Archived decisions

Contact: Alex Munro, Education Officer (Admissions & Special Projects) 01962 846462; [email protected]

1 Summary

1.1. This paper reports on consultations held with governing bodies and neighbouring local education authorities in relation to proposed admission arrangements for community and voluntary controlled mainstream schools for 2006/07. All recommendations are supported by the Hampshire Admission Forum.

1.2. No major changes are proposed to the admission policies for community and voluntary controlled mainstream schools. Some adjustments have been made to the scheme for secondary co-ordinated admissions in the light of the experience of the first year of co-ordination for 2005. For 2006, the LEA must also co-ordinate admissions to primary schools; the proposed scheme draws on the experience of secondary co-ordination with appropriate modifications.

1.3. The county admissions team has played a substantially enhanced role in the administration of 2005 secondary admissions. This will further increase for 2006 primary and secondary admissions.

1.4. By ensuring that all procedures are 'clear, fair and objective', in accordance with Code of Practice advice (DfES:2003), and by emphasising the importance of the catchment area in allocating school places, admission procedures reflect the County Council's Corporate Aim 1 (maximising life opportunities), Aim 4 (building strong and safe communities) and Aim 5 (improving services).

1.5. The Code also requires admission authorities to ensure that all admission arrangements support equal opportunities and do not discriminate unlawfully.

2 Background

2.1. The County Council is the admission authority for all community and voluntary controlled schools within Hampshire and is therefore responsible for determining the admission arrangements for these schools. Regulations require all admission authorities (i.e. LEAs and the governing bodies of voluntary aided and foundation schools, referred to in this report as "admission authority schools") to determine their school admission arrangements for 2006/07 by 15 April 2005 and to have notified other admission authorities within 14 days of this date at the latest.

2.2. Consultations for 2006 admissions have been carried out in three stages:

(1) September - November 2004 : consultations on published admission numbers (PANs)

(2) October - December 2004 : consultations on proposed co-ordination schemes and admission policies

(3) January - February 2005 : final consultations (electronic only)

2.3. Particular attention has been paid to the consultations on PANs which were started as a separate phase very early in the school year. As a result of this early start, it is now possible for PANs to be considered by the EPRC and approved by the Executive Member as part of the overall decision making process rather than, as in previous years, being delegated to the County Education Officer for final approval.

2.4. Given that there is now a very tight legislative framework within which admissions must operate, coupled with strong advice set out in the Code of Practice (DfES 2003), there is comparatively little flexibility open to LEAs and the governors of admission authority schools in determining admission arrangements.

2.5. For 2006 admissions, schools were asked to comment on the proposed primary and secondary co-ordination schemes and admission policies. They were also asked to provide feedback on the LEA's production of "pre-populated" secondary common application forms (CAFs). 2005 was the first year in which the vast majority of secondary application forms were pre-printed with the names and addresses of pupils, based on information supplied by schools. Primary schools were asked to comment on parents' reaction to the choice of deferring their child's admission to Year R until January, introduced for the first time for 2004 admissions.

2.6. The following table gives details of the response rate to consultations

Table 1

Phase	Total schools	Schools responding	% response rate	Previous year's %
Primary	435	102	23.4%	6.4%
Secondary	71	16	22.5%	12.7%
Total	506	118	23.32%	7.3%

2.7. The higher response rate compared to last year is encouraging, reflecting the important changes that are taking place in procedures for both primary and secondary admissions.

2.8. Twenty-seven schools welcomed the proposed scheme for primary co-ordination; 10 schools expressed some concern at the mid-January offer date, some suggesting that this was too late and others too early. It was clear, however, that a minority of schools responding (and it must be assumed, therefore, a number of others too) have not yet appreciated that all offer letters will be sent by the LEA rather than individual schools. Eight secondary schools commented on the proposed secondary co-ordinated scheme for 2006.

2.9. Thirty-one primary school responses commented on the procedures for checking the validity of addresses. A great deal of time is spent by schools in checking addresses when, in the vast majority of cases, they are confident that the address is correct. Four secondary schools responded in similar vein.

