Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Mr. F. Hedge, Mrs. H. McLaughlin and Mrs. G. Atkin.

Agreed:-  That the minutes of the meeting held on 16^th November, 2006 be received as a correct record.

Martin Harrop presented a report which covered issues that had arisen as a result of the annual consultation exercise with and between schools and other LEAs.  (All admission authorities must determine their arrangements by 15^th April, 2007).  This year the information related to 2008-2009 admissions.

 

Part of the new Admissions Code meant that all Schools and Governing Bodies had to look at their admission criteria because the option of “first preference first” had been abolished.

 

In addition, the report gave an update on the outcome of the DfES’ consultation on the new Schools Admissions Code, the final version of which had now been published.

 

Annex 1 gave details of the LEA’s consultation document, which was considered by governing bodies during the Autumn Term 2006.  This had also been accessible on the Authority’s website between 1^st February and 1^st March 2007.

 

All feedback received by the Authority is summarised in Annex 2, which also included an update on the final version of the new Schools Admission Code and its main implications.

 

The situation with regard to BramleySunnyside Infant School was outlined.  Governors had requested the Authority give consideration to increasing the admission number from 80 to 90, which would be a better organisation tool in respect of infant class size legislation, and as a result of anticipated pressure from new housing.

 

Although the point about infant class size legislation is well made, the net capacity assessment would indicate a maximum possible admission number of 88 rather than 90.  The school currently has year groups of 74/76/74.  Governors had been informed that the admission number of 80 will remain in place but that the position in relation to the number of preferences will be monitored and that officers will contact the school for any potential year group of 80+ in order to ascertain whether exceeding that number would actually prejudice efficient education or not.

 

With regard to St. Bernard’s CatholicHigh School, the indicated admission number is now 158 (not 162 as stated in the report now submitted).  However, the governors wish to retain the current admission number of 140.  This can be done, subject to the publication of a notice with scope for objections to the Adjudicator.

 

The Local Admissions Forum (LAF) was reminded of its need to consider its future membership and the requirements in relation to an ‘in-year fair access protocol’ (already on the agenda for the meeting at Agenda Items 5 and 6).

 

Reference was made to recent media coverage with regard to “overcrowding” at Aston ComprehensiveSchool. 

 

A discussion also took place with regard to the potential for numbers to rise at Wath Comprehensive School in view of the extension of new housing within Dearne Valley.  Martin Harrop was asked to submit a report to the next meeting on this matter.

 

One member felt this was a particular issue in terms of future impact on communities after the planning process when problems can occur which had not  ...  view the full minutes text for item 21.

Martin Harrop reported on the Membership and Function of the Local Admissions Forum in accordance with section 85A of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 as contained in the new Admissions Code.

 

The meeting considered the appropriate Extracts from the new Admissions Code relating to:

 

-                       Statutory role of Admission Forums

-                       Ensuring fair access

-                       Reports on effectiveness of local admission arrangements

 

Attention was drawn to the sentence which stated that “Admission authorities of all maintained schools and Academies, when exercising their functions, must have regard to any advice offered by the Forum”.  It was felt this was of particular relevance given the lack of powers of LAFs.

 

Membership

 

The meeting considered a table on core membership of Admission Forums as set out in regulations, and compared this with the current membership of representative groups.

 

The new Code extends the membership beyond the core membership to all Primary and Secondary Schools.  Each representative of a school should be a head teacher, or a governor (other than one appointed to the school by the local authority who is also a member of the authority).  However, the Code does not expect every school to attend.

 

It was suggested that schools should be asked for their views on membership and attendance.  The best way forward might be to, perhaps, provide all schools with a link to agendas and minutes with a general invite to attend, but with a reminder that they are already represented through the core school group membership.

 

The core membership of Admission Forums is set out in regulations and is:-

 

Members Nominated By                                                                    Number

 

Local Authority – any representative of the Authority                 1-5

 

Schools:

Community and Voluntary Controlled                                     1-3

Foundation                                                                                          1-3

Voluntary Aided                                                                                   1-3

 

Church of England Diocesan Board                                                 1-3

 

Roman Catholic Diocese                                                                  1-3

 

Parent Governor                                                                                1-3

 

Representatives of the Local Community                                          Up to 3

 

Academies (Not applicable to Rotherham)

City Technology Colleges/Technology College (Not applicable to Rotherham)

 

The meeting confirmed the following membership in accordance with the new Admissions Code.

