Agenda and minutes

Members are asked to note that the Meeting dates for Education Cabinet Committee in 2013 as follows:-

Fri, 18 January

Tuesday, 19 March 2013 

Fri, 21 June

Friday, 27 September 2013 

Wed, 20 November

(All Meetings will commence at 10.00am)

RESOLVED that the Education Cabinet Committee meeting dates for 2013 be noted as follows:

(All Meetings will commence at 10.00am)

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meeting held on 21 September are correctly recorded and that they be signed by the Chairman.

(Report by Mr M Whiting, Cabinet Member for Education, Learning and Skills (ELS) and Mr P Leeson, Corporate Director for Education, Learning and Skills)

1.               The Chairman invited Mr Whiting and Mr Leeson to give their verbal updates.  Mr Whiting began by advising Members on the following:

·       Academies - 100 Kent schools had now converted to academy status and a further 25 schools were in the process of converting.

·       Kent Test - Work was progressing on the Kent Test Consultations.  Earlier this year a review of the Kent Test was carried out by Headteachers at the request of the Cabinet Member for ELS.  A range of proposals had come forward that may form the basis for change.  KCC would be consulting with schools in Kent and with neighbouring authorities shortly before a formal tendering process for delivering any new testing arrangements.  The successful company would supply the Kent testing material to those students sitting the test in September 2014. Further information would be provided to the Cabinet Committee as the procurement process continued.

·       Commissioning Plan – The Cabinet Member for ELS had written to the District Leaders to request that Locality Boards and Member Panels to take an active interest in reviewing that part of the Commissioning Plan pertaining to their district to gain vital local knowledge to meet the needs of the locality.  KCC had published the first reiteration of the Kent Commissioning Plan for Education.  It was planned that the Commissioning Plan be reviewed every 6 months and updated fully and reissued each October. The progress of the meetings in the districts and Locality Boards would be reported back to this Cabinet Committee.  The first meeting would be held with Sevenoaks District Council.

·       Kent Special Educational Needs Strategy – Work was being carried out to produce a new Kent SEN Strategy and this would be submitted to this Cabinet Committee in the Spring of 2013.  The Kent SEN Strategy was timely as KCC faced an increase in referrals for special provision and funding for places in independent schools.  The aim was to look where capacity could be created in Kent schools through commissioning additional special school places.  The new SEN Code of Practise was expected shortly following the publication of the government’s green paper in 2011.

·       Kent Schools Admission Codes – The Admissions Codes for Primary and Secondary schools for September 2014were going out for consultation next week. The Cabinet Member would welcome comments from Members and all sections of the community during the consultation. 

2.               Mr Leeson gave his verbal update and advised Members on the following:-

·       Ofsted Inspections – [Since September 2012 a revised Ofsted inspection Framework was implemented].  22 schools in Kent had been inspected, 17 primary and 3 secondary, 1 special school and 1 Pupil Referral Unit.  Only 56% of Kent’s primary schools were good or outstanding, which needed to improve significantly for the future.  Approximately 70% of secondary schools were good or outstanding.  Nearly all special schools were judged to be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 40.

(Report by Mr M Whiting, Cabinet Member, Education, Learning and Skills and Mr P Leeson, Corporate Director, Education, Learning and Skills)

RESOLVED that the Education Cabinet Committeeendorses the decision to be taken by the Cabinet Member for Education, Learning and Skills that Kent County Council adopts option (C), by introducing a full approval system for training providers to not only fully safeguard children being looked after by professionals expected to deliver first aid, but also protect the council from legal challenge from providers.

(Report by Mr M Whiting, Cabinet Member, Education, Learning and Skills and Mr P Leeson, Corporate Director, Education, Learning and Skills)

(Mr K Abbott Director, School Resources and ELS Finance Business Partner was present for this item)

1.               The Chairman invited the Corporate Director, Mr Leeson to introduce the report.  He advised that there were significant changes proposed for school funding that had important implications for the future potential for a wider variation in the levels of funding available to Kent schools.  The effect of the government’s proposals and create significant challenges to KCC on how it funds these pupil places, mainly pupils with Special Educational Needs (SEN) and those that attend Pupil Referral Units (PRUs).

2.               Mr Abbott advised that the changes were the most significant since Local Management was introduced for schools over 20 years ago.  The changes being introduced would remove a lot of local discretion and was a concern for KCC, Kent schools and academies.  The concerns were included in the responses to three separate consultations that took place last year and this year regarding the changes that had to be implemented from April 2013. 

