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 authorities (LAs) in relation to proposed admission arrangements for community and voluntary controlled mainstream schools for 2007/08.

1.2 Some changes are proposed to the admission policies for community and voluntary controlled schools. The schemes for primary and secondary co-ordinated admissions have been updated. All recommendations are supported by the Hampshire Admission Forum.

1.3 The county admissions team has played a substantially enhanced role in the administration of 2006 admissions because of the need to co-ordinate all admissions, both primary and secondary, for the first time. The paper highlights the continuing pressure on the admissions team, with particular reference to the need to continue to work towards the total centralisation of admission administration.

1.4 Reference is also made to the possible implications of the recently published Education and Inspections Bill, based on the White Paper issued in October 2005.

1.5 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). The Council's duties under the Children Act 2004 are also considered in this paper. The Code 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. LAs 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 2007/08 by 15 April 2006 and to have notified other admission authorities within 14 days of this date at the latest.

2.2 Consultations for 2007 admissions have been carried out in three phases:

(1) September - December 2005 : consultations on published admission numbers (PANs);

(2) October - December 2005 : consultations on proposed co-ordination schemes and admission policies;

(3) January - February 2006: final consultations on PANs, policies and schemes.

2.3 Particular attention has been paid to the consultations on PANs in order to find a proper balance between the effective management of schools places and the successful expression of parental preference.

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 LAs and the governors of admission authority schools in determining admission arrangements. There has been a very limited response this year, therefore, to the consultation process both from schools and other LAs.

2.5 The results of consultations were considered by the Admission Forum at its meeting on 7 February. The County Council has a statutory duty to "have regard" to the recommendations of the Forum. The Forum includes county councillors, parent governors, headteachers, the Church of England and Roman Catholic dioceses, the armed forces, special educational needs, ethnic minorities, early years and neighbouring LEAs. The Forum is advised by LA officers, one of whom acts as secretary.

2.6 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. Three important changes have been made for 2007:

(a) Looked after children are now listed as criterion 1, in accordance with recent government regulations;

(b) All distances will now be measured using straight lines unless a school specific criterion has been agreed (see section 8);

(c) Specific reference is now made to "hard to place" pupils.

3.2 The DfES had originally intended to issue a revised School Admissions Code of Practice to take effect from 2007 admissions. However, this has now been withdrawn and will probably only be reissued for further consultation once the provisions of the Education and Inspections Act 2006 are known.

3.3 The existing Code (2003) requires admission authorities to give "top priority" to looked after children in their admission policies but this is not a statutory requirement. However, new regulations which take effect from 2007 admissions require all admission authorities to give looked after children top priority in their admission criteria. Members should note that, although the regulations apply equally to voluntary aided schools, there is discretion to make a distinction between children belonging to that school's particular faith and those who do not.

3.4 A shortened version of the LA policy is once again proposed for school use to save space in prospectuses. The full version will be published in the LA admissions brochure and on the Children's Services Department website.

3.5 From September 2006, Year R children will have an entitlement to five sessions of 2½ hours for 38 weeks each year. At present, the requirement is for only 33 weeks per year. Schools are being advised on how best to ensure they fulfil this new requirement whilst taking into account the needs of individual children. Pupils will move to full-time attendance in accordance with existing policy.

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

3.7 If the policy of an admission authority causes concern, the Admission Forum may be consulted. The Director of Children's Services currently has delegated authority from the County Council to lodge an objection to the Schools Adjudicator to any admission arrangements which it is felt do not accord with legal requirements The Adjudicator is independent of LAs and the government.

4 Schemes for co-ordinated admissions

Secondary admissions 2006

4.1 The county admissions team co-ordinated secondary admissions throughout the county for the second time in 2006. Some adjustments were made to the scheme in the light of the experience of 2005 but, overall, the scheme which had worked successfully the previous year was unchanged, with individual schools managing the initial part of the process by dealing with first preference applications. The county admissions team then processed all unsuccessful first preferences together with all second, third and late applications. On 1 March, in accordance with national legislation, the county admissions team sent 14,276 letters to parents offering a place in a secondary school for their child. By the time this report is considered by the Children's Services Policy Review Committee (CSPRC) and the Executive Member it is hoped that the percentage of successful first preference applications will be known.