 

CORE MEMBERSHIP

Rotherham LEA     (3)                  

Councillor Jane Austen                     

Councillor Colin Barron

Councillor Iain St. John

                                               

CHURCH OF ENGLAND        (3)      

Mr. B. N. Sampson                

Carol Sellars                                      

Mrs. G. Atkin

 

DIOCESE OF HALLAM, RC    (3)      

Father Anthony Hayne

Clare Thorp

Mrs. H. McLaughlin

                                   

SCHOOLS -

COMMUNITY AND CONTROLLED (3)            

Mrs. I. G. Hartley

(Two vacancies)                                                                     

 

SCHOOL –

VOLUNTARY AIDED     (3)

Mr. G. Lancashire

(Two vacancies)

 

COMMUNITY REPS    (3)    

Mrs. P. Powell

Mr. F. Hedge

Mr. P. Robins

 

PARENT GOVERNOR REP (1)

Mr. M. Hall

 

Others invited to attend – Early Years Development Officer and Mr. M. A. Khan

 

Agreed:-   (1)  That with regard to the expectation placed on the Forum under the new Admissions Code, and the need to fulfil the duties of the LAF, an Annual Report be compiled and published in respect of Rotherham LAF.  A copy of the Annual Report should be sent to all schools.

 

(2)         That the extract on Membership of Admission Forums be sent to all schools and their  ...  view the full minutes text for item 22.

In response to the revised guidance contained within the DfES’ School Admissions Code of Practice, Martin Harrop submitted an extract from the new Code and Rotherham’s current ‘Hard to Place’ protocol and reported on the In-year Fair Access Protocol.

 

The In-Year Fair Access Protocols (formerly referred to as ‘hard to place pupil protocols’) exist to ensure that access to education is secured quickly for children who have no school place, and to ensure that all schools in an area admit their fair share of children with challenging behaviour. 

 

The new protocol needs to be in place by September, 2007.

 

Rotherham’s current ‘hard to place’ protocol was outlined.  It gives places quickly to secondary children who fall into specific categories and has worked well over the past two years.

 

The new In Year Fair Access protocol should now extend to all primary schools and should also make provision for all those who come in to the area outside the normal admission round.

 

One member raised an issue with regard to children coming into schools who do not speak English and the rising numbers in relation to children from Eastern Europe.  This was particularly relevant to the impact on school resources, for example, in Central Rotherham.

 

In terms of support for these children, reports were fed into Cabinet Member meetings on progress being made and arrangements in place by the LEA, and the Welcome Centre worked with LA staff and parents to enable smooth transition of children.

 

The meeting was informed of the monitoring system of these children by the LEA’s Advisory Service, and the role of The Welcome Centre.

 

Clare Thorpe reported that the Diocese of Hallam was also supporting children of asylum families in the best way possible.  A suggestion was made that the Welcome Centre may be helpful to the Diocese in this work, particularly with regard to the circulation of admission leaflets for Catholic Schools which had been  translated in Polish.  Polish families expect to pay for entry to Catholic Schools and the information explained that this was not the case in the UK.

 

Agreed:-  (1)  That Officers compile a revised protocol to send to schools for consideration and comment, and that this be submitted to the next meeting of the Local Admissions Forum. 

 

(2)  That Bev Booker be invited to attend the next meeting to outline the role of The Welcome Centre.

Martin Harrop gave a summary of responses to a consultation exercise, following receipt of a request from the Wales Primary School Governing Body to review local catchment areas.

 

The Wales Primary School Governing Body had requested a review of local catchment areas and a report was considered at a meeting of the Cabinet Member and Advisers, Children and Young People’s Services held on 23^rd January, 2007.

 

The report included the following options:

 

   1.  Make no change

   2.  Combine all of the areas and make one whole ‘shared area’

   3.  Allocate all of the addresses within the ‘shared area’ to Wales

   4.  Allocate all of the addresses within the ‘shared area’ to the two Kiveton

        schools

   5.  Divide the ‘shared area’ and draw two conjoined catchment areas

   6.  Draw two new conjoined catchment areas.

 

Consultation has now taken place and the following can be reported:

 

Local stakeholders (parents/governors – individual responses)

The overall response rate was 36%.