2.10. Eighteen schools (12 primary; six secondary) welcomed the introduction of "pre-populated" forms. According to the returns from schools, only three parents have requested deferred admission to Year R in 2004/05 out of a total cohort of 13,400 children.

2.11. The results of these consultations were considered by the Admission Forum at its meeting on 8 February. The County Council has a statutory duty to "have regard" to the recommendations of the Forum. The Forum includes representatives of the LEA, parent governors, headteachers, the Church of England and Roman Catholic dioceses, the armed forces, special educational needs, ethnic minorities, early years, Social Services and neighbouring LEAs.

2.12. The need to ensure that addresses given by parents are correct was discussed in detail at the Forum meeting. It is clearly important that places should be offered on the basis of accurate information but the level of detected fraud is minimal. Currently, parents are asked to provide proof of address such as child benefit or a household bill.

2.13. The LEA carried out detailed investigations into two cases during the past year. In the first instance, specialist investigators were employed to carry out surveillance in accordance with County Council procedures. The evidence was then presented to an independent appeal panel who accepted the LEA's submission that the children did not live at the address claimed by the parents. In both cases the places were withdrawn.

2.14. The schools responding to this element of the consultations felt that much greater flexibility should be available when checking addresses. This view was supported by the Admission Forum. It is proposed, therefore, that for 2006 admissions, schools should be given discretion as to how they check addresses, bearing in mind in particular that, for secondary transfer, the common application forms (CAFs) are "pre-populated" and the onus is then on the parent to confirm that the address is correct. However, there would continue to be a need for a more formal check of addresses of pupils entering Year R.

2.15. No changes are proposed to the current arrangements for deferring entry to Year R until the beginning of the spring term.

2.16. The separate elements of the County Council's admission arrangements are considered in the next sections of this paper.

3 Admission policies for community and voluntary controlled schools

3.1. The proposed policies for admission to community and voluntary controlled schools are given in Annexes A and B. No changes have been made to the main provisions of the policies determined for 2005.

3.2. A shortened version of the LEA policy is once again proposed for school use to save space in prospectuses. The full version will be published in the LEA `composite prospectus' and on the website but schools will not be required to publish the initial section on guiding principles, nor to publish the general information about school specific criteria, boarding places and the general legislative background. Both draft policies indicate the beginning and end of the information which schools are required to publish.

3.3. When admission authority schools and neighbouring LEAs send their proposed admission arrangements to Hampshire LEA, these are examined by officers in the admissions team and comments made to the governing body and neighbouring LEA, particularly if it appears that proposals do not follow Code of Practice guidance.

3.4. If the policy of an admission authority causes concern, the Admission Forum may be consulted. The County Education Officer has delegated authority from the County Council to lodge an objection to any admission arrangements which it is felt do not accord with legal requirements to the Schools Adjudicator. The Adjudicator is independent of LEAs and the government.

4 Schemes for co-ordinated admissions

Secondary admissions 2005

4.1. Members will recall that all LEAs were required to establish a scheme for co-ordinated secondary admissions in 2005. The key changes as far as Hampshire was concerned were that there would be a national, single offer date (1 March) and all letters would be sent to parents by the LEA rather than, as in the past, individual schools. Another feature of the scheme was the requirement to co-ordinate admissions with neighbouring LEAs so that no parent received more than one offer of a place in a secondary school.

4.2. This scheme has required substantial additional work by the county admissions team, together with IT advice and support both from within the Education Department and IT Services. The report presented in March 2004 to the EPRC indicated the possible need for additional staffing to enable these new responsibilities to be carried out. In the event, the whole process has been carried out by existing admissions team staff, other than the appointment of an additional admissions assistant in November/December 2004.

4.3. However, the management of the new procedures has put the team under significant pressure and the statutory requirement to co-ordinate admission arrangements in 2006 for both primary and secondary schools will mean that some staffing adjustments will be needed. Crucial amongst these, and to lessen the significant risk of having a complex and high-profile process depending substantially on one person, there is a need for the Assistant Education Officer (Admissions), who has taken the lead as far as the development of the new IT schemes is concerned, to be supported from within the team by an admissions officer who can carry out some of the technical tasks performed this year by the AEO. The post-holder would also, on a day to day basis, advise and support admissions team colleagues on technical issues.

