Minutes:
(1) Mr Bagshaw circulated an extract from the School Admissions Code in respect of Admission Authorities mandatory requirement to consult on the full details of their proposed admission arrangements. He confirmed that he was looking at the admission arrangements sent in and that he would be writing to the schools by 1 March 2009 to give Governing Bodies time to consider the arrangements. He also agreed to keep the Diocesan Boards informed.
(2) Mr Bagshaw was concerned that some of the schools may not have realised some of the detailed items that should have been included. He advised the Members that the Local Children Services Partnerships would also be notifying schools that more information was on its way.
(3) (i) Mr Bagshaw also circulated responses received on a Primary/Secondary consultation questionnaire distributed by the Local Authority.
(ii) He confirmed that the publicised scheme had been agreed by all parties. He drew attention to the concerns expressed by Hillview School who nevertheless recognised the need to implement the scheme as imposed by the Secretary of State.
(iii) Mr Bagshaw referred to the Primary Scheme aspect of the consultation and circulated proposed revisions to the 2010 dates following this consultation. He reported that a problem with Easter Holidays had been recognised and therefore a range of alternative dates had been sought out but that there was very little time to get these out. He had arranged that Local Children Services Partnerships would get these out by Tuesday 10 February 2009, but this would mean a short turn around time.
(iv) Mr Bagshaw confirmed that he had prepared papers to go to Cabinet and invited the Forum Members comments.
(v) Mr Speller referred to paragraph 130 a) and sought clarification that Year 12 was considered by the Admissions Code to be subject to the co-ordinated scheme. Mr Bagshaw confirmed that the co-ordinated scheme referred to in the Code related to Year R, Year 7 and Year 12. Mr Speller also referred to those parents who fail to respond to offers by the due date. If the date has passed and no response has been received he asked whether the place can be re-offered straight away. Mr Bagshaw advised that the school would need to contact the parents concerned and be seen to take reasonable measures, i.e. phone calls, reminder letters before re-offering the place.
(vi) Mr Simmonds referred to the Goudhurst and Kilndown Primary School nearness to home issue referred to in the questionnaire and expressed his concerns about schools who had amalgamated being disadvantaged. Mr Bagshaw agreed that it was difficult to deal with an issue such as this. Mr Simmonds felt that every effort should be made to support parents in this position. Dr Craig commented that this amalgamation was at least twenty years ago and if changes were made at this school it would be necessary to go back in history to consider other schools who had amalgamated.
(vii) In response to a question from Mr Tolputt; Mr Bagshaw advised that whilst Community Schools could have individual admission arrangements it would not be practical to arrange. He also confirmed that Foundation and Aided Schools could set their own catchment areas but they would need to be legal. Dr Craig added that in theory Foundation and Aided Schools could set their own admissions criteria but the Local Authority could challenge these if it felt they were unfair. Mr Wetherell confirmed that a Foundation and Aided School would need to be able to defend its scheme and criteria to the Local Authority and that this had to be borne in mind when setting the criteria.
(viii) Mrs Bolton requested information regarding the monitoring of Academies and their criteria. Mr Bagshaw advised that if they were in Kent they would be bound by the Co-ordinated Scheme. He confirmed that they were obliged to consult in the same way as other schools in the scheme and could be challenged through the School Adjudicator. Dr Craig also confirmed that Academies were bound by the School Admissions Code of Practice.