Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Malcolm Robertson, Ann Winfield, Councillor Austen, Kabir Hussain and Shabana Ahmed.

Resolved:-  That the minutes of the previous meeting held on 30^th September, 2004 be received as a correct record.

Membership/Resignations/Terms of Reference

Discussion took place on the membership of the Committee.

The Secretary reported a lack of response to a recent advertisement placed in the Governors Newsletter for representatives to substitute on some of the Schools’ Groups and for a Special Schools representative.

Resolved:- (1)   That the Strategic Leader School Improvement be asked to raise this matter at the next Chair and Vice-Chairs meeting of Governing Bodies.

(2)  That the Secretary pursue whether the Rotherham Association of School Governors have yet appointed a Chair and, if so, liaise with him/her on this matter.

The minutes of the meeting of the above Committee were received and the content noted.

(a)        Co-ordinated Admission Arrangements

The meeting was informed that the new co-ordinated admission arrangements were presently working reasonably well.

An update report on this matter would be submitted to the next meeting of the Local Admissions Forum.

A discussion took place on the content of the booklet and in particular the amount of information for parents to absorb.  It was noted that a two page summary was made available which furnished parents with sufficient information to enable them to complete the application form. 

Parents were asked to complete a questionnaire on completion of the booklet and this was measured as a Performance Indicator within Education, Culture and Leisure Services.

Current feedback has indicated that the majority of parents are of the opinion that the booklet is clear or very clear.  More up to date information on this issue would be reported to the next meeting of the Local Admissions Forum.

A very small number of parents who had failed to return an admission form, were sent a follow up letter and help was offered to families through the Welfare Service.

A great deal of effort was taking place this year, through Schools or other Agencies, to encourage parents to complete forms on time.

A debate took place on the issue of interpreters and the presentation of written information, it being pointed out that approximately fifty-seven languages were now spoken in schools. 

In general, problems due to a lack of English did not seem to be apparent at Admissions Appeals.

It was pointed out that the LEA made use of the language library and the Welcome Centre as a point of contact for parents.

(b)                Admissions Consultation 2006/07

It was reported that a great deal of work had taken place to ensure the admissions criteria for Church Aided Schools had been placed on the Council’s web site by the deadline of 18^th January, 2005.

The site also included information on the co-ordinated schemes for Primary and Secondary and admissions criteria and numbers for all community and controlled schools, and those of individual Church Aided Schools

Agreed:-  That a suitable press release be issued raising awareness of the availability of the on-line consultation and preference forms, and the timetable for the current admissions round.

Further to Minute No. 8 of the previous meeting of this Committee held on 30^th September, 2004, consideration was given to the information received on the reclassification of Rural/Urban Areas, carried out by the Office for National Statistics on areas within Rotherham.

This information can now be used by the School Organisation Committee if faced with any proposal for closure, as suggested in the DfES’ recently revised guidance on such matters.

Overall, 52.7% of the Rotherham area is classed as rural and that area contains 12.38% of the population.

The following schools actually situated within the areas classed as rural in Rotherham are:-

Primary

Aston Fence

Harthill

KivetonPark Inf.

KivetonPark Meadows Jnr.

Laughton

Laughton C.E.

Thorpe Hesley Inf.

Thorpe Hesley Jnr.

Thrybergh Fullerton CE

Thurcroft Inf.

ThurcroftJnr.

Todwick

Treeton C.E.

Wales

Wentworth C.E.

Woodsetts                              (16 schools)

Secondary

Wales High                             (1 school)

Special

Green Arbour                          (1 school)

A total of 18 schools, which is 13.9% of Rotherham’s total of Primary, Secondary and Special Schools.

In the absence of further guidance from DfES, the point was made that it remained the responsibility of the School Organisation Committee to determine what a rural school was when considering individual proposals.  Obvious considerations when deciding any proposed closure of a rural school would be transport and sustainability issues, as well as the issues relating to education standards.

The main aspect of DfES guidance is a general presumption not to close a rural school.  This did not mean, however, that no rural school would ever close.

Following earlier consultation, the above Regulations were laid before Parliament on 25^th November, 2004.

The meeting was reminded of a previous discussion at SOC which related to a proposal to amend the Education (School Organisation Committees)(England) Regulations 1999.  This specifically concerned the make-up of the schools group and the addition of a nursery schools representative.

The wording of the proposals in the consultation documentation seemed to be confusing and, in places, contradictory.

DfES had now taken into consideration the views of Rotherham LEA and, as a result, removed the contradiction of nursery representatives when nursery schools are less than 5% of the pupil population.

The provision relating to the addition of a nursery representative will come into effect on 1^st February, 2005, and, although the wording is now clear, the position in Rotherham needs to be clarified.

The position in terms of the membership of the schools group is as follows:-

The number of members must be at least 1 and no more than 7, except that in some instances the membership may have to exceed 7 in order to comply with the provisions contained within the Schedule to the1999 Regulations (N.B. the latter does not apply in Rotherham).

When setting up the schools group in Rotherham, the LEA had decided to appoint 7 members even though the minimum number required (by reference to the Schedule) would have been just 3 (i.e. 1 Primary, 1 Secondary and 1 Special).   This had been in order to give a broader cross-section of views.