4.4. It is proposed that this appointment be made from a member of the current team and would not, therefore, mean an increase in staffing levels. However, some additional clerical support is almost certain to be needed at peak times. These proposals were included in the report on the 2005/06 revenue budget in January and supported by the EPRC.

4.5. It was intended that all secondary offer letters would be sent to parents on 1 March. Unfortunately, the bulk of the letters offering places at parents' first preference schools were sent a few days early. All other letters were sent to parents on 1 March. This was a highly successful conclusion to the new 2005 secondary admission procedures and could only have been achieved through careful planning and phased training during the two years during which the scheme has been developed and implemented, excellent cooperation between County Council departments and with schools, and sustained hard work by members of the county admissions team.

4.6. For September 2005 admissions, secondary schools continued to received first preference applications and then allocated places up to the PAN in accordance with the criteria. This kept the transfer of documents to a minimum. The county admissions team then took over the rest of the process for all community and voluntary controlled secondary schools.

4.7. However, the county admissions team carried out the whole admission process on behalf of six community secondary schools, dealing with all applications. These schools were not, therefore, involved in the procedures other than collecting the first preference forms which were then passed to the LEA.

4.8. The aim was to

· give the team a more complete picture of the whole process

· identify and correct any problems

· ensure that the LEA met the requirements of the co-ordinated scheme

· test the new Arête Impulse system as fully possible.

The procedure went very smoothly and enabled the team to follow up issues raised as part of an audit of admissions procedures in certain schools in relation to 2004 admissions.

Secondary admissions 2006

4.9. The proposed scheme for secondary admissions in 2006 (Annexe E) is very similar to the one implemented for 2005. In 2005, those schools operating an "equal preference" (see following paragraph) scheme needed to receive all applications, even though it was clear that many of these pupils would be allocated places in their first preference school. As a result of their experience in 2005, three of the four schools operating an "equal preference" system have now decided to align themselves with the County Council "first preference" system in which priority consideration is given to those applications naming the school as first preference.

4.10. An "equal preference" system is one in which governors do not take account of the priority order expressed by parents but allocate places solely on the basis of their criteria. This means that they must receive all applications, regardless of the preference, in order to start their allocation procedure. A great deal of additional work was caused to those schools, neighbouring schools and the admissions team in 2005 through the need to process all applications even when it was clear that a higher priority place would be offered elsewhere.

Primary admissions 2006

4.11. In the light of lessons learnt from secondary co-ordination in 2005, the county admissions team is checking all proposed admission policies for admission authority schools to ensure that the policy states clearly whether the governors allocate places on the basis of parents' priority or solely on the basis of the published criteria ("equal preference") with no weight given to parents' priority order.

4.12. As stated in paragraph 1.2, there is now a statutory requirement for LEAs to establish a scheme for co-ordinated primary admissions (Annexe F). The main differences compared to the secondary scheme are that there is no requirement to co-ordinate cross-border applications nor to offer a minimum of three preferences. This means, therefore, that it will still be possible for parents living near the boundary with another LEA to apply for a school in both areas. It is hoped that it will be possible to liaise with some LEAs to avoid double offers but, because Hampshire's proposed primary scheme has an offer date in January compared to several months later in most other LEAs, it will be possible for parents to retain their Hampshire place and then to take a later decision when they receive the outcome of any application for a school in another LEA.

4.13. The Hampshire scheme for primary admissions involves not only applications for Year R but also applications on behalf of children attending infant schools transferring to a junior school. (The scheme for infant/junior transfer is not enclosed but is identical to the scheme for Year R with appropriate changes.) In total, this will require the county admissions team to send approximately 20,000 offer letters to parents on 27 January 2006 (assuming that this is the date finally agreed), as well as approximately 14,500 secondary offer letters on 1 March. All letters must be checked before despatch. Members of the EPRC will readily appreciate that this is a significant increase in workload.

