Agenda item

1)    The Corporate Director introduced this report and explained that the Kent Education Commissioning Plan was an ongoing plan which was updated yearly and reviewed every 6 months.  Its primary purpose was to identify the need for additional school places in Kent to meet the statutory obligation to ensure every child in Kent had a good quality school place.  On the recent primary school allocation day 97% of parents had received their 1^st, 2^nd or 3^rd choice of primary school in Kent with only 500 parents not getting their preferred choice of school.  Parental satisfaction had gone up with an increasing percentage of good and outstanding schools in Kent, this was 54% in 2011 to 86-87% currently.  The Council wanted to ensure it was meeting all the principles in the Education Commissioning Plan which included meeting parental preferences and a commitment to ensuring a balance of school provision in Kent.  The Council’s capacity to control school expansion and school places had reduced, and it was extremely important to maintain a close relation with Kent schools.  The Council had successfully engaged with schools across Kent with a willingness to expand where needed.  There were restrictions on the Council, however, the Council was unable to develop a new school, it had to be an Academy/Free school and the Council would have to rely on new schools rather than expanding existing schools.  There were also restrictions on the cost of the work with an extensive capital programme and insufficient funding from Government, cost-effectiveness was vital.  At September 2016 the Corporate Director was confident that all school places needed for children to be placed would be available.  18,000 children had applied for a primary school place in Kent for September 2016. 

2)    In response to a question the Cabinet Member confirmed that in 2016 87% of parents got their first choice of primary school, which had increased from 2015. 

3)    Dr Bamford, Director of Education at the Catholic Diocese of Southwark thanked the Chairman and the Committee for welcoming her as a witness to the Committee. Dr Bamford commended the authority on its work to provide places for school children as this was a challenge.  The Diocese of Southwark was very large and covered 14 local authorities falling between the south side of the Thames River to the English Channel.  The Diocese of Southwark worked closely with the local authority in providing provision of school places, the catholic sector represented approximately 10% of the total school places available across England.  There were concerns that some of the principles within the plan were not being carried out. Particularly:  High Quality provision, over 90% Catholic schools in Kent were good/outstanding however Dr Bamford stated that less than good schools had been expanded before catholic schools.  Effective use of public resources; the expansion of catholic schools was often more cost effective as the church owned the buildings and land etc.  Dr Bamford strongly supported the promotion of parental preference and the diversity of school provision.  It was considered that diversity was narrowing with a greater than 10% decline in catholic school places.  Catholic school places in Kent offered a rich and diverse schooling accepting more SEN children, more LAC and more children from ethnic minority backgrounds.  Dr Bamford welcomed the regular review of the Education Commissioning Plan document and the discussion at the Committee. 

4)    The Corporate Director expressed disappointment at the suggestion that the Council was not delivering on the principles within the Education Commissioning Plan and confirmed that 3 catholic schools were being expanded in the coming year (4 in total in the period) which was more than 10% of catholic schools in Kent. 

5)    Mr Morgan represented Canterbury Diocese and explained that they had a very successful partnership with the local authority with a close working relationship. 

6)    A Member asked for clarification of point 1.3 on page 23 of the agenda, the Catholic Church had not pursued free schools because they were restricted to limiting their faith admission element to 50% within their oversubscription criteria.  This did not apply to Catholic schools which were not free schools.    Dr Bamford questioned the results of the judicial review relating to a new voluntary aided school and the ‘need’ within a sector as opposed to ‘need’ generally and whether they were of equal merit.

7)    In response to a question over whether there were other religious schools in Kent there was one Methodist and a number of Catholic archdiocese and Anglican diocese schools across Kent. 

8)    Mr Tear represented the diocese of Rochester and explained that if the ratio and diversity was to be maintained a proportion of the new Free schools in Kent would have to be denominational schools.  Work was being done with the local authority to ensure the ratio of denominational school places remained the same.  It was possible for a local authority or diocesan board to propose a denominational school despite the overall direction being towards Free schools.

9)    Officers confirmed that it was possible to propose a school outside of the Free school presumption.  There was provision to bring forward a voluntary aided school to create capacity due to a “desire” to address parental demand, as opposed to creating capacity to meet a shortfall of spaces.  The officer set out the proportion of Catholic/Church of England and secular school places in primary schools in Kent

10) A Member asked Dr Bamford about her experience with other local authorities, whether they were meeting the needs of the catholic communities in their areas and what steps had been taken to ensure that the right proportions of places were being maintained.  Dr Bamford was also asked for her opinion on the annex which was recently opened at a Kent school.   

11) Dr Bamford worked across 14 local authorities, 12 were within the London metropolitan area.  The diocese worked creatively and in partnership with those local authorities, providing an additional resource when there was a yearly need for 3000 additional places within catholic schools.  This need had been partially met by expanding existing schools, the addition of temporary classrooms and permanent classrooms, pod developments and by opening new schools.  Catholic schools had and would continue to open annexes to schools. 

12) Regarding the process for the Education Commissioning Plan, this had been submitted to the Cabinet Committee in December, a Member stated that at the time of the Cabinet Committee the Plan had not been shared with the two dioceses or the archdiocese.  A Member asked if the Equalities Impact Assessment document was a “live document” and had it been amended to reflect Dr Bamford’s submission and presentation to Cabinet? 

13) The Officers explained that the draft commissioning plan was sent to all three dioceses in Kent a month before the Cabinet Committee. Responses were received from Rochester and Southwark Diocese and the responses were contained within the Cabinet papers in March.   There had been continuing dialogue over the past months around the Education Commissioning Plan.  A number of the issues raised by the diocese had not been raised previously.

14) The Member expressed disappointment that the responses received from the diocese had not been circulated with the papers which were submitted to the Cabinet Committee.   Was the EQIA also sent with the Education Commissioning Plan for comment by the diocese?

15) In response to a question about apprenticeships Mr Leeson undertook to provide a note to give further detail on the numbers of apprenticeships in Kent.

16) The Rochester Diocese representative commented that in future he would welcome a commitment and an assurance that the consultation process was clear, transparent and with timescales that allowed responses to be made.  If the future meant that new denominational school places were provided by Free schools it was essential that the diocese and the local authority worked together and he had requested from officers clarity around the process of Free school applications and tenders.  There were two routes to create a Free school; a direct application to the Department for Education or through a tender via the local authority.  It was opined that there was confusion about which route the local authority planned to take.  The Corporate Director confirmed that both routes would be used to develop new schools it would depend on the locality and the context.   

17) The Cabinet Member explained that he undertook a tour of the districts accompanied by officers and also included each of the dioceses on that tour.  The Council was keen to maintain a good relationship with the church representatives.

RESOLVED that the Scrutiny Committee:

Note the discussion had around the provision of denominational school places in Kent and thanked the guests and church representatives for their insight and wisdom which would be taken on board by the Council.