Agenda item

·         Principal School Admissions, Organisation and Special Educational Needs Assessment Officer, Schools and Lifelong Learning, Children and Young People’s Services Directorate, to report.  

Consideration was given to the report presented by the Principal School Organisation and Risk Management Officer (Schools and Lifelong Learning, Children and Young People’s Services Directorate) outlining the consultation document that the Department for Education was conducting on proposed changes to the school admissions code. 

The proposed changes included two significant potential amendments: -

·         To allow schools to give priority to applicants eligible for the Pupil Premium

·         To bring forward the timetable for determining the admissions arrangements so that objections can be received by the Schools’ adjudicator before the start of the admissions round: -

o   This would allow objections to be resolved more quickly and enable a greater number of parents to apply for school places on a lawful basis. 

The consultation document asked six questions.  The Admissions Service had provided a draft response for the consideration of the Improving Lives Select Commission.   

1.    State-funded schools give priority in their admissions arrangements to children eligible for pupil premium or service premium funding: -

o   The proposed answer included that, in Rotherham, approximately 90% of applicants consistently received their first preference.  Analysis showed that most pupil premium eligible children made a preference for their nearest and catchment area school.  The proposed answer also made reference to the potential difficulties in collating information about eligibility for pupil premium as part of the admissions process, this was normally collated by the school census when children had been admitted. 

2.    Admission authorities of primary schools to give priority in their admission arrangements to children eligible for the early years pupil premium or service premium who attend a nursery which is part of the school: -

o   Rotherham’s nursery provision varied and some areas had more provision than others, which could lead to local children being unable to obtain a place at their local/catchment area school. 

3.    Create a rolling deadline for admissions authorities to comply with the determination of the schools adjudicator: -

o   The proposed response was that the admissions authority could not see any issues with the proposal as long as all parties had sufficient notice to implement any changes. 

4.    Bring forward the deadlines for objections, determinations and the publication of admission arrangements and to change the timing and length of consultations: -

o   The Admissions Authority could not see any issues with the proposal so long as all parties had sufficient notice to implement.

5.    Admission of summer-born children: -

o   The proposed response was that the Admissions Authority felt that the proposal clarified the position for parents and carers and did not significantly impact on admissions.

6.    Minor technical drafting changes: -

o   The Admissions Authority did not envisage any problems from the proposal but did think that the changes should be drafted as ‘may’ instead of ‘must’, to allow individual authorities discretion to implement where it would be beneficial depending on their circumstances. 

Discussion on the consultation questions and the proposed answers followed, and the following comments were made: -

·         Reducing the timescale for submission of objections was not a positive development.

o   The Principal Officer confirmed that the proposed reduction in timescales would relate to the timeline regulating annual admissions consultation, which was reported back to the Schools’ Adjudicator, and not the timeline that parents and carers had to submit their application for a school place.

·         One Member expressed a concern about specific areas where there was only one choice of school, which happened to be a faith school.  There was a potential for children living in the immediate area who did not share the same faith to miss out on being educated with their neighbours. 

o   The Principal Officer explained that as faith schools were funded through Dioceses they also had the ability to apply their own admissions criteria.

·         It was noted that Rotherham was a net importer of children from other local authorities.  This meant that parents and carers in other local authorities had chosen to select a Rotherham school/s as their first preference.  Rotherham’s provision was amongst the best locally, which was especially reflected in GCSE results and the favourable number of Rotherham’s schools that were rated as ‘Good’ or ‘Outstanding’ by Ofsted.  All agreed that this was positive news. 

Resolved: -  (1)  That the draft response submitted by Rotherham’s Admission Authority be approved and it be submitted to the Department for Education. 

(2)  That the Improving Lives Select Commission receive an update on the outcomes of the consultation where they led to implications for admission to school in the Borough.