4.14. In the light of the experience of dealing with "equal preference" secondary schools, the governors of "equal preference" primary schools have been asked to consider the possibility of changing to a "first preference" system in order to avoid their having to carry out unnecessary work (i.e. allocating places in the expectation that some of these pupils will be offered a higher priority place) and, equally important, avoiding unnecessary administration both in schools and at the County Education Office.

4.15. The Directors of Education of the Winchester, Portsmouth and Guildford CE Dioceses have indicated that they have no objection to CE aided schools operating a first preference system if that is what the governors prefer. The view of the Catholic Diocese of Portsmouth is that an equal preference system is an essential element of Catholic admission policies. The Diocese of Portsmouth has recommended that the 14 Hampshire Catholic primary schools do not change their present arrangements.

4.16. At the time this report was prepared, it was unclear how many schools which had previously used "equal preference" systems had decided to change to a "first preference" system. All admission authorities must send their agreed admission arrangements to the LEA by the end of April, at which stage the first preference/equal preference split will be known and appropriate administrative procedures agreed with schools to ensure that schools operating an equal preference system are not disadvantaged. It would be inappropriate for the LEA to lodge any formal objection to the use of "equal preference" systems.

5 Published Admission Numbers (PANs) for primary and secondary schools

5.1. Every year, the LEA must publish in its composite prospectus the number of pupils who will be admitted to each school. This is known as the published admission number (PAN). Governing bodies are consulted annually on the proposed PAN for their school. Admission authority schools are responsible for setting their own PAN, after consultations. If a school has specialist resourced SEN provision, the pupils to be admitted to this provision are usually included within the PAN.

5.2. The Education Act 2002 gives the governors of community and voluntary controlled schools the power to object to the independent Schools Adjudicator if they consider that the PAN proposed by the LEA is not appropriate for their school. Two community schools lodged objections in 2005 to the admission number set for them by the LEA. On both occasions, the LEA's position was upheld by the Adjudicator.

5.3. Schools may seek a PAN lower than that indicated by the capacity of the school. For example, an infant school will wish to reduce an indicated PAN of 31 to 30 to comply with class size legislation. Similarly, a secondary school might wish to reduce the indicated PAN to coincide with an even pattern of tutor group organisation. If an admission authority seeks to reduce the indicated PAN, notices must be published and the Schools Adjudicator must consider objections if received from at least ten parents. The LEA publishes notices on behalf of community and voluntary controlled schools; for foundation and voluntary aided schools, the governors have this responsibility.

5.4. Admission authorities must determine their admission arrangements for 2006 admissions by 15 April 2005 at the latest and have a further 14 days in which to send details to all those whom they previously consulted. This means, therefore, that the finally determined PANs in some admission authority schools may not be known until the end of April.

5.5. The Admission Forum considered all proposed PANs at its meeting on 8 February. The enclosed tables for both primary (Annexe C) and secondary (Annexe D) schools give details of the PAN for 2005, the school capacity, the indicated PAN and the proposed PAN for 2006.

5.6. In previous years, by the time of the EPRC meeting and the Executive Member's decision day, some PANs had still to be determined. This year, consultations were started two months earlier than usual and this has meant that the enclosed tables list the PANs proposed by the LEA for all community and voluntary controlled schools for September 2006 admissions, together with the PANs likely to be set by governors of admission authority schools.

5.7. As in previous years, it is recommended that for 2006/07 admissions the County Education Officer, on behalf of the County Council, and having regard to any advice from the Admission Forum, be empowered to:

· authorise the publication of local notices in those instances where there is agreement with governors of community and voluntary controlled schools that a lower PAN should be published, in accordance with legislation; and

· lodge an objection to the Schools Adjudicator in respect of any aspect of an admission authority school's or neighbouring LEA's admissions arrangements (including PANs) which appear to be at variance with legal requirements or Code of Practice advice, taking into account factors at the school, the possible effect on admissions to other schools and the outcome of further consultations.

