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

    Update on Admission Forum Annual Report Process (Martin Vye)

    Minutes:

    (1)       Mr Vye introduced the debate on what should be included in the Annual Report.  Mr Bagshaw circulated interim feedback notes to be incorporated in the Annual Report.  These incorporated points made by parents about the equal preference issues and included the naming of some of the schools involved.

     

    (2)       Mrs Denson thought that it would be useful to have data about those who got their first preference as it would set the scene for the other issues.  Mr Vye also referred to other data capture issues, eg free school meals and social origins.

     

    (3)       Dr Craig confirmed that the Secretary of State has asked all Las to report schools which have not complied with the Code directly to him.

     

    (4)       Reverend Canon Smith advised the Forum that he had found Bexley LA Governor support helpful by getting Aided Schools to get information about activities to the Diocese.  Mr Parr reported that there were 160 Roman Catholic Aided Schools and the Diocese required information by the end of March.  He confirmed that he would be happy to share this information with Mr Bagshaw.  Mr Bagshaw welcomed this approach and confirmed that he would be happy to work closely with the Diocese.

     

    (5)       Mr Bagshaw circulated the Proposed Co-ordinated Scheme for 2009/10, to be imposed by the Secretary of State.  He advised the Forum that it was very similar to that recommended by the Cabinet and that this was the opportunity for the Admission Authorities to comment.

     

    (6)       Mrs Matthews referred to information about appeals statistics availability.  Mr Rudd commented that it was difficult to identify numbers until the end of the process.  Mrs Matthews also wanted to know about schools numbers on national offer day and the effect of “shake down”.  Mr Bagshaw agreed that the report could show numbers on national offer day and then track changes on a monthly basis.

     

    (7)       Mr Truelove sought clarification as to Westlands School’s error.  Mr Bagshaw explained that parents had misinterpreted the Headteacher’s advice about putting the school as first preference.

     

    (8)       Mrs Nee have an interim feedback and reference to things that she would like to see in the report.  This included specific information about grammar schools selective process.  She spoke about cohorts and successful appeals increasing the PAN.  Mrs Nee felt there was a need to scrutinise the role of the Panel and the number of appeals upheld.  She felt that this should not exceed the 25% referred to as grammar school pupils.

     

    (9)       Mr Vye felt that the timing of the report was an important factor and that it needed to be by early New Year and therefore for the Forum to have a meaningful debate it needed to be ready for December.  Given his concern about the time available he replied that he would like to gather the information available on schools in the Canterbury area and could then look at the issues arising.  In his view it was important to initiate debate.

     

    (10)     Reverend Canon Smith’s view was that any Audit trail should contain data and information about how the process had worked together with the Forum’s views.  Mr Vye agreed that it was important to get accurate data to produce an honest statement which could then be discussed. 

     

    (11)     Dr Craig referred to Mrs Nee’s concerns about more than 25% of the pupils achieving places at grammar schools.  He explained that the LA got the assessment as close to the 25% as it could.  He also confirmed that the LA had no remit to interfere with the Independent Appeal Panel decisions and could not fetter their discretion as they were independent by law.  Mrs Nee thought that the Ombudsman could become involved.

     

    (12)     With regard to gathering the data, Mr Vye suggested the possibility of the LA Members getting together to obtain the services of a research officer to assist in this process.  Mrs Cottham reminded the Forum that it was mentioned at the last meeting that a lot of this information was already available.  Mr Bagshaw agreed and although he had not been able to obtain it all yet he was pursuing this point with Management Information.

     

    (13)     Mrs Cottham referred to Bexley LA sending out offer letters early and its impact on her school.  She felt some cross border work was needed on this.  Mr Bagshaw confirmed that he had in fact received an apology from Bexley who had subsequently written to the school in question.  He accepted Mrs Cottham’s point that it would have been helpful to know this.  Mrs Cottham also expressed her concern at testing so early in the year and this point will be made by the schools in the consultation document.  Mr Bagshaw reminded the Forum that in order to meet the legislation, requirements testing could not be held any later.

     

    (14)     Mrs Nee raised the issue of supplementary forms and suggested that if the LA could provide information about dates of birth the schools would not need to seek this information themselves.  Mr Bagshaw was not able to commit to this at the moment.  He did confirm though that the DCSF was concerned about inappropriate information being taken from information on supplementary forms.  Dr Craig’s view was that it would be impossible to provide this information for nearly 18,000 pupils.  Both he and Mr Bagshaw felt that individual schools should be verifying this information at the time of offering a place.

     

    (15)     Mrs Matthews thought that the Forum should take part in the consultation on the proposed scheme.  Mr Vye advised Mrs Matthews that the DCSF had already received the views of the Forum.  Mr Bagshaw confirmed this.  Mrs Matthews requested the Forum Members be able to see a copy of what was sent and asked whether there should be a formal response from the Forum.  Mr Bagshaw explained that the Admission Proposals circulated at the meeting had been sent to Admission Authorities for consultation and that the Forum had received it for information and not consultation.  Reverend Canon Smith agreed that there was nothing in the proposals that the Forum did not already know about and that the DCSF already had its views.

     

    (16)     Mrs Nee referred to page 16 paragraph 13 and the question of the Headteacher assessment in the appeal process.  Mr Bagshaw confirmed that Kent took the view that the Headteacher Appeal stage was not a review process and that his interpretation of the paragraph was that the DCSF shared that view.  Mr Vye referred to a letter from the Minister, Jim Knight, and that he would be writing about this issue.  Dr Craig confirmed that officers of the DCSF were aware of the debate and that the wording in paragraph 13 clarified the situation.

     

    (17)     Mr Vye advised the Members that each Admission Authority could make its own points regarding the scheme and that in future he would arrange for a covering letter to go with the Forum’s comments.

     

    (18)     In response to further concerns from Mrs Matthews, Mr Bagshaw agreed that the admission arrangements in Kent was a complex process and that was why a detailed choosing book was published and why Choice Advisers were provided.  He also advised that letters to parents contained lots of information and that this information was also made known to Primary School Headteachers and Admissions staff both in writing and through meetings with them.  Mrs Morgan commented that as a parent she found the process last year fair.

     

    (19)     Mr Vye sought a clear honest statement of the situation that could be debated at the next meeting.  Dr Craig suggested that this should be left until the next meeting when the scheme details ought to be cleared by then.  Mr Bagshaw advised that the end of the consultation period was 8 May 2008 and the deadline for the secondary booklet was by the end of June 2008 but this depended upon the Secretary of State’s decision.