Issue - meetings

To receive a report from the Cabinet Member for Education and Health Reform and the Corporate Director of Education and Young People’s Services, and to consider and endorse or make recommendations on the Plan, prior to the final version being considered and approved by the Cabinet on 9 January 2017.

(Mr K Abbott, Director of Education Planning and Access, and Mr D Adams, Area Education Officer – South Kent, attended the meeting for this item).

1.         Mr Gough, Cabinet Member for Education and Health Reform introduced the report which set out the Commissioning Plan for Education Provision in Kent 2017-21.  He extended his thanks to Mr Adams and Mr Abbott for their work.

2.         Mr Leeson then added that the plan had been successful to date, and always delivered the required number of places.  He asked thanks to be recorded to the schools who had helped in delivering the plan, as well as property colleagues.

3.         Mr K Abbott and Mr D Adams also added the following points:

(a)  To emphasise the scale of the task faced, over the past 4 or 5 years, colleagues in schools and in Education had put in additional provision for 15,000 new students, and over the next 5 to 6 years, they would need to do the same again for a further 23,000 students.  164 forms of entry needed to be provided in the next 4 to 5 years.  Primary enrolments were not expected to peak until 2030, so substantial additional provisions were needed in primary schools due to the high birth rate.

(b)  Next week, they were meeting with the Delivery Manager for the South East for the EFA to look at the position statement on individual free school projects, looking at legal, planning, contractors and acquisitions to assess risks. 

(c)  Rebecca Spore would be meeting with the EFA in early December to push the idea of Kent taking on the local delivery of free school projects.

(d)  Significant uplift was continuing, with housebuilding increasing. Migration and house building continued to be the key driver on pupil number pressures in Kent.

(e)  Additional capacity was needed in the SEN section which could only be delivered through new free schools.  There was no government funding for SEN specialist provisions, so it was hoped to secure this via the free school route.

4.         Mr Gough then responded to some of the questions raised, and made points including the following:

(a)  The outcome of the bid for Early Years funding was not yet known, but it was a limited pot.

(b)  The free for two scheme had been successful in boosting take up rates.

(c)  As stated in the response to Early Years consultation, the 30 hours was a desirable aspiration, but the government had clearly not been able to support this with funding to make it viable.

(d)  In terms of local insight, dialogue had taken place with District Councils, Dioceses and Archdioceses regarding the Plan, and there was also scope for Members to feed any further comments in to the Plan prior to the Cabinet Meeting on 9 January 2017.

(e)  There were no proposals presently around capacity at Edenbridge, but he was aware of the issues, particularly around transport, and was keeping a watching brief.

5.         Mr Leeson then added the following  ...  view the full minutes text for item 226