4.2 Secondary co-ordination requires local authorities to co-ordinate admissions not only with schools in their own area but all other local authorities from which an application is received. Hampshire is bordered by nine other local authorities but the co-ordination process for 2006 has required contact with a total of 12 LAs.

Primary admissions 2006

4.3 2006 was the first year in which the LA had to co-ordinate the admission arrangements of all 434 Hampshire primary schools. Unlike the secondary scheme, there is no requirement to co-ordinate admissions with neighbouring local authorities.

4.4 In Hampshire, there are 373 community and voluntary controlled primary schools for which the LA is the admission authority, together with 54 voluntary aided and seven foundation schools for which the governors are the admission authority. It has, therefore, been necessary for the county admissions team to liaise closely with these 61 admission authority schools to ensure that the admission policies of individual schools are taken into account during the allocation procedure. Schools were able to advise the admissions team about individual pupils using a secure system via the Children's Services Intranet.

4.5 There is no national date for sending offer letters to parents seeking primary places for their children. In Hampshire, following consultation with schools and neighbouring authorities, it was decided to send letters to parents on 27 January. On this date, therefore, 12,402 letters were sent to parents of potential Year R pupils and 7,827 letters were sent to parents transferring their children from infant to junior schools. 98% of pupils were offered first preference places in YR; 99% were offered first preference places in Y3.

4.6 Once the county admissions team has sent letters to parents, the process is once again taken over by individual schools which operate waiting lists in accordance with the published admission criteria. The county admissions team then liaises with the Chief Executive's Department to set up the programme of independent appeals. The early offer date means that the majority of primary appeals can take place before secondary appeals.

5 Admissions 2007

5.1 Consultations have been carried out with schools and neighbouring LAs and it is proposed that the primary (Year R and Y 3 admissions) and secondary co-ordination schemes (Annexes C, D and E) should remain unchanged other than necessary updating.

5.2 However, there is a government requirement that, with effect from September 2007 admissions, parents should be able to apply for places on-line. The online system, which is currently being tested, must interact seamlessly with the central admissions system and must be supported by sufficient on-line information for parents to make informed decisions.

5.3 Experience in other LAs who already offer this facility indicates that take-up is initially slow but implementation will nevertheless require further training for members of the county admissions team. A minimum feature list for on-line provision and targets for take-up has been issued by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM); it is anticipated that Hampshire's on-line system will meet these requirements.

6 Admissions 2008

6.1 An important issue needs to be addressed for 2008 which could have a major impact on future admission arrangements in Hampshire. The County Council policy for community and voluntary controlled schools gives priority to those applications naming a school as the parents' first preference. Only when places have been found for all first preference applications are second and third preferences considered.

6.2 The majority of foundation and voluntary aided schools also use a first preference system but some prefer an equal or blind preference system. Under this method of allocation, admission authorities first consider all applications against their published admission criteria without any reference to parental ranking on the application form. If more than one school can offer a place, the local authority will usually allocate the highest preference place available. An equal preference system can only operate where admissions procedures are completely centralised. This has not been the procedure thus far in Hampshire.

6.3 The merits of both systems have recently considered in admissions determinations by the Schools Adjudicator and also by DfES officials. The determinations were specifically related to admissions to grammar schools but any parent might potentially feel restricted by the fact that, if they do not obtain a place for their child in their first preference school, places in their other preferred schools might meanwhile have been allocated to first preference pupils with a higher priority. An equal preference system can alleviate this potential dilemma since there is more flexibility to allocate a school nearer the parents' address.

6.4 A typical Hampshire scenario might be where there are several schools grouped comparatively closely together in an urban area but which are not seen to have equal status amongst parents. Parents might prefer an out of catchment school but, on the basis of previous trends, may judge that a place is unlikely to be available. At the same time, they do not wish to forego a place in their local school, also perceived by parents to be of good quality and therefore likely to be filled by first preference applicants. The parents will therefore have to decide whether to express a `tactical' preference for their local school and then hope to gain admission to their `real' first preference via the waiting list or take the potentially riskier path of expressing a first preference for their genuinely preferred school. Hampshire parents have found themselves in a similar dilemma when applying for a place in a grammar school in a neighbouring LA.