The minimum required under the new Regulations is 4 (same as above, plus the new Nursery representative).

Rotherham’s current membership is as follows:-

                                                1 Secondary (11-16)

                                                1 Secondary (11-19)

                                                2 Primary (J & I/Primary)

                                                1 Primary (Infant)

                                                1 Primary (Junior)

                                                1 Special

The addition of a Nursery representative has the potential to increase the membership to 8 which would not be possible under the Regulations.  Currently, however, the 11-16 schools representative (Mr. Alan Walker) is also a member of the Governing Body for the Arnold Centre and, therefore, can represent both.  This would leave the number of members at 7.

The meeting was asked to consider whether this is the best way forward despite the fact that Mr. Walker has not been elected as a Nursery representative. 

If it is believed to be the best way forward, the question posed for this meeting was what did SOC think the make-up of the group should be, in the event of Mr. Walker ceasing to be a member of SOC in the future?

In the case of Rotherham it would be a representative for Rawmarsh, Arnold and Aughton Nurseries who now have their own Governing Bodies.

The meeting discussed the following issues:-

-                       impact of the Children’s Centres in terms of the changing role of Nurseries

-                       Private Nurseries

Resolved:-    (1)  That no action be taken on the potential additional nursery representative position at the present time.

(2)  That a further  ...  view the full minutes text for item 18.

The meeting considered a report by the LEA in response to a consultation by the DfES to change regulations and guidance in line with the content of its Five Year Strategy, particularly in relation to secondary schools having ‘a greater independence’.

In view of the need to respond to the proposal by 31^st December, 2004, a response had been sent to DfES, as outlined in Section 7 of the report now submitted.

The DfES’ strategy offers a system where there will be (amongst other things):-

·        Freedom for all secondary schools to own their land and buildings, manage their assets, employ their staff, improve their governing bodies, and forge partnerships with outside sponsors and educational foundations

·        More places in popular schools

The DfES believes that the current process for changing category of school to foundation is often seen by schools as onerous and that it acts as a disincentive to change.

One member expressed concern regarding the DfES’ new proposals whereby the governing body of a school could determine its own proposals, even when there may be objections.  This was seen as a retrograde step.

In addition, it was pointed out that School Organisation Committees had been established to make local decisions.

There was discussion on the position in Rotherham and the possible demand for either of the above changes.

The second proposal could create more appeals being sent to an Adjudicator in the event of SOC being unable to make decisions.

Resolved:-  That the Secretary write to DfES questioning (a) the rationale behind the proposals (b) the lack of consultation for school proposals in respect of changes of category and (c) the diminution (and exclusion in the case of foundation schools) of the role of the School Organisation Committee.

The meeting was advised of the timetable for consideration of the proposed amalgamation of the above schools, as published on 7^th January, 2005.

The consultation period was six weeks.  In the event of no objections being received, the matter will be determined by the LEA.  If objections are received within the six weeks period, all relevant papers will be submitted to the next meeting and a decision on the proposal made by SOC.

The proposal had arisen following the retirement of the Head Teacher of the Junior School and was being carried out in accordance with the School Organisation Plan.

Meetings had taken place between the LEA, Acting Head Teacher (JuniorSchool), Head Teacher of the Infant School, staff and parents and advice given to Governing Bodies.

Both schools and parents were very much in favour of the proposal.

Officers from the LEA were thanked for the amount of advice and information given to the school which had helped to ensure a very clear process had been followed by the Governing Body and staff.

The meeting considered the contents of a letter from the Department for Education and Skills on their plan rationalisation proposals and the introduction of the Children and Young People’s Plan (CYPP).  This Plan will be produced for the first time in 2006.

The Children Act 2004 provides a power to require Children’s Services Authorities to prepare and publish a CYPP.  The plan is designed to support the move to more integrated and effective services to secure the outcomes for children set out in Every Child Matters and reflected in the Children Act 2004.

At the same time, the existing complex statutory planning requirements were to be streamlined and the Children Act repeals seven statutory planning requirements including the School Organisation Plan (SOP). 

The Department for Education and Skills was aware of the concern that removal of the SOP (and therefore the SOC’s power to approve it) will undermine the role of the SOC and are therefore proposing to require local authorities, by regulations, to consult SOCs and diocesan authorities during the preparation of the plan.  DfES also intend to support this requirement in non-statutory guidance on developing the CYPP.

Authorities will still need to plan effectively for school organisation, despite the removal of the statutory requirement to produce a SOP. 

The LEA will therefore need to give consideration in terms of what was produced for consideration by SOC in the future.

The repeal of the requirement to produce a SOP will take effect as soon as possible, probably with the first Commencement Order for the Children Act, early in 2005.  With effect from the same date, SOCs will no longer have a duty to have regard to the SOP when considering individual statutory proposals.

Information on the contents of the full Plan by DfES was presently awaited. 

Resolved:-  That further information be submitted to a future meeting when up to date information had been received from DfES.

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

Thursday, 17^th March, 2005 at 11.00 a.m.

(Please note: in the event of no objections to the Redscope Infant and JuniorSchools proposed ‘amalgamation’, this meeting may not be necessary).

Thursday, 14^th July, 2005 at 9.30 a.m.

(Please note:  this is a provisional date to discuss the update of the School Organisation Plan).