Agenda item

(Item 8 – Report by the Cabinet Member for Education, Learning and Skills and the Corporate Director for Customer and Communities, Mr Patrick Leeson)

Cabinet received a report of the above named Cabinet Member and officer, the purpose of which was to seek agreement of Kent County Council’s new Commissioning Plan for Education Provision 2012 - 2017. 

The Leader of the County Council, Mr Paul Carter, introduced the item; he described the aim of the plan, which was to provide an adequate supply of school places for children in Kent, addressing some of the issues that had occurred in previous years, particularly where spikes of demand had occurred in particular localities.  This plan he hoped, would provide sensible solutions to such issues not only countywide, or in district areas but also in smaller community localities.  In addition he hoped that the dissolution of the Audit Commission would reduce the pressure on Councils to limit surplus places to such an extent that the choices of parents in the future might be affected.

Mr Whiting introduced the report to Cabinet and in particular referred to the following details contained within it:

• That there were three main aims of the Plan:
  • The effective provision of local school places for local people
  • Provision of more choice for parents
  • Improvement in the standards of education provided by all of the counties schools.
• These aims reflected the responsibilities of the Local Authority in terms of education provision in a much changed educational sphere.
• In addition the plan sought to deliver other goals of the County Council including those relating to parental preferences, namely, 85% of all parents having received their first preference of school and 95% of parents having received their first or second preference.  The provision of parental preference being aided by maintaining a 5–10% surplus of school places in each phase of education.
• Challenges resulting from the aims detailed above had been identified within the report; in particular he referred to the need for 10,000 new primary school places required in the relatively short term and 3,200 new nursery places for entitled 2 year olds by September of 2013.
• The plan would be continuously reviewed at County and District level to ensure that it was fit for purpose and amended if necessary to better meet local needs as they develop.

The Leader of the County Council, Mr Paul Carter, sought further information on the following points:

·        how the Cabinet Member and officers had taken steps to define and provide for the smaller localities that had been described

·        how the plan would continue to provide school places in response to external influences, particularly new housing developments in particular localities that may already be running at capacity in terms of education provision.

·        How any continued provision in such circumstances would be made affordable for the council particularly in those localities where CIL or Section 106 agreements might deliver less value than in other more affluent areas

In response Mr Leeson reported:

(a)   That localities had been, and would continue to be, defined in terms of distance travelled to school and that this was different depending on the phase of education in question.  However, the definition would also include preferences expressed by parents, for example, where there were significant numbers choosing to attend a school other than the nearest available. 

(b)   In order that the council might become more responsive to such choices the plan would be revised on a yearly basis to identify and respond to such trends.

(c)   That the council had little influence over the choices that developers in the County made to develop in certain areas and not in others.  However the plan would seek to make assumptions about what might be expected in the short term, although the current financial climate made even short term predictions difficult.  This would also be kept under continuous review. 

(d)   Positive discussions had been held with district councils regarding the continued prioritisation of educational needs and securing of funds for that provision in planning agreements through SIL and Section 106 agreements.

In response to further questioning from the Leader of the County Council regarding the risk that the council faced in relation to basic need allocations from the Department for Education Mr Leeson argued that the more rigorous the planning process and detailed the plan the stronger the County Council’s case would be in demanding additional funding where additional needs arose.

The Leader of the County Council in his capacity as Chairman of Cabinet had granted permission for Mr Les Christie local elected member for Northfleet and Gravesend West division to speak to this item.

Mr Christie approached the table and thanked the Leader for the opportunity provided.  He urged the Cabinet to consider the following points in taking its decision:

·        That the wished the section of the plan affecting his division, Gravesham Primary Commission (P.317-318) to be omitted from any decision to approve the plan and instead authority be delegated to the Cabinet Member for Education, Learning and Skills to approve that particular commissioning at a later date when further discussion had been enabled.

·        That this delay was necessary because building an extension to church school to resolve unmet demand for reception year places was not a solution for the whole community within his division.  In particular many of the ethnic minority families who made up 17.5% of the population.

·        An unwanted consequence in the mind of Mr Christie was that discussions had now begun locally about the possibility of building a Sikh faith school and he believed schools with children from all faith backgrounds were more positive in a time where integration and acceptance should be promoted.

·        He welcomed the Cabinet Member for Education, learning and Skill’s efforts to discuss with various parties with influence the relaxing of admissions criteria for faith schools to make them more inclusive, but that until an agreement to that effect had been reached long term commissioning decisions such as these should not be taken.

·        He asked that decision be deferred to allow the Gravesham members an opportunity to put forward an alternative proposal.

The Leader of the County Council, Mr Paul Carter, thanked Mr Christie for his contribution.  He also hoped that discussions with both the Anglican and Catholic diocese would resolve in the long term to make admissions criteria for faith schools as broad and inclusive as possible.

Mr Leeson also responded to some of the points raised.  He described the close working relationships that existed between the local authority and the diocese.  This relationship, and the school places created by faith schools, was crucial to the provision of sufficient places for children in Kent.  He acknowledged that the admission arrangements for faith schools were more or less inclusive depending on the school in question but that the Anglican diocese in particular had a clear intention that all of its schools would be genuine community schools.  In relation to the situation in Gravesham in particular, Mr Leeson regarded that it was largely a question of alternatives, of all those contemplated this was the only and best solution.

Mr Sweetland addressed the Cabinet, as elected member for Gravesham East he echoed some of Mr Christie’s concerns regarding the situation in that area which he believed did deserve some special attention and imaginative solutions.  In particular he urged the Cabinet Member and Corporate Director to exert all possible influence on the schools to relax as far as possible their admissions criteria.

In response to further questioning by the Leader of the County Council, Mr Carter, the Corporate Director of Education, Learning and Skills confirmed that while the diocese would set broad principles for it’s schools to as here to the interpretation of these principles into actual criteria for admission was the responsibility of each school.  He also confirmed that the plan would be continually reviewed starting with the preferences expressed in this years intake, followed by a mid year review in January to begin to predict the next years preferences.

Area Education Officer, Simon Webb was invited to the table and provided further information about the discussions that had taken place with St Botolphs regarding their admission criteria in light of the expansion that was at proposal stage at that time.  He confirmed that in this years admissions, to the additional places 30% went to children of different or no faith.  In addition he urged members not to forget that this solution was a relatively short term on and that new provision would be forthcoming.

RECORD OF DECISION