Minutes from the Fareham and Gosport Patch Forum Meeting held on Thursday 20 February 2003 at the Lysses House Hotel , Fareham.
Present: 29 Governors - see attached list.
Apologies: 11 Governors - see attached list.
In attendance: Alex Munro - Education Officer (Admissions and Special Projects.), Bob WestGovernor Services Co-ordinator, Ron Rees - Clerk
In the absence of John Brailsford (Chairman), Joy Preston (Vice-Chair) welcomed everyone, and introduced Alex Munro who would talk about Admissions.
1. New Draft HCC Admissions Scheme.
Alex Munro spoke of the new system under two main headings, Consultations and Issues.
An A4 sheet was available for Governors to indicate the areas to be considered under these two headings. The main points of discussion following these headings were as follows.
Consultations.
· Relevant areas for consultation.
Relevant areas for consultation are particularly important for aided and foundation schools since consultation on admission arrangements need to take place with the LEA and neighbouring schools.
· Admission arrangements for 2004 (mainly changes to policy).
There had been a good response to the consultation with 41% of primary schools responding.
At the end of March, the Policy Review Committee will summarise the results of the consultation. The policy will give priority to (i) SEN children, (ii) `looked after children' (those in public care), and (iii) existing criteria such as those with significant medical and psychological conditions. There will be an agreed scheme for Year R children whereby they can join the school in the Spring Term. A place will be kept for them. Responses from schools included concerns about losing money and the fact that schools felt they had a good product to offer, but the Government expects flexibility. Information about the policy will be passed to schools, then Governors can adopt the policy. In measuring the distance from school, the straight line will be recommended, not walking distance.
· Published admission numbers (PANs).
As a result of the Asset Management Plans for schools, the capacity of some schools has changed and this has resulted in changes in PAN but mainly schools have remained with the same number. Numbers for some secondary schools will be more complicated to decide.
· School specific criteria.
It is hoped that some places to cater for `turbulence' may still be reserved in service schools, despite apparent Code guidance. A limited number of other criteria will also be agreed.
· Co-ordinated scheme for secondary admissions in 2004 - proposals.
By 2005, all LEAs should have a co-ordinated system for secondary schools within Hampshire and from 2006 almost certainly with neighbouring LEAs. An example was given for an area near the West Sussex border. Parents could fill in a form for a school in West Sussex and the information would go to that LEA for an answer to be given, so it was also necessary to have a co-ordinated scheme with all other bordering LEAs. If first, second and third preferences are given, then the information would be passed on. It might also be necessary to liaise with LEAs such as Bournemouth and Reading, even though they did not share a border with Hampshire.
1 New Draft HCC Admissions Scheme (continued).
Working backwards, it seemed prudent to have a scheme like this for 2004 otherwise such a scheme will not be ready for 2006. What is proposed is essentially a metropolitan scheme. In London there are a mixture of schools and LEAs and parents can apply for many schools. In 2005 the scheme will change for primary schools in Hampshire.
Foundation and Aided schools will, from 2005, have to use a common application form. There is a big range of schools in the south east of the county for instance and it would be beneficial if all schools could use the common form. Aided and, if necessary, Foundation schools would then use a supplementary form for further church related details.
In Hampshire, we will legally have to offer three preferences, some of which could be out of county. There was some discussion about missing out on a catchment school place if this is not put as a first preference.
A common timetable for 2006 was not thought to be a problem but it may well be the case for 2004. In future there will be one offer within Hampshire. Governors were reminded that the first preference offer is made pre-Christmas. Forms come to schools and the process carried out by the schools is generally straightforward. Schools write to parents and 95% of children receive their first preference. In LEAs where the process is centralised, parents hear in February/March.
In 2005, even if we have resolved placements for 95% of the pupils, we will not be able to tell parents until 1 March when letters will be sent giving offers. The practicalities of this will be that schools will know but cannot tell parents. Security will be very difficult and will create tensions in schools. In 2006, on 1 March letters will go out throughout the country and create a major national event. In 2004, the Hampshire will still hope that schools will carry out the process. However the system will inevitably become more centralised in that the Government expects all offers to be made by the LEA, not schools. This will need to be considered further.
Issues.
A number of issues had been indicated above under the last heading but Mr. Munro had highlighted the following on the sheet given to Governors.
· Effects on expression of parental preference if only one offer.
This had been mentioned. An additional point was the possible use of late applications by parents accepting a catchment area place and then putting in a late application for another school.
· Government expects all offers to be made by the LEA, not schools.
· Appeals delayed by March 1st offer date (currently secondary appeals are set up before and start in March).
Appeal dates have already been set by now but when the March 1st offer date comes into effect, appeals will be delayed into the summer term. We tend to deal with secondary appeals early but it is possible that primary appeals will be dealt with first. We have to remember that, although panel members are mainly retired, a great deal of expertise is needed. Sufficient panel members are needed but the system can be under pressure if there are many appeals applications.