3.               Mr Abbott explained the that there were three parts to the changes as follows:

(1) Simplification of the Primary and Secondary Schools Formula.  Nationally, local authorities would be restricted to no more that 12 factors, KCC currently used 21 factors.  Among the key changes were premises factors.  KCC currently distributed £44 million to schools and to academies by looking at floor area and using a condition survey.  This would no longer be allowed.  Some specific parts of KCC formula came through a local need and the funding was targeting specifically; supporting traveller children and those schools that were specifically supporting services families.  This was not sustained in the new model formula as from April 2013. The Deprivation Funding, which was put out though KCC funding using Mosaic would no longer be allowed.  KCC would have the choice of using either Free School Meals data, or Income Deprivation Affecting Children Index (IDACI), which was considered better than the Free School Meals data but did not target the deprivation of funding as well as MOSAIC, which would create turbulence.

(2) Further delegation of the dedicated schools grant budgets as specified by the Secretary of State.  This was welcomed as it would bring to an end the vex issue of the academy top up.  Discussions had taken place with the Funding Forum and there was an agreed way forward.  There were a number of budgets that the Secretary of State had decided to freeze at the current budget levels.  This meant that there would be issues on the way that the budgets were managed. 

(3) The reform of the funding for SEN [pupils in special schools, mainstream schools SEN Units, PRUs and other settings].  This area caused most concern.  This would be a completely different approach and the funding for the high needs pupils would comprise 3 elements; (1)  ...  view the full minutes text for item 43.

(Report by Mr M Whiting, Cabinet Member, Education, Learning and Skills, Mr J Cubitt, Deputy Cabinet Member and Mr P Leeson, Corporate Director, Education, Learning and Skills)

(Ms S Dunn, Head of Skills and Employability, was present for this item)

1.               The Chairman invited the Corporate Director, Mr Leeson to introduce the report.  Points raised included the following:-

·       Members considered the draft 14 -24 Strategy at its meeting on 12 October.

·                                  The Cabinet Committees comments were incorporated to the draft strategy and the consultation was launched on 11 October.

·       The report updated Members on the responses from the consultation.

·       Broadly the Strategy was welcomed.  There was an expectation that the targets could be reduced.

·       The success of the strategy depended on the partnership working of KCC, Kent schools, colleges; work based learning providers, employers and other stakeholders such as Job Centre Plus.  There was a strong response to developing more local partnership arrangements as a way of delivering this Strategy.

·       Respondents were clear that the local authority should strengthen the way it carried out certain functions set out in the strategy including; the local authorities role in strategic mapping linked to employers needs, doing more to help employers to employ and offer apprenticeships by having a matching service and actively encouraging apprenticeships across KCC and Kent Schools.

·       There was concern in the responses to the strategy that the local authority supports the more vulnerable groups of young people.  This required clear links on what we do for vulnerable adolescents.

·       A pilot was being held on integrating business support services for districts in Kent, which was designed to provide a more targeted support for vulnerable young people to keep them on track and help to keep them in the system to help provide opportunities that would enable them to continue to engage, to ensure better pathways for them.

·       There was strong support for the work in the strategy on apprenticeships and a recognition that the positive trends need to continue.

2.               Mr Leeson explained that the draft Strategy that was considered by Members on 12 October required little changing it as it had the right priorities and was going in the right directions and was generally well received by Kent’s partners and stakeholders.  The Strategy would have some additional clarifications added in some sections before it was submitted to the Cabinet Committee on 3 December 2012.

3.               The Chairman invited Ms Dunn to speak on the report.  Ms Dunn explained that the Strategy was a different approach in looking at the continuum of education to employment and high level of learning.  This was not an area that the local authority had focused on in this way before.  There were significant changes to the post 16 funding arrangements which included the introduction of the destination measure for schools, colleges and work base learning providers at 18 years, to declare where young people move onto following their full time education.  The 14-24 Strategy underpinned the national changes.  Kent now had to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 44.

(Report by Mr M Whiting, Cabinet Member, Education, Learning and Skills and Mr P Leeson, Corporate Director, Education, Learning and Skills)

(Mrs S Rogers, Director, Education Quality and Standards was present for this Item)

1.               The Chairman invited Mrs Rogers to introduce the report.  Mrs Rogers highlighted that in parallel to the development of the ELS Scorecard, work had been undertaken to produce twelve District Scorecards which were consulted on through the last two meetings of the District Headteachers.  This had been helpful to Headteachers in understanding their District and creating valuable collaborations.

