Agenda item

Consultation on Surrey's Admission Arrangements for September 2014 for Community and Voluntary Controlled Schools and Co-ordinated Schemes

Meeting of Cabinet, Tuesday, 26 February 2013 2.00 pm (Item 29/13)
View the background to item 29/13
Share this item

Decision:

RESOLVED TO RECOMMEND TO COUNTY COUNCIL:

Recommendation 1

A feeder link is introduced for Banstead Community Junior School for children from Banstead Infant School for September 2014, as follows:

a) Looked after and previously looked after children

b) Exceptional social/medical need

c) Children attending Banstead Infant School

d) Siblings not admitted under c) above

e) Any other children

Reasons for Recommendation

· It would provide continuity and a clearer transition for parents, children and schools and would reduce anxiety for parents

· It would be in line with the criteria that exist for most other schools which have a feeder link and reciprocal sibling links

· It would enable families to benefit from a sibling link for Reception even if they had a child who was due to leave the infant school before the younger child was admitted

· It would maximise the opportunity for families to keep children together or at schools within a close proximity

· It is consistent with Surrey’s planning principles set out in the School Organisation Plan

· It is supported by the Governing Body of the school

· Eligibility to transport is not linked to the admission criteria of a school and as such attendance at Banstead Infant School would not confer an automatic right to transport to Banstead Junior School

Recommendation 2

The introduction of a feeder link for Reigate Priory for children from Holmesdale and Reigate Parish is deferred until alternative options are considered.

Reasons for Recommendation

· There were notable concerns regarding the proposals which the Local Authority would wish to explore fully before progressing

· It would allow more time to consider alternative proposals

· It would allow any proposal to be considered in the light of future school place planning considerations in the area

Recommendation 3

The admission criteria for Southfield Park are changed so that, for September 2014, children who have Southfield Park Primary School as their nearest school would receive a higher priority when allocating places outside the catchment area, as follows:

a) Looked after and previously looked after children

b) Exceptional social/medical need

c) Siblings

d) Children living in the defined catchment of the school with priority being given to children living furthest away from the school

e) Other children for whom the school is their nearest school

f) Any other children

Reasons for Recommendation

· It would ensure that families living outside the catchment who have Southfield Park as their nearest school are given priority ahead of those who do not

· It would not displace children living on the Horton Park development, for whom the catchment was originally introduced to serve

· A further review of the admission criteria for this school should be carried out once decisions have been made on expansion proposals at other local schools

Recommendation 4

That a feeder link is introduced for St Ann’s Heath Junior School for children from Trumps Green Infant School for September 2014, as follows:

a) Looked after and previously looked after children

b) Exceptional social/medical need

c) Siblings

d) Children attending Trumps Green Infant School

e) Children for whom St Ann’s Heath Junior School is the nearest school with a Junior PAN

f) Any other children

Reasons for Recommendation

· It would provide continuity and a clearer transition for parents, children and schools and would reduce anxiety for parents

· It would maximise the opportunity for families to keep children together or at schools within a close proximity

· It would reduce the likelihood of families removing their children from the infant school during Year 2 in favour of a primary school

· It is consistent with Surrey’s planning principles set out in the School Organisation Plan

· It is supported by the Governing Bodies of both schools

· Eligibility to transport is not linked to the admission criteria of a school and as such attendance at Trumps Green Infant School would not confer an automatic right to transport to St Ann’s Heath Junior School

Recommendation 5

A reciprocal sibling link between St Ann’s Heath Junior School and Trumps Green Infant School is introduced for September 2014 so that the schools would be described as being on a shared or adjoining site for applying sibling criteria.

