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

    Briefing on Proposed changes to the School Admissions and Appeals Codes

    Minutes:

    (1)    Mr Bagshaw referred to the Consultation Response Form on changes to the Codes. He commented that whilst the new proposed codes might seem straight forward they were brief and lacked detail and were open to misrepresentation. The footnotes made reference to the Statutory Regulations

     

    (2)     Reverend Genders enquired whether the Forum should also be responding. Mr Bagshaw confirmed that there were no restrictions on who could respond but that any response would need to be done by the closing date of 19 August 2011.

     

    (3)     Mr Bagshaw commented that the new codes were more school focused than parent focused. An example being the proposal that popular schools should be allowed to expand. He expressed the view that whilst it might be appropriate at times to do this he did have concerns about future base planning with other schools at risk of closure.

     

    (4)     Reverend Genders agreed that the market forces approach in the code would be a disaster for planning and providing quality education access across the County. He strongly refuted the proposal. Mr Dalton agreed and felt that the current arrangements tended to mean there would be at least one community school in the area. Mr Burleton made the point that expanding popular schools was not always a good idea. He felt that they could become too big and then less popular. Mr Cooke had some sympathy with the view that parents should have the opportunity to have the best education they can and expressed the view that PANs were being ignored through the appeals process so why not regulate it and allow expansion. However he agreed there needed to be a balance in this proposal

    (5)    Mr Bagshaw advised the Forum that regulations regarding the duty to coordinate In Year admissions had been relaxed. Although some beneficial safeguards had come out of the process it had proved to be very difficult to administer. Mr Dalton agreed that there had been some benefits from this whilst Reverend Genders and Mrs Watson felt that a middle way was needed with some of the coordination back with the schools.

     

    (6)     Discussion took place in respect of the proposal to allow schools to give priority to applications for children of staff in their over subscription criteria. Mr Bagshaw had refuted this idea as being wholly unfair. Reverend Genders accepted that from the schools point of view it might be a good idea for them but that there were other categories of employment who might have as much of a claim to receive priority. Mrs Watson did not think that it was important to schools and that staff should not be coming just to get their children into the school they work at. Mr Cooke shared Mr Bagshaw’s views whereas Mrs Hohler could see some benefit in the proposal. Mrs Chinnadurai was not keen as it would not be popular with parents and could be seen as a lack of transparency

                                                    

    (7)   Mr Dalton referred to the paragraph relating to the expansion of grammar schools and felt that a small rise of 1-2% would be acceptable but if significantly different this could have a big impact elsewhere which could harm those schools and their future. Mr Cooke again accepted that there needed to be a balance but Kent supported selective education. Reverend Genders referred to the top 25% entering grammar schools not 26% or 27% and felt that doing so turned the grammar schools into no more than comprehensive schools. Mr Dalton agreed that if it was not the quartile then the expansion of grammar schools was detrimental. Mr Cooke confirmed that he was not looking at increasing the 25% but that if the grammar schools expand they should be able to do so proportionate to the cohort. Mr Masters advised that coordination on any expansion was vital to safeguard the future of schools. He agreed with the concerns previously expressed that part of the difficulty arose when appeal panels put non selective pupils into grammar schools. Mrs Chinnadurai was concerned that a two tier system would arise even in primary education. She felt that some parents were able to “flex their muscles” often to the detriment of other parents. In her view market forces in education was not the answer to the increase in quality of teaching and learning.

     

    (8)    Mr Masters referred to the question relating to the deadline date for objections to the Schools Adjudicator being moved from the 30 July to the 30 June. He agreed with Mr Bagshaw’s support for this proposal.

     

    (9)    Reverend Genders sought Mr Bagshaw’s view on how other Local Authorities were responding to the questionnaire. Mr Bagshaw was aware that a few more Local Authorities were less keen on the In Year Admissions procedure than before. He felt that there was still a lot of discussion taking place on the proposals and that other Local Authorities seemed to have similar issues to those that he had raised. Reverend Genders felt that the proposals were more suited to London Authorities.

     

    (10)    Mr Willis referred to the new timetable for lodging and hearing appeals. He expressed his concern that moving the timetable to later dates made transition harder and that parents needed to know sooner what schools their children were going to.

     

     

    (11)    Reverend Genders asked what view the politicians were taking in the County and whether the MPs were aware of the implications of the proposed changes. Mrs Hohler confirmed that County Councillors were working towards the approach of using the Kent MPs on other issues and could do the same with this. Mr Bagshaw advised the Forum that he sat on the working group with senior members of the DFES and that they did take notice of the comments that Kent put forward.