2.               Mr Leeson explained that this report included all of the Bold Steps Targets that were in the Strategic Plans for Education Learning and Skills in which to monitor progress.

3.               Members raised the following points:-

a)    A Member raised the following concerns and asked questions on the indicators with red RAG status including; (1) the large number of areas with persistently absent primary and secondary pupils, (2) Was CAM involved in the percentage of statements of Special Education Needs being issued in the correct timescale? (3) There were no statistical neighbouring averages or national averages quoted and (4) Were resources being directed to pupils from ethnic minorities with no English, in particular,  Dartford and Gravesham? 

b)    In response to (1), Mrs Rogers advised that the Head of Inclusion was looking at this carefully and ensuring that resources are directed to those particularly red areas.   In the collaboration plans received, a number of collaboratives had highlighted attendance as a major area for development as a group of school to identify what they could do together to improve the situation.

c)     In response to (2) Mrs Rogers advised that the newly appointed Head of SEN, Julie Ely, submitted a report to the Performance Evaluation Board that looked at the issue of Kent not receiving statements within the 26 weeks as it should.    One of the reasons for the delay in the preparation of the Statements was the involvement of Health in the production of the Statements.  Discussions with Health would need to take place to overcome this.  It was a top priority to resolve the delay.

d)    In reply to (3) Mrs Rogers explained that the national indicator on Ofsted category was nationally 2.6-2.7% and Kent was above the national average at 3.4-3.5%.  There was no comparison with the neighbouring authorities but there had been an increase across the country generally of schools going into an Ofsted category.   Mrs Rogers agreed to submit this information to a future meeting.

e)    In reply to (4) Mrs Rogers advised that My Child at School (MCAS), a bought back service, would need to look at how much time they were supporting the schools in Dartford and Gravesham.  Some schools with high levels of English as an Additional Language (EAL) were often performing well and it was not the EAL groups that were causing significant problems it was often other vulnerable groups in the school.

f)      A Member commented that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 45.

(Report by Mr M Whiting, Cabinet Member, Education, Learning and Skills and Mr P Leeson, Corporate Director, Education, Learning and Skills)

(Ms A Kitto, Customer Care Manager, was present for this Item)

1.               The Cabinet Committee considered a report that provided information on the complaints and representations received in 2011/12 about the services provided by the Education, Learning and Skills Directorate.

2.               Members were given the opportunity to make comments and ask questions which included the following:-

a)    In reply to a question, Ms Kitto advised that one of the ways to judge whether complainants were satisfied with the outcomes of their complaints was by the number of complaints to the Ombudsman.  There had been no complaints that went on to the Ombudsman.    Satisfaction surveys had been tried in the past and overwhelmingly the respondents were satisfied if their complaint was upheld and dissatisfied if it was not upheld.

b)    In reply to a question, Ms Kitto advised that there were 8 complaints in 2011, which went up to 11 in 2012.

c)     In response to a comment, Ms Kitto advised that she would enquire how Hampshire and Surrey recorded their complaints, which were being used as a comparison in the report.  Ms Kitto explained that there were no national standards to monitor complaints because there were no statutory requirements.

3.               RESOLVED that the responses to comments and questions by Members and the information on the complaints and representations received in 2011/12 about the services provided by Education Learning and Skills be noted.

(Report by Mr M Whiting, Cabinet Member, Education, Learning and Skills and Mr P Leeson, Corporate Director, Education, Learning and Skills)

 (Mrs S Rogers, Director, Education Quality and Standards was present for this Item)

1.               The Chairman asked Mrs Rogers to introduce the report.  Mrs  Rogers highlighted the following points:-

Key Stage1

·       This was the 6^th year in succession that the Early Years provision had improved.

·       Key Stage1 (KS1) - Level 2b for girls and level 2b+ for boys had improved from 2011 [Level 2b was the measure at KS1, which was a secure position for 7 year olds to be in, in order to ensure that they gain level 4 at the end of KS2].

·       High Achievers - There were issues in making sure that there was acceleration for higher achievers because there was more expectation that more children would achieve level 6 by the end of KS2.

·       Vulnerable Groups – The gap was closing in reading and maths for free school meals children at level 2+ and faster than the national picture.

