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

    In-Year Fair Access Protocols (Hard to Place Pupils) - Bob Rose

    Minutes:

    (Item 7)

    (1)       Mr B Rose circulated a copy of the Draft Guidance which went to Clusters for formal consultation in respect of In-Year Fair Access Protocols.

     

    (2)       Mr B Rose addressed the Forum and advised the Members that the School’s Admissions Code which came into force on 28 February 2007 stated that admission authorities and forums must have in place by September 2007 Fair Access Protocols.  The document circulated explained the model adopted by Kent.

     

    (3)       Mr B Rose sought the early thoughts of the Forum which would be included in his report back to the Management Team.  He emphasised that the Protocol had to be in place by September 2007. 

     

    (4)       The points that arose from Members’ comments are recorded as follows:-

     

    (a)       In response to a question from Mr R Truelove, Mr B Rose confirmed that the most challenged schools are likely to take the least children with challenging behaviour as they will already have their share.

    (b)       Ms S Dennis enquired about the Managed Move situation which had already stated in Maidstone.  Mr B Rose agreed that this was a difficult aspect but that it would need to run in parallel with the Protocol being proposed.  In his view, the Managed Move procedure was for children already in education but struggling in that particular school.  He agreed though that it would be necessary to work with the Managed Move arrangements as he was keen that this was not disrupted by the Fair Access Protocols.

    (c)        Mr G Wetherell queried on what grounds a school could refuse to offer places to children if places were available.  In his view, if this was resolved there would be fewer children in the Fair Access Protocol position.  Mr B Rose advised that the Admission Code was very clear about what schools could or could not do when spaces were available and that on most occasions they could not refuse to offer a space.  Dr I Craig confirmed that school must admit up to their Published Admissions Number unless there were exceptional circumstances to prevent this.  The Fair Access Protocol may even require a school to take over its Published Admissions Number.  Mr M Vye advised that these were as set out on pages 80/81 of the Code.  Mr B Rose referred to the situation where a child had been excluded twice and advised the Forum that different arrangements would need to be made in those circumstances.

    (d)       Dr Craig reported that the number of children dealt with under the Fair Access Protocol should be very small and that a secondary school should be able to take a further five pupils per year and a primary school one pupil per year without being overwhelmed. 

    (e)       Mr R Tolputt asked whether there were any arrangements to deal with any Academies which were unco-operative.  Mr B Rose explained that the Code was very helpful here.  If an Academy refused to take a child after being directed by the Local Authority to do so the Local Authority had the right of appeal to the Secretary of State (this was referred to in paragraph 3.18 of Protocol circulated to Members).  Dr I Craig also reported that this would apply even if the Local Authority was the sponsor of the Academy. 

    (f)         Mr J Watt referred to the importance of Clusters and groups talking to one another.

    (g)       Mr S Parr referred to 3.16 of the Protocol and asked whether there were any figures available as to what constituted a reasonable number.  Mr B Rose acknowledged that this would be an important part of the Forum’s monitoring role.  Once the Protocols were in place, it would be agreed with the Forum on what data is required and how it should be received to best carry out the monitoring process. 

    (h)        Mrs S Dennis referred to the issue of funding and asked whether it went with the child even if the child was permanently excluded.  Mr B Rose explained that the Local Authority had decided that it would devolve funding to groups of schools/clusters and issue guidance with regard to how funding was used with an excluded child.  At the moment the school sent the funding to the Attendance Behaviour Service Team and this was redistributed to the school receiving the excluded child.

    (i)         Mr G Wetherell referred to home to school transport if the child met the criteria for having transport costs paid.  Mr B Rose explained that he would be putting a report to the Cabinet Members about transport issues.  However, he advised the Forum that analysis so far had shown that transport had been cost neutral.  With managed moves children had tended to move to schools which were closer to home.  He did not anticipate that the transport costs would be a significant burden.  Dr I Craig agreed that this would need to be costed.  However, where the Local Authority had chosen the school, it would be the nearest appropriate school.

    (j)         Mr M Vye welcomed the Code and recognised the importance of balancing the needs of the child and that of the school. 

    (k)        Mr B Rose thanked the Forum Members for their views and confirmed that he would keep the Members updated.