NORTH EAST HAMPSHIRE GOVERNORS' FORUM

Notes of meeting

Date 28 January 2003

Time 7.30 - 9.30 pm

Venue Cranbourne School, Basingstoke

Present	All Saints Junior Beech Down Primary Bentley Primary Cliddesden Primary Crookham Junior Four Lanes Junior Frogmore Junior Great Binfields Primary Guillemont Junior Heatherside Infant Kingsclere Primary School Langrish Primary Marlborough Infant Mayhill Junior Medstead Primary North Waltham Primary Oakley Infant Oakridge Infant Park View Infant Parsonage Farm Infant Rowledge Primary Rucstall Primary St Mark's Primary, Farnboro' St Patrick's Primary St Peter's Junior, Yateley Silchester Primary S Farnboro' Infant Tadley Primary Talavera Infant Tavistock Infant Westfields Infant Westfields Junior Wootey Infant Bohunt Cranbourne The Hurst Oak Farm Richard Aldworth Robert May's The Wavell Henry Tyndale Samuel Cody	Mrs M Stocks   Mrs G Norris   Mrs A Wilson, Mr A Thomson   Mr Darryl Green   B Williams, Mr T Carter   Mrs S Shaw   Mrs J Clarke   Mrs M Chiverton, Mrs D Ballinger   Mr W ter Kuile   Mr P Neail   Mr M Leah   Mr M Parr   Mr J Wiggell, Mr M Redmond   Mrs S Whittingham   Mr N Burchell   Mrs B Agass   Mrs B Hayes   Mrs G Raper, Mrs J Haycocks   Mr B Harrington   Mr J Struthers   Mrs J Keen   Mr T Tillman   Mrs F Milne   Mrs S O'Neill   Mr J Divall   Cllr K Chapman   Mrs H Holmes   Mr K Buckingham, Dr S Davidson   Mr S Bicknell   Cllr J Stocks   Mr T Prentice   Mr K Spendlove   Mr D Mackeggie   Mr J Duckham   Mrs K May-Miller   Mr J Goodchild   Mr R Gray   Mrs S Tonnison   Mr M Bentley, Mr S McKenzie, Mrs J Pratt   Mr N Baines, Mr A Camfield, Mr D Cording   Mrs L Baines   Mr N Baines
In attendance	Mrs Louise Brierley Mr Mike Hiscock Mrs Janice Fenner	Strategic Schools Improvement Manager   Governor Services Co-ordinator   Administrative Officer, Governor Services
Apologies	All Saints Junior Belle Vue Infant Bishop Challoner Connaught Newlands Primary Oakley Junior Richard Aldworth Rowledge Primary Sheet Primary St Patricks Primary Tavistock Infant Testbourne	Mrs J Roberts, HT rep   Mr S Curtis   Mr F Rust   Mr D Sims   Mr T Curtis   Dame Elizabeth Anson   Mrs A Eagle

Action

1 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND WELCOME

 The chairman welcomed everyone to the forum and introduced Louise Brierley who had taken over from Phil Dickinson as Strategic Schools Improvement Manager. Louise explained that her role was to lead the Standards and Improvement Branch working with schools monitoring standards and working with them to improve.

2 Independent Admissions Appeals Panels

 The chairman introduced Colin Hinxman, Principal Administrative Officer, Chief Executive's Department, Mildred Stocks and John Goodchild, both governors who serve on Independent Appeals Panels.

The Schools Standards and Framework Act 1998 required LEAs to appoint independent appeals panels. The LEA advertised every three years and the forums were used widely to advertise for panellists. Panellists received rigorous introductory training on the law and the code of practice. The training was continuous and they had the opportunity to observe appeals in action before they actually took part in an appeal.

Clerks provided support to the panel members and guided them on the interpretation of the law and issued decisions.

There had to be a balance of independent and lay people on the panels. Independent people could be ex teachers or governors. Lay people must not be connected with the education system at all. Panel members did not sit in their local area and must have no connection with the school.

There were two stages. The first stage: the headteacher and the LEA tried to show that the admission of one more pupil would prejudice the efficient education or efficient use of resources at the school.

The second stage: Evidence presented by parents.

After stage 2 the panel had to establish which children had the strongest case and then balance those, in priority order, against the case made by the lea/school.

The 1998 Act introduced a limit on infant class sizes of 30. Where appeals occurred the panel would look at what actions the governing body had taken, what factors were taken into account when making their decision, whether a mistake had been made, whether a distance had been measured wrongly or whether a sibling has been overlooked. Occasionally there were admissions on the grounds of unreasonableness, where a governing body had made a really bizarre decision. Governors needed to be scrupulous in what they did and how they arrived at their decision.

Mildred Stocks and John Goodchild joined Colin and explained that, unlike community and controlled schools, foundation and aided Schools, who were their own admissions authority, did not have an LEA representative to act for them at the hearing.