·       Priorities for KS1 – To ensure that the direction takes Kent schools above the national average and achieves an upward trajectory.  By KS4 it was difficult to close those gaps.  The sooner the gaps could be closed the better.  This would need to be tackled from the preschool and Children Centres stage, so that as soon as the gaps appeared, those children had a better experience of school.

2.               Members were given the opportunity to make comments and ask questions which included the following:-

a)    In reply to a question, Mrs Rogers advised that there were six Senior Improvement Advisors who oversaw the Districts.  A new Improvement Strategy was launch at the beginning of September 2012 in which the needs were identified of every Kent school.  Each school’s early years data at KS1 and KS2 was looked at and on that evidence it was decided; which schools needed the most intensive support, which schools needed a “light touch” support, which schools, with KCC support, would work with others and which schools would work well within a collaborative.

b)    KCC was aware of the Kent primary schools that needed support at KS1 to raise their standards.  Members of the Improvement Team were working alongside those schools supporting and commissioning appropriate support for reading, writing or maths. They were also having challenging conversations with Headteachers to ensure that the KS1 results were as robust as possible to ensure that the vast majority of children were achieving level 2b+.  This year 74% of 7 year olds gained a level 2b. However, 26% of 7 year olds had gone up to year 3 without that solid base.  Mrs Rogers stated that this was not just an issue about raising the level at year 2 it was about what was going to be done for those children [26%] in year 3 to ensure that those gaps were closed quickly within year 3 and 4.

c)     In response to a question,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 47.

(Report by Mr M Whiting, Cabinet Member, Education, Learning and Skills and Mr P Leeson, Corporate Director, Education, Learning and Skills)

(Mr K Abbott, Director School Resources and ELS Financial Business Partner, was present for this item)

1.          The Chairman invited the Director of School Resources and ELS Financial Business Partner, Mr Abbott, to introduce the report.  Points raised included the following:-

·       Members received the detailed 1^st quarterly monitoring report in September.  This report was the interim update before the Cabinet Committee received the 2nd quarterly report at its next meeting in January 2013.

·       There had been no change in the Capital programme and it remained on target as reported in September 2012.  There were two underspends in the revenue budget that were identified by managers. The Directorate in terms of revenue would be forecasting an underspend of £162,000.  Work was being undertaken to see whether the underspend would impact next year and the need to be reflected in next years budget.

2.          RESOLVED that the revenue and capital forecast variances from budget for 2012/13 for the Education, Learning & Skills Portfolio based on the first quarter’s full monitoring to Cabinet and the subsequent exception report be noted.

(Report by Mr M Whiting, Cabinet Member, Education, Learning and Skills, Mr P Leeson, Corporate Director, Education, Learning and Skills and Mr A Wood Corporate Director of Finance and Procurement)

(Mr K Abbott, Director School Resources and ELS Financial Business Partner, was present for this item)

1.               The Chairman invited the Director of School Resources and ELS Financial Business Partner, Mr Abbott, to introduce the report.  Mr Abbott highlighted the following:

·       The consultation on the Budget 2013/14 had been launched on 6 September and closed on 1 November 2012. This report would be submitted to all Cabinet Committees to summarize for Members the consultation process which had been undertaken on the budget for 2013/14.

·       The intention had been for all the Cabinet Committees to receive the results of the Ipsos Mori consultation with the meeting papers but this had not been finalised.  This information would now go directly to Cabinet.

·       The report included the work carried out by the ECC Budget IMG which met twice to consider the Education Learning and Skills Directorate’s Budget position. 

2.               The Chairman asked Members to vote on each recommendation separately by the Budget IMG (a) to (d).   Mr Christie voted against and Mr Vye abstained on recommendation (a) which was carried.  The votes for recommendations (b) to (d) were unanimous.

3.               RESOLVED that:-

(a)   the proposals for the Education, Learning and Skills portfolio as set out in the publish budget consultation be endorsed;

(b)   there be a more detailed consideration of the longer term consequences of the Home to School Transport Policy and the ongoing review of Special Educational Needs Transport be endorsed;

 (c)   the Education Cabinet Committee has a monitoring role regarding the Education Directorates ability to deliver savings through  income generated by EduKent related services or more widely be endorsed; and

(d)   Members would not want to see any reduction in staffing levels in the Education Directorate unless they have been provided with a genuine case that demonstrates the level of service to be provided be endorsed.

