Agenda item

(1)     Mr Bagshaw tabled a summary of the proposed changes to the School Admissions Code. He advised the members that the County Council had made its views known to the DFES and had made the County’s MPs aware of these. He also advised the Members that some aspects of the Admissions Code had been relaxed from September 2013. The necessity for the LA to coordinate in year applications had become optional. He was critical of the proposal to give priority to the siblings of former pupils and felt that it was bizarre. Mr Bagshaw also advised the members that one of his reservations about the proposals was that there would be room for different interpretations and this was a cause for concern. Mr Bagshaw concluded by informing the Members that Kent’s admission arrangements would be broadly similar to previous years. He invited the Members comments.

(2)         Mr Dalton sought Mr Bagshaw’s views on whether there was any guidance on managing the over capacity issue in some areas. Mr Bagshaw acknowledged that there didn’t seem to be anything about this but that the DFES working group, of which he was a member, would be able to look at the practical interpretations of this and other aspects of the Code.

(3)         Mr Masters referred to the expansion issue and how this would affect grammar schools. Mr Bagshaw felt that some schools would be better placed than others to expand. He explained that DFE intention was for parents to get their preferred schools and to give more flexibility to schools with the option of taking another form of entry where they see fit, although this may cause significant wider place planning issues. Mr Wetherell emphasised the importance of making parents aware of the change to the PAN in good time. Mr Bagshaw agreed and suggested that this information is published on the school website and the LA be kept informed. Rev Genders perception was that parents thought that it was a good idea but schools. LAs and Dioceses were not so keen. Mr Wetherell commented that appeal panels were putting more pupils into grammar schools who were not putting a strong case forward as to why they shouldn’t.

(4)         Mr Bagshaw referred to the new provision which allows academies to prioritise pupils eligible for pupil premium status. Because this will allow academies to attract greater pupil funding i9t could be regarded as another way for the DFE to persuade schools to seek academy status. The key issues as he saw it centred around flexibility of PANs and funding. He was concerned that funding would not be made available for capital issues where schools choose to expand on a whim.

(5)         Mr Masters referred to the issue of priority being given to children of staff at the school and asked whether schools had expressed their views on this. Mr Bagshaw advised that the general feedback had been some for it but the majority against it – most recognising that it could impact on local children securing places and causing tensions in the school. He did not think many schools would be in a hurry to implement the proposal. Mrs Watson had reservations about employing staff who would only be coming to get there children into the school. Mr Bagshaw did confirm that there was some safeguard as it is proposed it would only apply to members of staff who had been at the school for two years.

(6)         Mr Masters referred to the section relating to schools that allocate places on test scores not being required to admit LAC but agreed that it had never previously been an issue. Mr Bagshaw advised Members that LAC would now include adopted children. Mr Whiting questioned the value of that as in his view it might make them feel different from other children. Mr Wetherell suggested that it was probably designed to encourage adoptions to happen more quickly.

(7)         Mr Bagshaw referred to the responsibilities of the adjudicator and confirmed that admission arrangements cannot be changed once determined without going to the adjudicator.

(8)         Mr Bagshaw referred in more detail to the relaxation in the requirement of admission authorities to coordinate in year applications for the 2013/14 year. He confirmed his proposal to hand this back to the schools with the proviso that the schools keep the LA informed. Mr Bagshaw also referred to the difficulties and delays that had occurred this year in applying the coordinated admission arrangements in the round. He advised the Forum that his team will run the allocation on national offer day and then do one reallocation. After that the process will be delegated to the schools to manage on the LA behalf. Mr Wetherell acknowledged the difficulties that the LA had faced but commented that one good point had been that all parents knew they had the right to appeal whereas before they might not have done.

(9)         Mr Bagshaw also tabled a summary of the proposed changes to the School Admission Appeals Code.  He was particularly concerned about the revised timetable as it increased the amount of time the parents had to submit an appeal and thus reduced the time available to the LA to hear the appeals by the required deadline.