Reasons for Recommendation

· It would support families with more than one child as families with a sibling at one school would benefit from sibling priority to the other school

· It would provide continuity for parents, children and schools and reduce anxiety for parents

· It would enable families to benefit from a sibling link for Reception even if they had a child who was due to leave the infant school before the younger child was admitted

· It would maximise the opportunity for families to keep children together or at schools within a close proximity

· It is supported by the Governing Bodies of both schools

Recommendation 6

A catchment area based on the Parish of Tatsfield and a phased tiered sibling priority based on the catchment is introduced for Tatsfield Primary School for September 2014, as follows:

a) Looked after and previously looked after children

b) Exceptional social/medical need

c) Children who will have a sibling on roll at the school at the end of the 2013/14 academic year and that sibling will still be expected to be on roll at the school on the date of the child’s admission

d) Siblings who live within the catchment area

e) Other children who live within the catchment area

f) Siblings who live outside the catchment area

g) Other children who live outside the catchment area

Reasons for Recommendation

· It provides transitional arrangements for families who do not have Tatsfield Primary School as their nearest school but who already have children at the school

· Whilst the nature of this proposal means that in the future some families might not be able to get younger siblings in to the same school, this will only apply if it is not their nearest school and those families would have been aware of this policy when they applied

· The pressure on places and the proximity of the school to the County border means that on balance a greater disadvantage might be caused to local families than to future siblings if this proposal is not agreed

· It reduces the likelihood of local families having to travel to schools that are further away

· In time it would support families within the local area as they will not be displaced in favour of siblings living further away

· It provides a clear and historic boundary for the catchment area

Recommendation 7

Tiered arrangements are introduced for Thames Ditton Junior School for September 2014 so that siblings, children at the feeder school and other children who have the school as their nearest receive priority ahead of those who do not, as follows:

a) Looked After and previously looked after children

b) Exceptional social/medical need

c) Children with a sibling attending Thames Ditton Junior School at the time of the child’s admission for whom the school is the nearest school to their home address

d) Children attending Thames Ditton Infant School for whom the school is the nearest school to their home address

e) Other children for whom the school is the nearest school to their home address

f) Other children with a sibling attending Thames Ditton Junior School at the time of the child’s admission for whom the school is not the nearest school to their home address

g) Other children attending Thames Ditton Infant School for whom the school is not the nearest school to their home address

h) Any other children

Reasons for Recommendation

· It would help ensure that a school within a reasonable distance could be offered to all children within the area

· Whilst the nature of this proposal means that some families might not be able to get younger siblings in to the same school, this will only apply if it is not their nearest school

· It does not disadvantage families who choose a different infant provision or if those who are unable to obtain a place at the infant school

· It reduces the likelihood of local families having to travel to schools that are further away

· It has the support of Thames Ditton Junior School

· There is not currently a reciprocal sibling link between these two schools but this will be reviewed for 2015 and if proposed, will be subject to consultation

Recommendation 8

The PAN for Thames Ditton Junior School is decreased from 120 to 90 for September 2014.

Reasons for Recommendation

· There were no major objections to the changed PAN

· School Commissioning and the school support this change

· The school can’t sustain the admission of 120 pupils each year and the increase in 2013 was only intended to be temporary

Recommendation 9

That the Published Admission Numbers (PAN) for all other Community and Voluntary Controlled schools are determined as they are set out in Annex 1 of Appendix 1 which include the following changes:

i) Banstead Infant to increase its Reception PAN from 80 to 90

ii) Bell Farm Primary to increase its Reception PAN from 60 to 90

iii) Bell Farm Primary to decrease its Junior PAN from 120 to 30

iv) Earlswood Infant to increase its Reception PAN from 90 to 120

v) Earlswood Junior to increase its Junior PAN from 90 to 120

vi) Grovelands Primary to decrease its Reception PAN from 90 to 60

vii) Salfords Primary to increase its Reception PAN from 45 to 60

viii) Spelthorne Primary to increase its Reception PAN from 60 to 90

ix) Trumps Green Infant to increase its Reception from 30 to 60

x) West Ewell Infant to increase its Reception PAN from 90 to 120

Reasons for Recommendation

· Where a decrease in PAN is proposed the decrease has already been agreed through statutory proposals following expansion to a primary school

· The increase in Reception PAN at Bell Farm Primary has already been agreed through statutory proposals following expansion to a primary school

· Where other increases in PAN are proposed the schools are increasing their intake to respond to the need to create more school places and will help meet parental preference

· The School Commissioning team and the schools support these changes

· All other PANs remain as determined for 2013 which enables parents to have some historical benchmark by which to make informed decisions about their school preferences

Recommendation 10

The number of preferences permitted under Surrey’s Primary Coordinated Scheme is increased from three to four.