6.5 There is no doubt that a change to an equal preference system would have a major effect on admission arrangements in Hampshire and it is important, therefore, that all schools should be fully aware of what any changes might entail. It is proposed, therefore, that an information dissemination exercise be carried out, both electronically and via local meetings, during the summer term 2006. The Admission Forum would then assess initial responses before considering whether to recommend to the County Council that they should undertake a more formal consultation programme in the autumn term 2006, in accordance with statutory requirements. Any change in procedures could not be implemented before 2008 at the earliest and would be substantially dependent on the availability of additional resources.

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

7.1 Every year, the LA 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.

7.2 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 LA is not appropriate for their school.

7.3 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 may need to be published and the Schools Adjudicator must consider objections if received from at least ten parents. The LA publishes notices on behalf of community and voluntary controlled schools; for foundation and voluntary aided schools, the governors have this responsibility.

7.4 The Admission Forum considered all proposed PANs at its meeting on 7 February. The enclosed tables for both primary (Annexe F) and secondary (Annexe G) schools give details of the PAN for 2006, the school capacity, the indicated PAN and the proposed PAN for 2007.

7.5 As in previous years, it is recommended that for 2007/8 admissions the Director of Children's Services, 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 LA'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.

8 School specific criteria

8.1 The LA 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 LA policy would lead to unacceptable anomalies.

8.2 Annexe H lists all proposed school specific criteria for 2007, supported by the Admission Forum. Proposed new criteria are given in italics. For 2007 admissions, 22 were considered by the Admission Forum. Eight requests were received by schools to be allowed to continue to use walking distance as a tie-break criterion rather than straight lines: these received Forum support. Two requests, not supported by the Forum, were received from junior schools asking that out of area children attending their linked infant school should be given additional priority.

8.3 For the second year running, the governors of Droxford Junior School asked for priority to be given to out of area pupils attending Meonstoke CE Infant and Newtown Soberton Infant Schools. The Forum secretary was asked to re-visit the details of the Education Committee's 1994 decision to create a junior school at Droxford, an infant school at Newtown Soberton but retain an infant school with a Year 3 at Meonstoke.

8.4 When the Forum had turned down this request in relation to 2006 admissions, this decision was based on an examination of public notices. This year, the Forum decided that, unless there was compelling evidence from the committee discussions and the papers presented by the then County Education Officer to justify a change in the County Council's policy, the status quo should be maintained. The relevant papers were, therefore, duly checked but no such evidence was forthcoming. The Forum therefore does not recommend that this school specific criterion should be approved and it is not included in the list.

8.5 The list given at Annexe H, therefore, is the list recommended by the Admission Forum to the Executive Member for his agreement.

9 The Education and Inspections Bill (published 28 February)

9.1 The White Paper Higher Standards, Better Schools for All was published on 25 October 2005. A report prepared by the Director of Children's Services has already been considered by the Children's Services Board and the Children's Services Policy Review Committee.

9.2 The Education Bill carries forward the White Paper commitment to encourage schools to be `trust schools' although this phrase is not used in the Bill itself. Such schools would own their own assets, employ their own staff and set their own admission arrangements. In his report on the White Paper, the Director drew attention to the potential for an increasing number of disputes between the LA and governing bodies of schools if more schools become responsible for their own admission arrangements.

9.3 At present, in Hampshire, there are 76 admission authority schools (56 voluntary aided, 20 foundation). Although the vast majority carry out their admission responsibilities in accordance with legal requirements, a number of schools find these responsibilities very onerous and need continuing support both from the county admissions team and, in the case of voluntary aided schools, the diocesan authorities.

9.4 The law requires all admission authority schools to consult the local authority about their admission arrangements. When policies are received they must be scrutinised by officers and, where appropriate, comments and suggestions made to governors. This is detailed, time-consuming work, as is the preparation of submissions for the Schools Adjudicator. This work is likely to require additional LA resources if there is an increase in the number of schools responsible for determining their own admission arrangements.

9.5 The White Paper envisages a network of `choice advisers' to support `those who are currently less well-equipped to make effective choices'. The White Paper is silent on how such advisers will be recruited, and by whom, but it is clear that, in a county like Hampshire, setting up such a network, and ensuring that advisers are equipped with all relevant information, both about provision and individual children, would be a major task. The `less well-equipped' would have to be identified and great care would have to be taken to ensure that parents were not led to believe that taking advice from an adviser would necessarily ensure admission to their preferred school.

