Agenda item

 

·         Service Lead, School Planning, Admissions and Appeals Service, Schools and Learning, Children and Young People’s Services Directorate, to report.

The Service Lead for School Planning, Admissions and Appeals was welcomed to the meeting to provide an update to members of the Improving Lives Select Commission on matters relating to his Service in Rotherham.

 

Department for Education Admissions Consultation: -

 

The Improving Lives Select Commission had considered the Department for Education’s school admission consultation at their meeting held on 17^th September, 2014 (Minute No. 24 refers).  The Council was one of 444 stakeholders who responded to the consultation.  It asked questions on: -

 

·         Priority for children eligible for the Pupil or Service Premium: -

 

Rotherham’s agreed response was that it should be optional to decide whether to adopt it or not, although this was not an issue in Rotherham where over 90% of pupils regularly received their first preference. 

 

The outcome was that admission authorities had the option whether to implement this or not.  Rotherham was to maintain current arrangements whilst retaining a watching brief and review arrangements if it became necessary. 

 

·         Priority for nursery children eligible for the Early Years Pupil Premium, Pupil Premium or the Service Premium: -

 

Rotherham’s response was the same as for the previous question.

 

The outcome was that there would be no Statutory requirement to adopt this and could maintain current admission arrangements.  Rotherham was to maintain current arrangements whilst retaining a watching brief and review arrangements if it became necessary. 

 

·         Changes to the admissions consultation timetable: -

 

Rotherham responded to say no significant barriers were envisaged from an amended timeline.  Date changes to internal procedures would ensure a smooth transition and compliance. 

 

The outcome of the consultation was that, for the 2015/2016 academic year, Rotherham would implement the necessary changes in preparation of the 2015/2016 admission round. 

 

·         Admission of summer-born children: -

 

Rotherham’s agreed response was that this clarified the position for all parties. 

 

The outcome in Rotherham would be that it would continue to be advised by medical and educational experts in relation to delayed entry to Foundation Stage Two. 

 

·         Other technical drafting changes.

 

Rotherham’s agreed response was that the changes should be ‘may’ rather than ‘must’ to allow for a discretionary approach to meet local need.

 

The outcome was that local discretion could be maintained if required. 

 

School place planning: -

 

The submitted report provided an overview of where additional school places had been created across the Borough, and how they had been funded.  Basic Need Funding was received from the Department for Education to address capacity shortfalls. Section 106 Funding was received from developers to secure infrastructure was in place following new housing being built.  Finance was provided at trigger points when housing had been sold. 

 

There had been an increase of 1,110 permanent places created across the Borough between January, 2011 and September, 2014. 

 

There were future permanent school places planned between 2015-2017 at the Eastwood Village Primary School, Cortonwood Infant School and Ellis Junior School. 

 

Temporary increases in school places: -

 

There had been an increase of 195 temporary places created in the Borough in response to ‘bulge’ cohorts where demand had exceeded availability. 

 

Potential new Schools: -

 

Two new primary schools were agreed at Waverley subject to trigger points being met from Section 106 contributions. 

 

Should the Bassingthorpe Farm development come forward a Section 106 agreement would be required to build a new primary school. 

 

School place summary for the 2014/2015 academic year school: -

 

There had been 3,280 applications for primary school places – 98% had been allocated one of their preferences (91.5% received their first preference, 5% received their second preference and 0.99% received their third preference).

 

·         One school had been unable to accommodate their catchment area children;

·         Four schools had been unable to accommodate siblings;

·         Forty-two schools were unable to accommodate children in the distance category. 

 

There had been 3,157 applications for secondary school places – 99% were allocated one of their preferences.  (95.5% received their first preference, 3% received their second preference and 0.5% received their third preference). 

 

Extra district import and export figures: -

 

Traditionally Rotherham was a net importer of pupils from neighbouring authorities. 

 

Department for Education Basic Need Scorecard: -

 

The Department for Education had recently developed a scorecard for the use of Basic Need funding for school place planning.  There was no benchmarking data available at this time to compare Rotherham’s performance against other local authorities.    The scorecard included: -

 

·         Quantity;

·         Quality;

·         Cost.

 

Admissions: -

 

Annually, the Service processed 10,000 primary, secondary and in-year admission applications. 

 

Admission Appeals: -

 

The Independent School Admission Appeal Panel had heard a group appeal for the first time in respect of admission to a Secondary School for admission in September, 2014.  This process was scrutinised by the Local Government Ombudsman, who upheld that the appeal had been held in line with the Appeals Code. 

 

During the 2013/2014 academic year, 442 school admission appeals were held. 

 

School places overview by Learning Community: -

 

A briefing update was provided in relation to each of the Borough’s learning communities. 

 

Discussion followed the presentation and the following questions and comments were made: -

 

·         Councillor McNeely asked whether siblings would always be placed together in the same school? -  The Service Lead explained how the admissions criteria worked.  The Admissions Authority was able to project bulge years and made efforts to expand capacity in the Schools if physical space and funding was available. 

·         Councillor McNeely was aware of families, particularly with younger primary-aged children, who did not have access to their own transport but who still had to travel long distances to get to school.

·         Councillor McNeely asked what happened to children who were on waiting lists? – The Service Lead confirmed that waiting lists for Reception/Foundation Stage Two and Year 7 were maintained for the first term of the new academic year and thereafter they were disbanded and applications in-year were treated on a first come first served basis in line with the Admissions Code.  Parents/carers had the right of appeal against any refusal of a school place. Independent Appeals Panels decided whether children had overriding needs to attend any school they had been refused.

·         Councillor Roddison asked whether the Admissions Authority had ever objected to planning applications where local schools would not be able to cope with the additional demand? - The Admissions Authority was consulted on these matters and had raised concerns in relation to proposals for new developments in the past.

·         Councillor Reynolds referred to development at Woodlaithes Village where a school had been proposed but had not subsequently been built.

·         Councillor J. Hamilton asked about development in the Rawmarsh Learning Community and why was Rawmarsh Thorogate being expanded when there were more local schools nearer which families living in the new development would have to pass to get to Thorogate? The Service Lead outlined how the decision to expand Rawmarsh Thorogate had been made based on the availability of space and the School’s need for additional classrooms.  Monkwood Primary School was also twice the size of Rawmarsh Thorogate already.

·         Councillor J. Hamilton asked about issues at Wentworth Church of England Primary School not being able to accommodate children from the village. -  The Service Lead explained how Admissions Criteria operated at the School, in conjunction with the Diocese.  Distance criteria was such that children from out of the authority could live closer to the School than Rotherham children. 

·         Councillor J. Hamilton asked about the role of Pupil Premium in Rotherham’s response to the admissions code consultation.  -  The Service Lead confirmed that the terminology ‘may’ rather than ‘must’ in the new Admissions Code would allow these matters to be locally decided to meet local need.  

·         Councillor J. Hamilton asked about place planning and the level of foresight the Local Authority had.  -  The Service Lead confirmed that the Admissions Authority had 4 years’ notice for primary school demand, and 7 years’ notice for planning for secondary school places. 

 

Councillor J. Hamilton thanked the Service Lead for his attendance and presentation to the meeting and informative response to the questions asked. 

 

Resolved: -  (1)  That the report and information presented in relation to School Planning, Admissions and Appeals be noted. 

 

(2)  That the Service Lead for School Planning, Admissions and Appeals inform the Improving Lives Select Commission on any issues of concern that arose in relation to the Service.