Reasons for Recommendation

· There is likely to be demand for four preferences as in the 2012 admission round 8,157 parents (62.8% of applicants) named three preferences

· It would be likely to increase the number of parental preferences met and to decrease the number of children who could not be offered a preference school

· It may reduce the number of parents who wish to change or add new preferences after the offer date

· Given the pressure on school places it would help to alleviate the anxiety of parents where local schools are oversubscribed and they are uncertain which schools they might be offered

· Parents would not be obliged to name four preferences but it would give those parents who choose to the opportunity to do so

· It should support less popular undersubscribed schools as parents would not have to give up one of their more preferred schools

· As most applications are submitted online it will not have a significant administrative impact

· It helps to reduce potential for disadvantage for Surrey parents where neighbouring Local Authorities allow their parents to name more than three preferences

Recommendation 11

That the Coordinated Admission Schemes for 2014/15 are agreed as set out in Annex 4 to Appendix 1.

Reasons for Recommendation

· The coordinated schemes for 2014 are similar to 2013

· The coordinated schemes will enable the County Council to meet its statutory duties regarding school admissions

· The coordinated schemes are working well

Recommendation 12

Surrey’s Relevant Area is agreed as set out in Appendix 2.

Reasons for Recommendation

· The Local Authority is required by law to define the Relevant Area for admissions

· The Relevant Area must be agreed every two years although no changes have been proposed

· It ensures that any schools who might be affected by changes to the admission arrangements for other local schools will be made aware of the changes

Recommendation 13

That the remaining aspects of Surrey’s admission arrangements for Community and Voluntary Controlled schools for September 2014, for which no consultation was required, are agreed.

Reasons for Recommendation

· This will ensure stability and consistency for the majority of Surrey’s parents, pupils and schools

· The arrangements enable parents to have some historical benchmark by which to make informed decisions about their school preferences

· The existing arrangements are working reasonably well

· The arrangements enable the majority of pupils to attend their nearest schools and in doing so reduces travel and supports Surrey’s sustainability policies

Reasons for decisions:

The September 2014 admissions arrangements will be agreed by the full County Council at its meeting on 19 March 2013.

Minutes:

Following the statutory consultation of Surrey’s admission arrangements for September 2014, the Cabinet was asked to consider the responses and make recommendations to the County Council on admission arrangements for Community and Voluntary Controlled schools and Surrey’s coordinated schemes for September 2014.

The report covered the following areas in relation to school admissions:

· Banstead Community Junior School - Recommendation 1

· Reigate Priory School – Recommendation 2

· Southfield Park Primary – Recommendation 3

· St Ann’s Heath Junior School – Recommendation 4

· St Ann’s Heath Junior School and Trumps Green Infant School – Recommendation 5

· Tatsfield Primary School – Recommendation 6

· Thames Ditton Junior School – Recommendation 7

· Published Admission Number for Thames Ditton Junior – Recommendation 8

· Published Admission Numbers for other schools – Recommendation 9

· Increase to number of preferences allowed under Surrey’s primary coordinated scheme – Recommendation 10

· Coordinated Admissions Schemes – Recommendation 12

· Surrey’s Relevant Area – Recommendation 11

· Admission arrangements for other schools – Recommendation 13

The Cabinet Member for Children and Learning confirmed that all local Members had been consulted on the proposals in their divisions and that a summary of responses in relation to the outcome of the consultation had been tabulated in Appendix 4. She also drew attention to the Equalities Impact Assessment (Appendix 5).

Cabinet Members were given an opportunity to comment on the proposals.

The Leader of the Council referred to the challenge of providing 16,000 additional places over the next 10 years and the capital investment provided by the council. He also praised the excellent joint working between School Place Planning and Property Services. Finally, he reminded Members that these recommendations will be recommended to full Council who would consider them at their next meeting on 19 March 2012.