Agenda item

(1)               Mr S Bagshaw referred to the Co-ordinated Primary and Secondary Schemes   circulated to the Members of the Forum and confirmed that the procedures for In Year Casual Admissions 2010 and the Scheme Admissions for 2011/12 would be consulted on as a whole. Members were firstly invited to comment on the Primary Admissions document.

(2)       (a)       Reverend N Genders expressed his concern at the tight timescale for In Year Casual Admissions and felt that the first stage referred to in number 12 should be reduced to three school days allowing schools five school days to respond to the Local Authority.

            (b)       Mr J Stanley felt that the In Year Applications process timescale was too tight to wait for Governors Decisions.  In his view the role should be delegated to the Headteacher and Chairman of Governors to speed up the process.

            (c)        Mr S Bagshaw shared the concerns expressed and had already made these known to the DCSF.  He advised the Forum that he was part of a working group looking at this with the DCSF.  Referring to Mr J Stanley’s views regarding delegating the process he reported that he had sought further guidance on this from the DCSF at the time.  The Code stated that a single person could not make the decision, however, the protocol in the Local Authority guidance could suggest Chairman of Governors and Headteacher.  Mr S Bagshaw confirmed that the first year of the In Year Admissions process would be very difficult to administrate as all parties familiarise themselves with the new processes.  He advised that additional resources would be needed within the Admissions team and that he was in the process of recruiting into these positions.

            (d)       Mr S Bagshaw drew the Members’ attention to the Admissions Arrangements at the back of the Scheme and advised them that the Local Authority was looking at giving siblings priority over ticking the Denominational Preferences box for Church Schools.  This was a view supported by Reverend Canon J Smith.

            (e)       Reverend N Genders referred to the difference in completing a paper form as opposed to an on-line one.  The ability to place a tick on-line sometimes seemed to present a difficulty with the different description and drop down box.  Mr S Bagshaw agreed to check this as the words used should be consistent.

            (f)         Mrs J Young felt that on-line applications made it harder for Headteacher’s to assist parents when applying. Mr S Bagshaw agreed and advised that many schools had been proactive in resolving this issue by inviting parents to apply using the IT suites within the schools.  The LA has promoted this with schools and even offered to send LA admission staff to such evenings to offer advice and support through the process. Mr S Bagshaw advised that a number of schools sought to ask parents for their application reference number so that they could satisfy themselves that parents had applied. Mr S Bagshaw also advised that the LA provide details to primary schools via S2S of children from their schools who have submitted an application on line.

(3)                   Members went on to look at the Secondary Admission Document with the following comments:-

            (a)       Reverend Canon J Smith felt it was very complicated and more so every year and asked whether the process could be simplified.  Mr S Bagshaw shared his concerns but went on to explain that if it were not fully set out in a definitive way, parents could potentially exploit loopholes where any ambiguity might exist.  He welcomed Members views on how things might be simplified.  He also advised Members that a new version of the Admissions Code was expected in February 2010.

            (b)       Mr G Cooke agreed the situation was complex and also welcomed Members suggestions on how the process might be streamlined.

            (c)        Mr S Bagshaw also went on to advise Members that for Secondary School applications the National Closing date was 31 October 2010 which would be at the end of half term and there would not have been anyone in the schools to offer advice to parents.  He suggested applications be accepted up to 5 November to allow parents time for discussion with the Headteachers, whilst retaining the national Closing date of 31 October.

            (d)       Mr J Stanley referred to the In Year Applications and suggested that the timescale be the same as proposed by Reverend N Genders for Primary Schools in paragraph (2)(a) ie give schools five school days to respond to Local Authority.

            (e)       Mr F Green felt that the proposals for In Year Applications could work if dealing with a few applications.  He advised the Forum that Leigh Academy received a large number of requests for places with several each day.  The Academy allocated times a year to deal with these.  He also confirmed that the Academy received requests for appeals almost every other week. He suggested that the Forum should take the view that the In Year restrictions were farcical and impossible to implement.

            (f)   Both Mr J Stanley and Mrs J Young expressed concern that the proposals did not help parents.

            (g)       Mr G Cooke took the view that if the admission of In Year Applications could not be done in a logical way it added to the problems including those of home to school transport.  He felt that the Local Authority was lucky to have Officers who were trying to make it work.  Mr S Bagshaw agreed that the concerns expressed by the Members of the Forum were shared by his colleagues but the process had already been set in regulation.

            (h)        Reverend N Genders agreed to write to the DCSF on behalf of the Forum conveying the concerns expressed by its Members.  Mr S Bagshaw and Mr G Rudd agreed to draft this on his behalf (copies to be distributed to other Members).