(Report by Mr M Whiting, Cabinet Member, Education, Learning and Skills and Mr P Leeson, Corporate Director, Education, Learning and Skills)

1.               The Corporate Director ELS, Mr Leeson, introduce the report.  He advised that the report sets out the progress on the 2012/13 priorities in Bold Steps for Education, Learning and Skills, which was first submitted to this Cabinet Committee in May 2012.  The report indicated the key priorities and the achievements to services in relation to those priorities and provided a RAG rating on progress to date. The report sought Members views on next year’s ongoing business planning priorities. There was an agreement that the Directorate would publish Bold Steps for Education, Learning and Skills on an annual basis.  The document was currently being redrafted and part of the annual business planning process.  This would include existing and introduce additional targets and priorities for 2016.

2.               The redrafted Bold Steps for Education, Learning and Skills would be submitted to the January meeting.

3.               Members were given the opportunity to make comments and ask questions which included the following:

a)    In response to a question, Mr Leeson advised that where in 2012 the targets had already reached the targets set for 2015 the redrafted Bold Steps would reflect this and raise the expectations further especially on KS2 outcomes.

b)    In reply to a comment, Mr Leeson advised that the widening of the gap with children in public care was disappointing.  Part of the explanation was that when standards rising incrementally some of those children’s outcomes could look further behind.  The virtual school in Kent was very well led and received a very positive Ofsted visit.  There was significant focused work taking place in schools to address the needs of Children in Care to improve their progress at school.  Mr Leeson suggested that it was a RAG rating of amber.  He suggested that the Members Monitoring Group could look at the issue of Children in Care in more detail to look at the patterns across the County.

c)     In response to a comment, Mr Leeson advised that it was difficult to use national comparisons about gaps for pupils with SEN.  It was important to look at the data but because SEN were identified and assessed in very different ways in different local authorities to make meaningful comparisons was difficult. Kent did not want those gaps to get wider and using the national comparison was a less helpful indicator.  Kent wanted to see those gaps narrow. Both nationally and in Kent the outcomes for pupils with SEN was not good enough although, pupils with SEN were making satisfactory or often good progress in Kent schools.  Mr Leeson agreed to forward a detailed note outside the meeting.

4.               RESOLVED that:-

a)    the responses to the comments and questions by Members be noted;

b)    the progress being made in delivering Education, Learning and Skills Bold Steps from the Mid-term monitoring sheets of the 2012/13 Education, Learning and Skills Business Plans, attached as Appendix 1  ...  view the full minutes text for item 50.

(Report by Mr M Whiting, Cabinet Member, Education, Learning and Skills and Mr P Leeson, Corporate Director, Education, Learning and Skills)

1.               The Chairman invited the Corporate Director, Mr Leeson, to introduce the report.  Mr Leeson highlighted the following:

·       A review of the Pupil Referral Units (PRUs) and alternative provisions began in the Spring of 2012.

·       There were 18 PRUs and alternative curriculum provision for pupils at Key Stage 3 and Key Stage 4 in Kent.  Just over half of that provision was good or outstanding.

·       There had been variable quality of alternative curriculum provision in different parts of Kent.

·       The outcomes for pupils in alternative curriculum provision and PRUs was not good.  Many of those young people had gone on to become not in education, employment or training (NEET) because they had not been following pathways that offered progression or achieve qualifications level that would give them good enough pathways post 16.

·       The provision was offering different quality and flexibility in different parts of the Kent.  In some parts of Kent there were good models of PRU provision, offering good reintegration into mainstream schools, good support for mainstream pupils behavioural needs and opportunities for young people to have managed moves between schools if relationships had broken down in one school and a fresh start in another school was the appropriate option.  However in other parts of Kent that protocol and way of working was not so in evidence.

·       All Districts had opted for a new model of working from the 4 options within the consultation document. Schools were taking more responsibility on managing pupils at risk of exclusion or who were excluded and were agreeing with the local authority that the number of exclusions needed to be significantly reduced.

·       Kent had a very high level of permanent exclusion at present and 75% of permanently excluded pupils in Kent had SEN which was the 8^th highest figure nationally and had to be improved.

·       A second phase of the consultation was due to begin and run through to the Spring 2013. 

·       Each District in Kent would work on the practical details of their models, in terms of staffing, governance arrangements, funding, methodology and new ways of working from April 2013 onwards.