9.6 The Bill sets out an additional duty for LAs to `provide advice and assistance' to parents expressing their preferences. It could be argued that LAs already carry out this duty by means of published information and advice. The Bill does not contain further detail about how the choice adviser network envisaged in the White Paper might be implemented.

9.7 As expected, the Bill requires LAs to `act in accordance with' admission forum advice. At present, the requirement is to `have regard to' any such advice. As this paper makes clear, the Hampshire Forum has once again played a key role in considering admissions issues throughout the past year and it is not expected that this change of emphasis will detract from the constructive partnership which has been established between Forum and LA since 1999.

9.8 The Bill gives powers to admission forums to `prepare and publish reports on such matters connected with the admissions of pupils to maintained schools in that area as may be prescribed'. It also gives forums the power to lodge objections to admission arrangements independently of the LA to the Schools Adjudicator. It is difficult to see why this additional power should be necessary except perhaps in those LAs where there is a reluctance to pursue admission anomalies and the local forum feels that they must act on behalf of pupils and parents.

9.9 The Hampshire Forum is currently supported by officers from the county admissions team. The preparation of reports and submissions to the Schools Adjudicator could require substantial additional support. It will be important, therefore, to check the forthcoming linked regulations dealing with forum expenses but it seems likely that local authorities will be expected to defray most of any additional funding needed by forums to fulfil an enhanced role.

9.10 It is of course important to remember that changes are certain to be made to the Bill as it passes through the legislative process.

10 Financial implications

10.1 This report draws attention to the increased pressure on the county admissions team as a result of substantial additional responsibilities which must be undertaken by the LA and cannot be devolved to schools. If the LA moves to an equal preference system of allocating places from 2008, additional staff and ICT resources will be needed. The cost implications of the forthcoming Education Act are impossible to assess at present.

11 Personnel implications

11.1 There are no immediate personnel implications but, as indicated in paragraph 10.1, staffing levels will need to be reviewed if there are significant changes to admission procedures in 2008.

12 Impact assessment

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

13 Crime prevention issues

13.1 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 LA admissions policy aims to support.

14 Children Act - the five outcomes

14.1 The five outcomes specified in the Children Act are set out below, with a summary of how the proposals in this report contribute to their achievement:

· being healthy: (enjoying good physical and mental health and living a healthy lifestyle) - the County Council admissions policy gives priority to pupils living in the catchment area, thus maximising opportunities for children to walk or cycle to school and thereby increasing opportunities for exercise and reduced car dependence;

· staying safe: (being protected from harm and neglect) - the Council's admission policy attempts to reduce the home/school distance and hence the time needed to get to school, thus restricting the time a pupil might potentially be at risk;

· enjoying and achieving: (getting the most out of life and developing the skills for adulthood) - by encouraging a high standard of education for children wherever possible within their own community;

· making a positive contribution: (being involved with the community and society and not engaging in anti-social or offending behaviour) - the admissions policy aims to safeguard friendship and neighbourhood groups by providing primary education as close to pupils' homes as reasonably practicable. At the secondary level some additional priority is given to out of area pupils attending linked primary schools.

· economic well-being: (not being prevented by economic disadvantage from achieving their full potential in life) - the Code of Practice requires all admission arrangements to be fair to all pupils and give them a sound start to their schooling and future ability to provide both for themselves and their families.

15 Views of the local County Councillor

15.1 Not applicable.

Recommendations

That the Executive Member for Education be advised that the Children's Services Policy Review Committee supports the following recommendations in relation to admission arrangements for 2007:

1 That the County Council adopt:

· the revised admission policies for community and voluntary controlled schools set out in Annexes A and B;

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

· the published admission numbers for community and voluntary controlled schools set out in Annexes F and G;

· the school specific criteria listed in Annexe H.

2 That the Director of Children's Services, 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;

· lodge an objection to the Schools Adjudicator in respect of any aspect of an admission authority school's or neighbouring LA'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.

3 That an informal information dissemination exercise be carried out with schools and diocesan authorities during the summer term 2006 to explain the possible implications of moving to an equal preference allocation system from 2008 admissions at the earliest.

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.