Of the 82 responses, 39 (47.5%) opted for no change.

There was, therefore, a small majority (43 respondents i.e 52.5%) who opted for change, but this was divided between the various options put forward in the report.

If there was to be a change, the largest number (24 respondents i.e. 29% of the total) preferred Option 3, whilst 12 (14.5%) preferred Option 2. There was only minor support for the other listed options.

 

Governing Bodies

Both the Kiveton Park Infant and the Kiveton Park Meadows Junior Schools Governing Bodies felt unable to support the report’s preferred Option 3 and both recommended Option 1(no change).

 

Comments

Generally, there was support for the concept of parental preference and the ability to ‘choose’ a school.

 

Some of the consultees offered the opinion that ‘if it ain’t broke – don’t fix it’, making reference to the fact that, currently, all preferences are satisfied. (All preferences are currently satisfied simply because both schools are undersubscribed and any change to the catchment area would have no effect in that situation).

 

Some respondents were concerned that any removal of the shared area would be detrimental to parents living in that area and, in particular, that those moving into new housing in the Kiveton Park catchment would have a higher priority for admission to those schools than those currently living in the shared area, even though they would be living further away from the schools.

 

There was also no real confirmation of the original assertion that the shared area was confusing for parents.

 

It is, perhaps, the latter two points when considered alongside the original report, that had been taken into account when making a decision on this matter.

 

The original report had suggested that Option 3 would be the most appropriate option, because it would:

 

   a)  Be a minor rather than a major change

   b)  End any confusion arising from the use of a ‘shared area’ and

   c)  Mainly reflect the current trend of parents preferences in the area.

 

Reference was made to the proposal and the fact that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 24.

Marina Jordan gave a verbal update on the current situation with regard to primary and secondary school admissions cycles for September, 2007.

 

Secondary Schools – Year 7 Admissions in September, 2007

 

The National offer date was 1^st March, 2007.  On that day there were 7 oversubscribed schools.  This was fewer than in recent years.

 

There were 509 on-line applications which equates to 16% of the cohort. 95.4% had been offered a place at the first preferred school and 98.8% of children were allocated 1^st/2^nd or 3^rd preferred school.

 

Therefore there was only a small number of children who did not get one of the preferred schools, which followed that the number of appeals had reduced compared to previous years.

 

Tom Minett gave an update on the current number of admission appeals and appeal panel meetings being processed within Committee Services.  Despite a large number of appeals for Wickersley Comprehensive, all other appeals (Wath Comprehensive/Clifton Comprehensive/St. Bernard’s Catholic High School, Wingfield Comprehensive and Oakwood Comprehensive) had reduced. Demand was not uniform across every school.

 

Marina explained how the “tie-breaker” system would operate from September 2007 and how this had affected this year’s admissions.

 

Reception/Foundation Stage 2 – September, 2007

 

There are 14 oversubscribed schools which have a waiting list.  Also, there are 4 schools which have just reached the admission number.  There were 401 online applications which equates to 13% of the cohort.  97% of first preferences were approved.

 

For admissions to separate Junior Schools in September 2007, there is only one school which is oversubscribed.  99.6% of first preferences were approved.  Four children who attend an Infant School in another Local Authority have been refused for a place and are on a waiting list.

 

Agreed:-  That the verbal reports on the current admissions cycles be received.

David Hill gave an update on the present situation with regard to the proposed closure of Rawmarsh St. Mary’s C of E School and its potential affect on other schools in the area.

 

The meeting was informed that the notice had been published and no objections had yet been received, although the closing date had not yet been reached.

 

The meeting raised questions with regard to the decision-making process and what provision was being made for the placement of school children in the event of its closure.

 

David Hill explained that a final decision would not be made until the end of June, 2007 and outlined the work being carried out with parents and pupils as part of the consultation process, in order to make the possible transition period as smooth as possible.  Existing staff would be redeployed, where possible, and were being consulted throughout the process.

Thursday, 5^th July, 2007 at 10.00 a.m.

This was scheduled for Thursday, 5^th July, 2007 at 10.00 a.m.