·       The government had brought forward national policy which enabled all PRUs to become schools from April 2013 with governing bodies rather than management committees with fully delegated budgets so Kent would need to align what it was doing with this shift in national policy in how PRUs operate in the future.

·       The intention was to bring the new models of PRUs in place by September 2013.

2.               A final report would be submitted to the meeting in March 2013 and the decision on the changes to the funding arrangements etc would be submitted to Cabinet.

3.               RESOLVED that:-

a)         the Cabinet Committee notes the progress on the review of the PRUs and alternative curriculum provision to date and supports the undertaking to extend the consultation on  ...  view the full minutes text for item 51.

(Report by Mr M Whiting, Cabinet Member, Education, Learning and Skills and Mr P Leeson, Corporate Director, Education, Learning and Skills)

 (Mrs S Rogers, Director, Education Quality and Standards, was present for this Item)

1.               The Director of Education Quality and Standards, Mrs Rogers,introduced the report.  The following points were made:

·       A Recruitment and Retention Group (RRG) was set up following discussions with the Members Monitoring Group which had developed strategies for supporting and recruiting Headteachers as well as retaining them.

·       Work had been undertaken to attract teachers and Headteachers into Kent.

·       Mrs Rogers clarified the opening words in paragraph 1.2 of the report explaining that there were not 55 Kent schools without Headteachers.  She stated that no Kent school was without an Acting Headteacher, Executive Headteacher or Head of School or a combination of all 3 who were covering the Headteacher position while the appointments of the new Headteachers were being made.  Ms Rogers advised that the Headteacher appointments were ongoing and appointments had been made and the number of schools with a Headteacher vacancy was now 19.

2.               Mr Whiting considered that the report was misleading due to the terminology that was used to describe the Headteacher vacancies in Kent Schools which had lead to misleading press coverage.  He assured the Cabinet Committee that every school in Kent, whether it was Maintained, Church, academies or Free school, had appropriate leadership in place.  He stated that there was a good Core Development Programme in Kent identifying potential and new leaders.  There was a good campaign on recruitment, 50 places sat on Kent’s Aspiring Leaders Team working with Medway and the National College to train new leaders and Headteachers of the future.  The Primary Deputy Heads Conference identified a further cohort of aspiring leaders and 55 deputies registered for that programme.  He considered that Kent was in a far better place than the report suggested.  Mr Whiting suggested that a revised report be resubmitted to the January meeting of this Cabinet Committee.

3.               Mr Leeson advised that the key indicators were vacancy rates in Kent.  The Headteacher turnover rate in Kent needed to be explained and the numbers of schools that had gone through to second and third adverts in order to recruit a Headteacher were the issues that should indicate concerns.

4.               Members were given the opportunity to make comments and ask questions:-

a)    A Member suggested that information, such as good collaborative ventures between schools could be mentioned in the literature when trying to attract Headteachers to Kent.

b)    In reply to a question, Mr Leeson explained that the difficulty of recruiting Headteachers was a national issue.  It was a national issue that more than half of the existing Headteachers would be retiring in the next 2-3 years.  Kent needed to be able to carry out its succession planning for the next cohort of senior leaders to be prepared well enough to take on Headships.  There was a general concern that it  ...  view the full minutes text for item 52.

(Report by Mr M Whiting, Cabinet Member, Education, Learning and Skills and Mr P Leeson, Corporate Director, Education, Learning and Skills)

(Mr D Adams, Area Education Officer (Mid Kent), was present for the Item)

1.               The Chairman invited the Area Education Officer, Mr Adams, to introduce the report.  Mr Adams highlighted that the planning application had been agreed and the section 106 had been signed off in the last few weeks.

2.               Members raised the following points:-

a)    In reply to a question, Mr Adams advised that the school was inspected under the previous Ofsted Framework when it was judged satisfactory. It was disappointing that it narrowly missed a good Ofsted judgement.  From KCC’s perspective, Harrietsham Church of England school was doing well and as it was in a village community it was hoped that the children would go to their local school, accepting that quality of teaching was an important consideration.

b)    The Chairman advised that the housing development was immediately opposite the school.

c)     A Member questioned as Harrietsham Church of England school had been built recently whether it was designed to be expanded. Mr Adams advised that the school was designed to take additional classrooms, which was why it was a cost effective solution.

3.               RESOLVED that:-

a)    the responses to comments and questions by Members be noted; and

b)    the ECC endorses the officers’ intention to consult on the significant enlargement of Harrietsham CEP School.