Minutes:
(1) Mr Bagshaw advised the Forum that the new Schools Admissions Code required Local Authorities to co-ordinate casual admissions. He circulated an extract from the Code together with a co-ordination timeline. His response to the DCSF had been that it was impractical and inappropriate as work was already being done by headteachers who liaise and co-ordinate on these matters. Mr Bagshaw was of the view that for Admissions to undertake this role he would need a whole new team dedicated to that role. He reported that he would need to set up meetings with headteachers and Diocesan Boards and that consultations on a scheme would need to be agreed by 1 January 2010 to apply from September 2010. He added that from 2011 this would need to be included as a single scheme rather than separate schemes for different year groups.
(2) Mr Tolputt was concerned that this would hold everything up and create bureaucracy whereas before, parents could find a school themselves. Mr Bagshaw could only think that the DCSF was trying to stop unfair admissions practices by some schools but he agreed that it was very complicated and difficult to deliver.
(3) Mr Speller advised the Forum that he had been unhappy about the lack of guidance on casual admissions to grammar schools and he hoped that these proposals would bring some cohesion. He felt that the present arrangements were unfair in that they gave as much advantage to a child who wanted a change of school as a child who moved into the area without a school to go to. Nevertheless he acknowledged the difficulties that Mr Bagshaw and his team would face in trying to deliver such a scheme.
Whilst Mr Wetherell shared some of Mr Speller’s views, overall he felt that the proposals would disadvantage disadvantaged families even more so and would be likely to lead to more admission appeals.
Mr Bagshaw advised that the Code had always been clear about how this should be dealt with. Mr Speller’s concern was that grammar schools had different methods of assessing suitability for other year groups which may lead to children moving from one school to another without having met that particular school’s criteria.
(4) Mrs King shared Mr Tolputt’s view and expressed concern that parents might try to sue the Local Authority for delay in providing an education for their child. Mr Bagshaw felt that in theory if the process worked, as it should, his team ought to know where vacancies were fairly quickly. He advised that although the Code would come into force from 10 February 2009 aspects of it were still being looked at and therefore there may be further changes to these proposals.
(5) Mr Parr shared Mr Bagshaw’s views and agreed that it was important to liaise and that the Diocese had met a couple of authorities already.
(6) An additional concern raised by Mr Bagshaw related to the lack of additional funding and the DCSF adamant stance that this would not be available.
(7) Mrs Stockell supported Mr Bagshaw’s views and expressed her concerns at the proposals and would have liked the Forum to have been able to write to the DCSF about them.
(8) Mr Bagshaw confirmed that the Code’s requirements were mandatory, although Kent, along with colleagues in other Local Authorities who had the same concerns, had challenged these as best as could possibly be done.
(9) Ms Matthews commented that whilst she understood the problems she could see the issues that had lead to this and wondered how the managed moves arrangements would be affected. Mr Bagshaw did not have an answer on this yet but it would be included in the consultation process.
(10) Mr Bagshaw advised the Forum that Cabinet Members were aware of these proposals for budgetary purposes only but not detailed information as this was till being consulted on.