  One feature of the online system, and an encouragement to parents, was the fact that applications were acknowledged electronically.  Some parents had applied online and had also submitted a hard copy application.

The meeting pointed out that not all pupils and families had computers.  It was clarified that information regarding the use of computers in schools and libraries was being sent to parents.  The take up of online services was improving each year.

In accordance with the annual consultation process on the LEA’s admission to schools policy/co-ordinated schemes for the admission year 2007/08, the meeting considered a report regarding two possible changes.

The report had been considered by the Cabinet Member, Lifelong Learning on 12^th July, 2005.

The changes are as follows:-

(1)               Following sight of a number of decisions made by the Adjudicator, it has become clear that the admission of pupils in public care should appear as the first criteria.  It would be preferable to make clear, before the list of criteria, that children with statements of SEN will gain a place at the school named in the statement and that the admission will be agreed through the statementing process.

(2)               The admissions criteria (down to ‘children who live nearest to the school’), have no tie breaker and places are normally allocated up to that point even where the admission number is exceeded.  This guarantees a place, for instance, at the catchment area school, if a preference for that school is made by the closing date.  This can cause problems, particularly in Key Stage 1 where class sizes are an issue, but, in many cases, the LEA can anticipate this and plan accordingly.

                  A greater problem exists, however, where there are a number of late applications, which miss the deadline, but can still be dealt with by the appropriate allocation date.  If the admission number is close to being reached before the late applications are considered and then the late applications contain a number of catchment area preferences, there is currently no option other than to agree all of those preferences.  A tie-breaker, based on distance, could alleviate this problem.

For parents applying on time for catchment schools they will still be successful.

The tie-breaker may not have to be used very much but it was in line with that used by many other Authorities.

The meeting raised the following questions:-

-                      How did the change in SEN criteria affect transfers?

Transfers were always considered as individual applications.  The main question posed in a transfer situation was whether the school was full or not.  In the case of a child with a Statement of SEN, the school would be contacted about accommodating that child before the school is named in the statement.

-                      Would an extra-district child who applies on time be given a place over a catchment child in a situation where their application was late?

This could be the case.  It is clear from previous judgements that the LEA must allocate to any child in accordance with the admission criteria and within the terms of the co-ordinated scheme.

The LEA worked very hard to send out reminder letters to parents, the first letter advising parents to apply being sent in July rather than September. 

In view of (1) above, Voluntary Aided Schools may wish to re-examine their admissions criteria in future years.

The meeting was informed of admission policies at neighbouring authorities and the fact that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 27.

The meeting was informed that there were no proposed changes to the co-ordinated schemes for 2007/08.

This information would be included in the consultation document to all Schools.

It was agreed that the next two meetings be held as follows:-

Thursday, 17^th November, 2005 at 9.30 a.m.

(Please note this is a provisional booking and may not be necessary).

Thursday, 23^rd March, 2006 at 9.30 a.m.