Agenda item

To receive a report from the Cabinet Member for Education and Health Reform and the Corporate Director of Education and Young People’s Services, and to consider and endorse or make recommendations on the Plan, prior to the final version being considered and approved by the Cabinet on 9 January 2017.

(Mr K Abbott, Director of Education Planning and Access, and Mr D Adams, Area Education Officer – South Kent, attended the meeting for this item).

1.         Mr Gough, Cabinet Member for Education and Health Reform introduced the report which set out the Commissioning Plan for Education Provision in Kent 2017-21.  He extended his thanks to Mr Adams and Mr Abbott for their work.

2.         Mr Leeson then added that the plan had been successful to date, and always delivered the required number of places.  He asked thanks to be recorded to the schools who had helped in delivering the plan, as well as property colleagues.

3.         Mr K Abbott and Mr D Adams also added the following points:

(a)  To emphasise the scale of the task faced, over the past 4 or 5 years, colleagues in schools and in Education had put in additional provision for 15,000 new students, and over the next 5 to 6 years, they would need to do the same again for a further 23,000 students.  164 forms of entry needed to be provided in the next 4 to 5 years.  Primary enrolments were not expected to peak until 2030, so substantial additional provisions were needed in primary schools due to the high birth rate.

(b)  Next week, they were meeting with the Delivery Manager for the South East for the EFA to look at the position statement on individual free school projects, looking at legal, planning, contractors and acquisitions to assess risks. 

(c)  Rebecca Spore would be meeting with the EFA in early December to push the idea of Kent taking on the local delivery of free school projects.

(d)  Significant uplift was continuing, with housebuilding increasing. Migration and house building continued to be the key driver on pupil number pressures in Kent.

(e)  Additional capacity was needed in the SEN section which could only be delivered through new free schools.  There was no government funding for SEN specialist provisions, so it was hoped to secure this via the free school route.

4.         Mr Gough then responded to some of the questions raised, and made points including the following:

(a)  The outcome of the bid for Early Years funding was not yet known, but it was a limited pot.

(b)  The free for two scheme had been successful in boosting take up rates.

(c)  As stated in the response to Early Years consultation, the 30 hours was a desirable aspiration, but the government had clearly not been able to support this with funding to make it viable.

(d)  In terms of local insight, dialogue had taken place with District Councils, Dioceses and Archdioceses regarding the Plan, and there was also scope for Members to feed any further comments in to the Plan prior to the Cabinet Meeting on 9 January 2017.

(e)  There were no proposals presently around capacity at Edenbridge, but he was aware of the issues, particularly around transport, and was keeping a watching brief.

5.         Mr Leeson then added the following points in response to Members questions:

(a)  Free school applications were required to have new schools, including SEN provisions, although it was unclear how good quality provision could be ensured.  There had been two or three new free schools started up, but unfortunately their SEN provisions were not yet operating which was a cause of concern.  It was vital to ensure new free schools had specialist resource provision.

(b)  The biggest area of need was autism, speech and language, and emotional and behavioural needs.  It was hoped more provision would come through the free school programme, but Kent were also working on a policy to support existing schools to have more specialist resource provision.

(c)  In terms of Early Years, most provision was made through the private and voluntary sectors who were not always in the appropriate location for some families.  The team continued to work on securing provisions in the locations needed.

(d)  84% of 3 and 4 year olds took up the free provision of 15 hours per week and 70% took up the free for two scheme which was aimed at two year olds. This was a concern that there were 30% not taking this up, and Kent should continue to push for this to increase.

(e)  Data around where the provision was, and where there were difficulties was available and he was happy to release this information to Members.

6.         Mr Abbott and Mr Adams then responded to questions by Members and made the following points:

(a)  The rules had changed the previous year so that Kent could not undertake any more prudential borrowing to support the education capital programme. The table set out in 3.2 of the report showed the residual already agreed prior to this, to fund special schools.

(b)  The majority of well-established house building companies valued school builds within their developments, and were keen to have the provision there, at the expense of other bits of infrastructure.  The market was strong at present, and Kent had been able to deliver 20% of the capital programme using developer contributions. It continued to be an area for monitoring.

7.         RESOLVED that the recommendation to Cabinet to approve the Commissioning Plan for Education Provision in Kent 2017-21, be endorsed.