Agenda item

To consider a report by the Director of Children’s Services which provides an update on the Annual Consultation process concerning the proposed admission arrangements for September 2012

(Report attached)

Members considered a report by the Director of Children’s Services which provided an update on the responses to the consultation on Admission Arrangements for September 2012.

In addressing the report Mrs Buckland said that the consultation was seeking views on the following issues:

• Coordinated scheme – primary and secondary.  The coordinated scheme primarily affects the sharing of information with other local authorities and own admission authority schools.  Much of it is guided by national closing dates and the national offer day for secondary.  Of the 105 responses received by the deadline, 31 responded to the question on the coordinated scheme.  Of these 29 were in agreement and two against.  The two who were not in favour were not own admission authority schools or local authorities.

• Coordinated scheme – in year.  From January 2010 each local authority should have in place a published coordinated scheme for in year transfers.  The coordinated schemes specifies how an admission authority would deal with applications and the timeframes for response.  There were 34 responses of which one was ‘ambivalent’, 27 were in favour, four against and two did not specify but made comments about needing to ensure the applications were dealt with swiftly.

• In-year Waiting Lists.  There were 52 responses to the question of whether to hold in year waiting lists.  Of these 43 were in favour and nine against.  Six of those in favour and two of those against were from own admission authority schools who could choose for themselves whether or not they wished to operate a waiting list.  23 responses were from parents; one was against and 22 in favour.

• Changes to the sibling priority at secondary school.  There were 58 responses to the question of whether priority should be for ‘nearest siblings’, ‘nearest’, other siblings, then other children by distance.  Last year no children would have been affected by this change in policy.  Again this year there would not have any affect as all children applying for secondary school had been able to be offered their nearest school if they asked for it.  As birth rates rise the situation wouldl change and the issue would become one of fairness. 

There were 22 respondents in favour of changing and 36 who were opposed.  Parents accounted for 33 of the responses. Ten parents were in favour and 24 were against. 

Of the comments received those in favour felt the change would be fairer to everyone and stated that children were more independent, were inclined to travel to school  on their own, and the issue of having children at more than one school had to be overcome when the oldest child moved to secondary school anyway.  Those against were concerned about building a relationship with the school, and felt it would be unfair if they had to consider sending their children to different schools if they moved house.

• Changing the sibling priority at primary level.  This item attracted the greatest level of response with 98 submissions.  Of these 14 were in favour and 84 were against. Parents accounted for 68 of the responses with five in favour, and 63 against.

It should be noted that an analysis showed that such a change would have affected only 36 children last year, out of 2700 siblings. Of the 2403 that hade already applied this year 31 had not asked for the same school as their older sibling as the first preference.  This is the typical proportion each year.

• Changes to school admission numbers:

105 responses had been received, compared to 11 last year.  These comprise 70 from parents, 20 from governing bodies or head teachers, seven from own admission authority schools, three from appeal panel members, two from elected members, and one each from a Diocese, a member of school staff and a local resident. With regard to admission number changes there were only two comments opposed to any of the changes.

A local resident had objected to the expansion of Middleton St Mary’s, and had also objected to the planning department regarding some building work at the school.  There was both need for and demand for the additional places the school are looking to offer.  It was proposed to proceed with the increase and allow the planning process to appropriately deal with the objections raised regarding transport and residential issues

There had been one objection to the increase at Rodillian from a local school.  It was the view of Officers that demographically no increase was required in secondary places in the area in 2012, and the request to increase had come from the school.  Education Leeds were aware of issues with staff parking in bus bays at the school and had received a written assurance from the Headteacher that this would be resolved.  However, the issue may require planning permission for additional parking, and it was too early to know whether this would be likely to be granted.  On balance it would be prudent to turn down the request for an increase until such time as the issue with parking was resolved and the need for places arises.  It would be possible for the school to request additional pupils in September 2012 without an increase in their admission number, should such demand exist and should the issue with the bus bays be resolved.  The school could then formally request a permanent increase for September 2013.

RESOLVED –

(i)  That no view be offered in respect of the Coordinated scheme -  Primary and Secondary Schools

(ii)  That no view be offered in respect of the Coordinated scheme  - In year

(iii)  To support the proposals for an In-Year Waiting List

(iv)  That no view be offered in respect of the changes to the sibling priority at Secondary School

(v)  That the Forum do not support a change to the sibling priority at Primary level.

(vi)  To support the proposed changes to school admission numbers as set out in section 3.11 of the submitted report

(The Chair declared a personal interest in (vi) above, her son was currently a pupil at Allerton High School, one of the schools proposing changes to the school admission numbers. The Chair did not take part in the discussion or voting thereon)