Governing bodies had to stick to their published admissions policy but the Appeals Panel would consider other relevant circumstances. For instance a child may have a disabled sibling at another school. It was important that governors reviewed their admissions policies from time to time.

Mildred and John gave the following replies to questions:

The Panel would look at all circumstances including were all the facilities adequate. Health and safety would be taken very seriously.

Panels had to consider all the evidence and look at what was likely to happen in the future where a governing body had decided to limit their KS1 intake to well below 30.

There was no advisory role from the LEA for Aided schools. Advice would come from the Diocese.

Admissions could be reviewed in-house provided the admission appeal was not contravened. Parents had to be advised that they had the right to go to independent appeal and the time limits they had in which to do that.

An appeal was still heard even if the parent did not attend. If the second stage was reached parents were heard individually. One set of papers was kept by the clerk in case the Ombudsman became involved but the others were shredded.

The chairman thanked Colin, Mildred and John for their helpful presentation.

3 Implications of New Admissions Legislation

 The chairman introduced Alex Munro, Education Officer (Admissions and Special Projects).

Alex explained that as a result of consultations a document had to be produced which dealt with the changes to be made. This will go to the Admissions Forum, then Policy Review Committee and finally to the Executive Member for Education.

Schools had been remeasured and in some cases this had resulted in a new admissions number. Schools had been consulted and it was important that they responded.

It was important that, under present admission procedures, parents living on county borders who had several offers of places informed those schools where they weren't accepting the offer as soon as possible.

In future there would be a common application form for anyone in Hampshire for voluntary, foundation and community schools. Aided schools would retain their own admissions policy but there could be a supplementary form which the school would have to produce. Everyone would have to give 3 preferences for secondary and probably 2 for primary. The LEA was very likely to continue to wish to operate a `first preference first' system but aided and foundation schools could retain their own oversubscription criteria.

Alex asked governors to look carefully at the co-ordinated scheme as the LEA would value their advice. It was important that schools responded as timescales were very tight for proposals to be incorporated in the March Committee paper.

The Government has said that from 2005 no parents at secondary schools could be told the result of their application until 1 March. It was hoped to get to a position in 2004 where there would be only one Hampshire offer per parent.

Consultations would take place next year on cross border applications and the timescales.

All Schools should receive the same advice from the Admissions Team in fairness to parents. The Code of Practice could be found on the DfES Website.

Alex answered the following questions:

The decision about Year R's date had not been made yet. The primary deadline date might have to be brought forward, perhaps to before Christmas, in order to ensure that there was time to deal with all appeals.. The LEA did not have to co-ordinate with other LEAs on primary admissions.

The results of the consultation with schools would report the number of schools who supported each option.

The chairman thanked Alex Munro for his very interesting presentation.

4 Minutes

 The minutes of the meeting held on 23 September 2002 were confirmed and signed by the chairman.

  

5 Matters Arising from the Minutes

  9. Certificates for Governors

Mike Hiscock explained that a new award system was being developed for use within Governor Services. Governors would be rewarded for 8 and 12 years service.

6 Report from the County Forum

 A report had been attached to the agenda.

7 Items to be taken to HGRG/County Forum

 Six Term Year

It was proposed that Andrew Seber should be asked to provide information about how many questionnaires were returned; how many supported fully or did not support the proposals fully. Proposed by Mr Edwards and seconded by Mr Wiggell.

The chairman agreed to take this to the County Forum.

Cllr Stocks explained that a large panel of parents across the county had been consulted, every single teacher had received a questionnaire in their paypacket. `Hampshire Now' which was issued to all Hampshire residents had also contained a questionnaire. Every chair of governors and every headteacher had received a letter. Mike Hiscock drew attention to an e-mail sent to headteachers on 2 December and one on 10 January which communicated the response.

Post Meeting Note: A Report on the Consultation about a Six Term Year can be found on the Hampshire Website in Stop Press (www.hants.gov.uk/education/governors). If anyone does not have access to the Website please let Governor Services know (01252 814785) and we will send you a copy.

Funding for Able Children

The chairman agreed to take funding for able children to County Forum. There was funding for SEN children was there any chance of funding for able children?

  

8 Service Review Group

 Fleet only had one representative on this group. Another member was needed. The purpose of the group was to take proposals regarding Governor Services to its customers. To ask the group to consider and advise about the level of service provided. The Group met three times a year at Winchester (usually 7.30 pm start). The next meeting was 27 March. Anyone wishing to volunteer should speak to Mike Hiscock (01252 814785)

9 Any Other Business

There was no other business

10 Future Agenda Items

It was agreed that Roger Mead should be invited to the May meeting to talk about funding.

It was agreed that someone from the Hampshire Music Service should be invited to the September meeting.

11 Date, Time and Venues for next Two Meetings

 Tuesday, 20 May 2003 at Wootey Infant School, Alton

 Tuesday, 23 September, Fleet Education Office.