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 Protocol - Presentation by Sally Williamson, Head of Behaviour Services

    Minutes:

    (1)       Ms S Williamson, Head of Attendance and Behaviour Service, addressed the Forum and invited the members to give their views on the previously circulated report on the Kent In Year Fair Access Protocol.

     

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

     

                (a)       Mr Tolputt noted that the document was about those children who wanted a school place.  He enquired about what happened to the small nucleus of excluded children who did not want to be placed in a school and whose spasmodic attendance reflected this.  Ms Williamson agreed that this was a concern and was a separate issue from the Protocol.

     

                (b)       Mrs Stockell saw oversubscription and jumping the waiting list as a potential problem for some schools.  Although Ms Williamson acknowledged this point she advised the members that in practice it was likely that most schools would not be asked to take more than one pupil per year group.

     

                (c)        Mrs Cottam reported that the Dartford/Gravesham cluster meeting would be looking at a fair equitable distribution.  Ms Williamson was also of the view that locally agreed working practices was the better option.

     

                (d)       Mr Carroll referred to the Managed Move Framework and felt that the Protocol could be a barrier to this.  Mr Bagshaw thought that the Protocol would only come into force if a Managed Move broke down.  Mr Wetherell made the point that not every child was suitable for a Managed Move and Mrs Cottham confirmed that she runs both schemes together.  Ms Williamson noted these comments and agreed that the Managed Move process would have to be included in the points scoring.  Mr Vye concluded this aspect of the discussion by confirming that the Forum would need to monitor how this worked.  His view was that there was already Managed Move best practice as described by Mr Carroll and that the Protocol would involve a different practice.

     

                (e)       Mr Parr referred to the earlier consultation and commented that the feedback then was one of acceptance that the Protocol had to be worked with.

     

                (f)         Mr Carroll sought clarification about numbers.  Ms Williamson confirmed that the maximum any secondary school would be likely to be asked to take would be up to 5 pupils under the Protocol.  Mr Carroll felt that this was a large number and could see some schools ending up with more than this.  Dr Craig reported that this was where the point scoring would apply.  Although Mr Carroll was confident that schools would be willing he felt that they would expect there to be financial assistance available as well.

     

                (g)       Dr Craig pointed out to the members that legislation made it clear that Kent had to have a Protocol in place.  A Protocol had been suggested that could be agreed locally.  If this was not the case then the Local Authority would have to enforce the Protocol.  He felt that the proposal before the members would spread the load far more equitably between the schools than had happened previously.

     

                (h)        Mrs Cottham asked whether the schools could exceed their PAN and also whether Kent had any arrangements with other local authorities, e.g. London Boroughs.     Dr Craig confirmed that if the other schools did not object there was no reason why the school could not go over the PAN.  He added that the Greenwich Ruling meant that the LEA could not restrict admission from within the Local Authority boundary.  Where the Protocol referred to excluded pupils schools could refuse to accept the pupil if excluded more than twice.

     

    (3)       RESOLVED that the Forum support the proposed Protocol.

    Supporting documents: