Minutes:
(1) Mr Vye introduced this item and invited Mr Bagshaw to update the Members.
(2) Mr Bagshaw circulated a revised copy of the Report and advised Members that the latest date for comments was December as the report needed to be published by January 2009. He reported that his priority was to deal with the co-ordinated schemes admissions arrangements but for the purposes of the Report he would need the information. Mr Vye invited Members to send comments direct to him by two weeks at the latest. He reminded Members that the Forum endeavoured to reflect the differences of opinion in any report it made.
(3) Mr Vye invited comments and suggested working through the sections.
(a) Ms Carey felt that it would be useful to have more information about the Forum, its role and contacts.
(b) Ms Matthews sought clarification as to whether the Primary graphs contained raw data. Mr Bagshaw was able to confirm this.
(c) Mrs Stockell referred to the Gender Variations in the Kent Test and suggested that the reference should refer to grammar school education. Mr Vye felt that it would be helpful to include information as percentages. Mr Tolputt has concerns about the use of percentages as it could be misleading with the variance in areas of Tunbridge Wells higher than Thanet. Mr Vye asked whether this could be shown. Mr Bagshaw noted these points and agreed to try to commission further anaysis.
(d) Ms Nee commented that the pass mark was dependent on the numbers taking the test and referred to the standardisation process. Mr Bagshaw clarified that the pass marks were set in relation to the number of pupils in the cohort and not the number taking the test. He reminded Members that the passing of the test accounted for approximately 22% going up to 25% following the Headteacher assessment stage. Ms Nee asked that the numbers of First, Second and Third preferences be shown. Mr Bagshaw confirmed that this was identified in the charts in the first section of the report.
(e) Ms Matthews and asked for the March and September figures to be shown on the type of school basis. Mr Bagshaw agreed to discuss whether such a report could be put together in the time available. Mr Speller commented that some pupils assessed as Grammar actually go on to the Independent Sector.
(f) Mr Knight referred to he places available chart and suggested that percentages would be helpful and that there appeared to be a discrepancy with Dane Court. Mr Bagshaw agreed to check the figures in the chart.
(g) Ms Matthews referred to the Gender Variation issues and would like to see this compared this with other criteria eg free meals. Mr Vye agreed that the percentage of pupils in each category of school from Looked After Children, Additional Educational Needs and Free School Meals should be capturable. Mr Bagshaw agreed that once the child was in school the information could be caught. He referred to the tables at the back of the report which could be converted into graphical information but advised that he would need Management Information to supply such charts for inclusion.
(h) Mr Parr felt that the report process was about looking at how admissions work in the area. Mr Vye agreed that it should be relevant as far as data is capturable and workload allows.
(i) Ms Carey referred to the under subscribed school data and felt that this might be misleading in respect of the Churchill School, Hawkinge as it was a new school just starting to fill up. Ms Carey also referred to academies taking a biggest proportion of pupils especially where they have been able to turn the least subscribed schools into over subscribed academies eg Channel School to Folkestone Academy and the Ramsgate School to Marlowe Academy. Mr Vye agreed that this change in take up of places should be reflected. Mr Bagshaw agreed to try to look back and compare over the years but was not sure how this could be done. He confirmed that the academies were still keen to co-operate and had offered to help to provide data. He advised the Forum that he would need to check with Management Information as to whether data was being received in a timely fashion to meet the requests but that his officers did not have the resources available to individually collate the data from academies. Mr Vye noted the concerns about the impact of academies especially on take up of places in neighbouring schools. He suggested that this should be an item for a future report to the Forum.
(j) Ms Matthews referred to the Admissions Appeals data and requested that it be shown broken down by type of school, Mr Bagshaw confirmed that this could be done and Mr Rudd agreed to assist in providing the data. Ms Matthews also referred to the Online Admissions Application Data and asked whether the data was raw and whether it could be put into percentage of applications. Mr Bagshaw agreed that this would be possible. Mrs Stockell noted that there seemed to be quite a high percentage of applications achieved by this method, Mr Bagshaw confirmed that a lot of work had gone into overcoming the previous year’s problems and improving the process resulting in positive feedback from parents and a far greater take up.
(k) Ms Nee asked whether the Statements of Special Educational Needs (SSEN) data included gifted and talented pupils. Ms Nee also referred to the Looked After Children (LAC) data and asked whether the numbers by cluster related to number of children. Mr Bagshaw confirmed that it was the case as far as he was aware but committed to confirm this and provide clearer description on the charts. Mr Knight agreed that these did need clarification as to what the numbers represent. Mr Bagshaw agreed to check these points. He also confirmed that he would be separating the LAC and SSEN data into different charts as they were not related.
(l) Mr Vye referred to the information concerning the ten secondary schools with the highest scores on the index of Multiple Deprivation. He noted that in nearly all cases the places offered at those schools were at or close to the Published Admissions Number. Mr Bagshaw advised the Forum that for some schools this would be the result of the LA allocating pupils who had not received one of their preferences to a school with places available.
(m) Mrs Stockell asked where the report would go after being submitted to the Forum. Mr Vye suggested that the Education Policy Overview Committee might find it useful to see the information although it could not influence it. Mrs Stockell agreed. Ms Nee requested that a glossary showing jargon be added to any information going on line. Mr Vye advised that whilst the Report was for the Government’s benefit, it could also be used by the Forum to identify priority issues to seek further information..
(n) Ms Matthews referred to the data relating to Free School Meals and asked why Tunbridge Wells has all four colourbands. Mr Speller took it to be the number of schools not pupils. Mr Bagshaw agreed with Mr Speller and committed to looking again at the way this data was presented.
(o) Mr Vye advised Members that this was an ongoing development and that in the future the LA would produce the Report and the Forum would be invited to scrutinise it. Mr Bagshaw re-iterated that the Members submitted their request to Mr Vye he would do his best to put together the amendments requested. Mr Vye concluded this item by thanking Mr Bagshaw on the Forum’s behalf for the work carried out so far.