This is a default template, your custom branding appears to be missing.
The custom branding should be at https://www.kent.gov.uk/_designs/moderngov/template if you cannot load this page please contact your IT.

Technical Error: Error: The request was aborted: Could not create SSL/TLS secure channel.

  • Agenda item
  • Agenda item

    Matters Arising

    Minutes:

    (1)         Mrs Hohler referred to Item 4 and requested that the role of the Independent Appeal Panels be put on the agenda for the next meeting of the Forum.

     

    (2)         (i)      Mrs Hohler referred to Item 7 (ii) and reported that following the Local Authority’s challenge of the Super Selective grammar schools through the adjudicators office a public meeting was held in Tunbridge Wells.  Mrs Hohler went on to advise the Members that the adjudicator had now given his ruling that these schools could continue with the policy.

     

    (ii)         Mr Bagshaw added that this practice was now being adopted by some of the other grammar schools, e.g. Dartford Boys Grammar School, which added to the difficulties of planning places.

     

    (iii)       Mrs Hohler reported that some parents supported the Super Selective principles where they would not qualify on location grounds.

     

    (iv)        Reverend Genders referred to a letter received from the East Sussex County Council Admissions Forum complaining that it had not been consulted on the challenge to the Adjudicator.  Mr Bagshaw informed the Forum that East Sussex parents had contacted the East Sussex County Council.  He confirmed that there had been a public consultation which included East Sussex County Council.  He further advised that there was no duty on the part of the Local Authority or Forum to advise that objections had been received.  This was the responsibility of the Adjudicators Office and that this was made clear to the East Sussex County Council officers.

     

    (v)          It was agreed that Mr Bagshaw and Reverend Genders would draft a response to East Sussex County Council Admissions Forum.

     

    (3)         (i)   Mr Bagshaw referred to Item 33 and gave the Forum an update on the Co-ordinated In Year Admissions process.  He advised the Members that three full time staff and ten temporary staff were engaged in the process.  He explained that one of the problems experienced had been that the volume of applications initially received had been more than anticipated.  He added that it had taken over a week to get them put on the system and that in the first month there had been approximately 600 applications to deal with.  He confirmed that to date over 2000 applications had been received.  Mr Bagshaw reported that some schools had not returned the waiting list information requested prior to the holidays and that this had added to the difficulty faced by his staff.  Mr Bagshaw also explained that the additional heavy workload had affected other deadlines.  He advised the Forum that there had been concerns about getting the scheme published in time.  He summarised the situation by confirming that his staff had been under intense pressure and parents had been waiting a very long time to have their situation resolved.  Mr Bagshaw explained that the Admissions team had been trying to find a way through the bureaucratic procedures but that for a Local Authority of Kent’s size the process was not a practical one.

     

    (ii)         Reverend Genders understood that the Secretary of State had been written to about the impracticalities of the process for Kent.  He formally recorded the Forum’s thanks to the Admissions staff for all their efforts in trying to make this work.

     

    (iii)       Mrs Hohler endorsed her thanks to Mr Bagshaw and his staff.  She had been aware of the large volume of the applications and understood that sometimes this had been as many as 100 in one day.  Mrs Hohler confirmed that she had written to the Secretary of State but that his response was still awaited.

     

    (iv)        Mr Rudd advised that one of the side effects of the increase in the admissions applications is the likelihood of the increase in appeals.  Mr Bagshaw added that his own staff would also be engaged in these when they would normally be doing other things necessary within the Admissions and Transport teams.

     

    (v)          Reverend Genders enquired as to how Kent compared with other Local Authorities.  Mr Bagshaw advised the Forum that there was a legal duty on schools to inform the Local Authority of applications received and whether a place could be offered.  He confirmed that this could be dealt with by a small team and that this would satisfy the Secretary of State's safeguarding issues which had lead to the introduction of the In Year Admission process.  Mr Bagshaw suggested that some of the smaller Local Authorities had found that the process worked for them and that they liked having the control over schools that it gave them.  His concern was that his objections to the Secretary of State were not getting the sort of support from other Local Authorities that he would have liked.

     

    (vi)        Mr Dalton asked whether more children were getting into schools because of this safeguarding process.  Mr Bagshaw felt that the opposite was the case.  The delays caused by the process had kept children out of schools.

     

    (vii)      The Forum agreed that Mr Bagshaw and Reverend Genders would put together a letter to the Secretary of State from the Forum outlining its concerns about the affects of the In Year Admissions process in Kent.