All LEAs will operate the same timescales, use the same criteria, so effectively, it will be a national system.
· Primary co-ordination for 2005 but more flexibility.
There is no obligation for primary schools to liaise across borders, and there is more flexibility to decide when the offer time will be.
· Importance of revised Code of Practice on admissions.
What we have talked about is based on the School Standards and Framework when amendments were made in 2002. The revised Code of Practice is legally binding. In Foundation and Aided schools, the headteacher and at least one governor should be fully conversant with the Code of
Practice although it is quite difficult to come to terms with all of it. Nowadays, admissions are
1. New Draft HCC Admissions Scheme (continued).
surrounded by court cases and the County have education law specialists to deal with the complex issues. The key to the admissions process is that it should be clear, fair and objective and be as simple as possible for parents to use. Mr. Munro suggested that Governing Bodies should be conversant with the DfES website in respect of admissions and that the 66 pages of the code provide a `good read'.
Further points were made as follows.
A paper is being prepared for the Policy Review Committee to consider at the end of March.
The Admissions Forum will meet in April. This is a mixture of headteachers, governors and representatives of other groups with an interest in admissions. This body advises the LEA and is the body to which Mr. Munro reports. In June and July there will be presentations around the county. When the 2004 scheme is agreed, consideration will be given to the 2005 scheme. In April 2004, the LEA will need to tell the Minister for Education that the 2005 scheme is available. Mr. Munro said that the meetings with the LEAs in the southeast have proved and are proving to be valuable. In this respect, grammar schools were mentioned - LEAs where such schools remain will need to ensure that all exam results are known well before March 1st.
Questions.
1. Why is it so complicated when years ago, it was not so?
It became so, initially in 1980, with an act giving parental preference. The LEA needed to agree to this before but there was less parental protection. A court case in 1982 was the first of many to affect appeals; the introduction of grant maintained schools made the situation even more complicated.
2. Is specialisation going to complicate admissions?
No, because the same scheme will operate. The LEA's view is that it is not appropriate to select (on aptitude for sports for instance). Specialisation should not be seen as a creaming off device nor be related to selection. There is no evaluation of talent for a particular school.
This is difficult for parents but children should be seen to go to the local school. There seems to be no evidence that specialist schools have a better product.
3. With an effectively nationally controlled system, will there be variations in appeal decisions?
The questioner gave an example of similar cases, say in Liverpool and here, where decisions might be different. Mr. Munro pointed out that, although panels are independent, lawyers will need to advise panels and ensure that they and the panels have the correct information.
It was noted also that in cases involving SEN pupils, huge amounts can be involved and there is a danger of great expense to the administration.
4. Would Mr. Munro repeat the information about the reception class?
From 2004, the scheme will delay admission until January if parents wish to do so. A place would be reserved; application would be made at the normal time. Few parents had in fact asked for this. The view of many schools was that children were disadvantaged if they did not start school with their peers.
5. Who are `looked after' children?
`Looked after' children are those in care under Section 22 of the Children Act. They are the responsibility of the LEA and there are 933 in Hampshire. Some are in temporary care. If there is a genuine need of special care, a particular school might be requested.The child could be in care in a different catchment area. The Code suggests that priority is now given to these children.
1. New Draft HCC Admissions Scheme (continued).
6. What if children are moved into care?
The same thing applies. If they are already in school, the child is kept in the same school if possible. It was noted here that difficulties can arise when there is movement between parents, particularly in Year 10, and a lot of time is spent to reach the best solution.
7. What of statemented and other potentially demanding children?
The Code says that every school should accept a fair share of statemented and other potentially demanding children even if the school is full. We will look at existing practice and consolidate. In some cases children move to another school, and there might be an agreement between schools to exchange pupils. When IT systems allow we will have a better view of the movements which take place.
Mr. Munro said that he would ensure that governors are kept informed of developments, thanked governors for listening and made the point that governors are crucial to the education process.
Joy Preston thanked Mr. Munro for a very interesting and `non-glossy' down to earth talk which had indeed kept us informed.
Mr. Munro left the meeting at this point.
2. Issues from the floor to include issues arising from
(i)Fareham and Gosport Patch Forum Minutes of the 10 October
(ii) HGRG minutes
(iii) County Forum Minutes.
References refer to the last minutes.
(i)Fareham and Gosport Patch Forum Minutes of the 10 October.
3. Headteacher issues - Re-distribution of Funding.
Governors wondered what the outcome was. It was noted that the Executive was meeting today but it was expected that Hampshire County Council would protect services by increasing the Council Tax if necessary. There may well be an article in tomorrow's press.
It was also noted that the PROFS note had not been clear and had proved to be unhelpful.
(ii) HGRG minutes.
3. Schools' Balances.
The balances were noted from the minutes as £31 million with 34 schools having a deficit totalling £1 million. Was it time to move these funds around within the county? In the case of one school, funds had been obtained by selling off surplus land to enable building work to be carried out but 20% of the primary schools with balances are not holding them for any particular reason. There could be good reasons for having a balance such as the need to take falling rolls into account or planning for an extra teacher but this is a lot of money to be 'sitting' around. There was some sympathy for loan arrangement to considered.