6 School specific criteria

6.1. The LEA admission policy for community and voluntary controlled schools was significantly simplified with effect from 2001 admissions. This was the first major input from the newly formed Admission Forum. At that time, however, it was recognised that there still might be cases where some flexibility was advisable in relation to individual school policies to avoid situations where a rigid implementation of the LEA policy would lead to unacceptable anomalies.

6.2. The then Education Committee delegated responsibility for approving such school specific criteria to the County Education Officer, having regard to recommendations from the Admission Forum, and this delegation has been confirmed each year by the Executive Member. References to school specific criteria are made in the LEA admission policy published in the composite prospectus. Individual schools publish a more detailed version, approved by the LEA, in their own prospectuses.

6.3. For 2006 admissions, only one additional bid was considered by the Admission Forum. This related to a request that out of area children attending linked infant schools should be given additional priority when being considered for admission to the partner junior school. The Forum felt that this was not a unique position and was replicated in other parts of the county. In addition, it could encourage the movement of children away from their local school. The Forum did not support this request.

6.4. However, they did recommend that the principle of giving additional priority to out of area pupils attending a linked school should form part of a detailed review of all admission criteria in preparation for 2007 admissions. By this time it is likely that the second revision of the Code of Practice will be available, which is likely to contain more detailed advice about the acceptability of certain admission criteria.

6.5. The list given at Appendix G, therefore, is the list approved by the Admission Forum and, again, because procedures have been completed earlier than in the past, it is recommended that these be approved by the Executive Member rather than by the County Education Officer via delegated powers.

7 Legal implications

7.1. The County Council's legal powers are clearly set out in legislation, supported by guidance in the Code of Practice on admissions.

8 Financial implications

8.1. Paragraphs 4.2 - 4.4 explain the increased pressure on the county admissions team as a result of substantial additional responsibilities which must be undertaken by the LEA and cannot be devolved to schools. The cost of printing and posting 14,700 offer letters was £6,800. These costs were taken into account in the budget proposals considered by the EPRC in January 2005.

9 Personnel implications

9.1. There are no personnel implications other than ensuring that the staffing changes proposed in paragraphs 4.3 and 4.4 are carried out in full accordance with County Council personnel procedures. These proposals were included in the 2005/06 revenue report and supported by the EPRC in January.

10 Impact assessment

10.1. The Code of Practice on admissions sets out very clearly the responsibility of admission authorities in relation to race relations and equalities and the LEA admission arrangements for community and voluntary controlled schools take account of legislation and Code guidance.

11 Crime prevention issues

11.1. The County Council's arrangements for admissions to schools aim to ensure that, as far as possible, children can attend a local school of their parents' choice. There is no direct link to crime prevention but paragraph 1.4 draws out the link with Aim 4 (Building strong and safe communities) which the LEA policy aims to support.

12 Views of the local County Councillor

12.1. Not applicable.

13 Recommendations

13.1. That the Executive Member for Education be advised that the Education Policy Review Committee supports the following recommendations in relation to admission arrangements for 2006:

13.1.1. that the County Council adopt:

· the revised admission policies for community and voluntary controlled schools, including published admission numbers for community and voluntary controlled schools, set out in Annexes A, B, C and D;

· the schemes for co-ordinating primary and secondary admissions, set out in Annexes E and F;

· the school specific criteria listed in Annexe G;

and

13.1.2. that the County Education Officer, on behalf of the County Council and having regard to any advice from the Admission Forum, be empowered:

· to authorise the publication of local notices in those instances where there is agreement with governors of community and voluntary controlled schools that a lower PAN should be published;

· to lodge an objection to the Schools Adjudicator in respect of any aspect of an admission authority school's or neighbouring LEA's admission arrangements which appear to be at variance with legal requirements or Code of Practice advice, taking into account factors at the school, the possible effect on admissions to other schools and the outcome of further consultations.

Section 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.

NB The list excludes:

1 Published works

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

The 2003 edition of the Code of Practice on admissions can be obtained from:

www.dfes.gov.uk/sacode

A copy was placed in the Members' Room in March 2003.