Archived decisions

Contact: Roger Mead, ACEO Resources and Planning 01962 847991

1 Summary

1.1 The Education Act 2002 implements the legislative commitments set out in the 2001 White Paper "Schools Achieving Success".

1.2 This report focuses on three elements of the legislation which will have immediate impact. A further report in November will consider the implications for the County Council of the other parts of the legislation.

2 The Education Act 2002

2.1 Attached as Appendix 1 is a summary produced by the DfES of the main provisions of the Act. The DfES have also produced a wall-chart setting out key dates, for example, when provisions come into force and the timing of consultations. Additional copies have been ordered and will be circulated to members upon receipt.

2.2 The Advisory Centre for Education and "Ten" (The Education Network) will be publishing a guide to the Act during early October. Upon receipt a copy will be sent to each member of the Committee.

3 The Implications for the County Council

Governance

3.1 The Act does not make provision for minor authorities to appoint (or nominate) individuals as school governors as a right. The draft Regulations also make no such provision. The draft Statutory Guidance, (to which the County Council and schools must have regard), says "LEAs may appoint minor authority nominees to schools as LEA governors". Also under Community governors appointed by governing bodies "The definition of community governor is wide and can include people from a business or professional background, and minor authority nominees". In voluntary aided schools there are no Community governors and in many VA schools there may well be only one LEA governor. Neither potential route as it stands therefore is likely to deliver clarity in respect of the degree to which nominees will continue to be sought from minor authorities. Decisions by governing bodies may well be `ad hoc' with no consistency from one occasion to the next. However the longest category of vacancy for Hampshire schools is in community governorships (presently co-opted) so there is some merit in this also being the route for minor authority representation.

3.2 The attraction of the LEA route for representation is that the County Council could determine this to be its policy and therefore make it stick at the level of individual County Councillors and schools. However, overall the impact of this latest reconstitution of GBs is to reduce LEA governorships to 20% in community schools, at least 1 and up to 20% in foundation and controlled schools, and at least 1 and up to 10% in voluntary aided schools. With significant numbers of governing bodies able to choose GBs with only 1 or 2 LEA governors, the committee may wish to consider a way forward. The Hampshire Association of Parish and Town Councils has always expressed a strong commitment to providing minor authority governors to local schools and has written to the Secretary of State for a definitive statement on the role and status of parish councillor governors of local schools.

School Admissions

3.3 The Act contains important implications for school admissions, particularly the co-ordination of admission procedures between schools for which the LEA is the admission authority (community and voluntary controlled) and schools which are their own admission authorities (foundation and voluntary aided). LEAs must formulate a "qualifying scheme" by 31^st March 2003 setting out proposals for co-ordinating admissions. Regulations, currently in draft form, will set out in more detail the key elements of co-ordination schemes but there will still be scope for some local flexibility.

3.4 Of initial concern, however, is the proposal that there should be a national dates upon which parents nationwide would be told the outcome of their application for a place in a primary or secondary school. The proposed timescale is several months later than the current Hampshire timescale and, if adopted, could have serious implications for the management of the appeal process in particular. Representations are being made to the DfES urging locally agreed dates.

3.5 One of the key features of the new co-ordination arrangements will be that, although parents must be invited to give at least three preferences, they will receive only one offer. This means that parents will no longer be able to hold simultaneous offers from different admission authorities as has happened hitherto. This will simplify procedures but will mean that in some areas of the county parents will have to think more carefully about exactly how they express their preferences.

3.6 The Act makes it statutory for LEAs to set up an Admission Forum. Hampshire has had a Forum since 1999 and the new legislation, which sets out details of constitution and role, should be comparatively easily assimilated into Hampshire's existing procedures.

3.7 There are draft revised Codes of Practice for both admissions and appeals which will replace the Codes published in 1999 containing advice on all aspects of admission and appeal procedures.

3.8 The DfES is organising a series of regional seminars where it is hoped that a number of key issues will be clarified. The LEA retains its responsibility for determining admission arrangements for 2004 admissions by 15^th April 2003 at the latest and a report will be presented to the PRC in March. This report is also likely to include an update on progress towards agreeing a "qualifying scheme".

Schools Forum

3.9 The Act requires each LEA to establish a School Forum between the 2 September 2002 and 15 January 2003 and for it to meet at least once by 31 March 2003. The Forum will be a non-executive body making recommendations to the County Council.

3.10 The legislative requirements are:

· The Forum must have at least 15 members (in total)

· The Forum must have schools members, who can be either headteachers or governors, but the proportion and number of these is not fixed

· The number of primary and secondary phase members should be proportional to the pupil numbers

· The LEA can determine the method of electing schools members and all the other issues in constituting the schools membership including the balance between headteacher and governor representation at each phase

· Up to 20% of the membership of the Forum are non schools members representing bodies other than schools and this can include county councillors

· The quorum requirement is 40%

The Forum has three functions:

· To be consulted on the LEA's schools funding formula;

· To be consulted on specified issues in connection with the Schools Block Budget

· To be consulted on service contracts

3.11 The costs of the Forum are to be charged to the local schools budget in 2002/3 and the Schools Budget Block thereafter.

3.12 Earlier this year the County Council discussed with heads, governors, dioceses and Teachers Liaison Panel representatives and the Early Years Development and Childcare Partnership the government's proposals for Schools Forums alongside the County Council's response which included its preferred model for the membership of the Forum. The response also argued for changes to allow greater recognition of successful consultative arrangements LEAs had in place already and highlighted the challenge large LEAs would face if all schools had to be included formally in securing nominations to the Forum. The Government amended its proposals to an extent which affords LEAs the freedom Hampshire requested.

3.13 It is proposed to establish a Schools Forum in the autumn term to enable it to make recommendations on the Schools Block Budget for 2003/4. The first meeting of the Forum is scheduled for late November and will determine its constitution, elect a chair, agree draft procedures, agree meeting dates for 2003/4, service/clerking arrangements and funding. Many of these issues are defined in the legislation.

3.14 As a statutory advisory committee, the Schools Forum will be supported by the County Education Department with the costs met by the Forum.

3.15 The proposed membership of the Schools Forum is set out in Appendix 2 with the facility for other members of the County Council to attend. This would normally include Executive Member for Policy and Resources, chairman and deputy chairman of Education Policy Review Committee and opposition spokespersons.

3.16 During the earlier consultation on the principle of a Schools Forum there was general agreement that where possible this should not increase bureaucracy. To that end discussions with headteachers' and governors' representatives centred on the future of current consultative groups relating to the functions of the Forum. It is proposed to discontinue from mid November 2002 the current LMS Review, the Standards Fund Consultative and the Budget Consultation with Partners Groups and for their work to form part of the role of the Schools Forum. Whilst the current Resources Phase Groups will continue, as their terms of reference include matters outside the scope of the Forum, they and some of the management partnership groups (particularly those relating to service contracts) must have regard to the Schools Forum's statutory responsibilities when considering changes to current arrangements. This will have a particular impact on those departments of the County Council that have service contracts with schools.

Conclusion

The Committee are invited to comment on the three issues highlighted in this report in relation to:

· Governance

· School Admissions

· Schools Forum

Section 100 D - Local Government Act 1972 - Background Documents

The following documents disclose facts or matters on which this report, or an important part of it, is based and has been relied upon to a material extent in the preparation of this report.

N.B. the list excludes:

1. Published works

2. Documents which disclose exempt or confidential information as defined in the Act.