9. (3) Asset Management Plan.
The written note was, in fact, a statement which had been read out and not attached to the minutes.
(iii) County Forum Minutes.
4. Update on six term year.
The six term year had been passed as a recommendation with the likely start date as September 2004. A comment was made that having professional days during the holiday was not flexible for planning.
(iii) County Forum Minutes (continued).
9. School reorganisation, policy and practice.
Many governors are aware that some schools may close. Mr. Brailsford had sent the copy of the report mentioned under item 9 (Item 6 of the Education Policy Review Committee meeting).This report concerns surplus places in primary schools. It notes that there were 6.4% surplus places in 1997. There are now 9.5% and in 2007 this will rise to 12.4%. Surplus places are mainly in urban areas and are likely to affect Fareham (Central/East) and Fareham (West/North) as indicated in 10.1 of the report. It was suggested and agreed that a speaker might be invited to the next meeting of the forum to talk about surplus places. Governors were given the necessary information to enable them to obtain a copy of the report if they wished to do so straight away but it was agreed that a copy would be sent out with these minutes and the agenda for the next meeting.
Governors appreciated the concern about the number of surplus places, now increasing, and the need to reduce the financial burden. There were further comments about the new schools that are needed in areas of development and merging schools. In the case of merging schools it was stressed that the difficulties of doing this should not be underestimated.
(iv) Other Issues.
Ofsted Inspections.
One Governor said that notification of Ofsted Inspections was a cause for concern and wondered if times are being extended. Ofsted training had been undertaken last April in view of an inspection being expected but the school was still awaiting notification. It was suggested that it would be helpful to enquire (through the internet) about any changes in Ofsted policy.
Governing Body Evaluation.
There was some discussion about the use of the Governing Body Self Evaluation scheme.
Governors who had used this had found it useful. It was important for all Governors to fill in the form; the assessment that follows can provide a good pointer to further training. Governing Bodies who set aside the time to discuss issues and decide on development areas seem to gain most from the exercise. Mr. West said that about 60% of Governing Bodies had used it when it was first introduced and suggested it might be used every 3 years.
Accessing Information.
Another Governor said that having to use printers at home to access web sites was a cause of irritation. There was some sympathy for this view although using websites was a way of reducing bureaucracy. The HGRG will be asked later in the year about views on how best to communicate. Questions about the need for information, how realistic it is to access information, and the need of the hard format for documents need to be addressed.
Some Governors use school computer equipment with the help of school staff to obtain documents but this requires a degree of co-operation which is not always available.
Cost in another factor for either the Governor or the school. Feedback on this item will be sought at a later date.
4. Date of next meeting.
The date of the next meeting will be 15 May 2003 at the Lysses House Hotel at 7 pm.
The meeting closed at 8.55 pm.
Attendance list for the Fareham & Gosport Patch Forum Meeting held on Thursday 20 February 2003 at the Lysses House Hotel, Fareham.
Present:
Susan Bown, St. John the Baptist Primary
Linda Byrne, Swanmore College of Technology
Colin Channon, St. John's Primary
Andy Dood, Croften Hammond Junior
Jackie Ewen, Crofton Anne Dale Junior
Ted Goodyear, Alverstoke/Leasland Junior
Rosemary Gudgeon, Neville Lovett Community/ Uplands Primary
Sue Hirst, Ranvilles Infant
Jackie Hodgkinson, Locks Heath Infant
Dianne Hopkins, Peel Common Junior/Haven Early Years
Trevor Howard, Wallisdean Infant
Margaret Hunt, Heathfield Special
Peter Jarrett, Holbrook Primary
Debbie Lander, Sarisbury C of E Junior
Stephen Lane, Orchard Lea Infant
Sue Macdonald, Holbrook Primary
Karen Moore, Wicor Primary
Andy Nelson, Gomer Junior
W.T. Phillipps, Redlands
Joy Preston, Wallisdean Junior
Odette Sanderson, Siskin Infant
Iris Sotherley, Orchard Lea Junior
Thia Sisk, Croften Hammond Infant
Paul Squire, Cams Hill Secondary
Nick Smart, Ranvilles Junior
Geoff Strong, Northern Community
Maureen Sygrove, Henry Cort Community
John Walbrook, Oak Meadow Primary
John Witham, Broad Park
Apologies:
John Brailsford, Sarisbury Infant
Keith Butler, Rowner Infant
Steve Bullock, Castle Primary
Anne Charles, Woodcot
Paul Fenton, Bridgemary Community
Carol Gratton, Elson Junior
Roger Hobbs, Park Gate Primary
Roy Lee , Harrison Primary
Mike Pewngelly, Grange Infant
Gill Pickburn, Sarisbury Junior
Mr. I Orr, Lee-on-Solent Infant