Hampshire Schools Forum

Hampshire Schools Forum

Date / Thursday 12 July 2011
Time / 9.30am
Location / Ashburton Hall, Elizabeth 11 Court, Winchester
Present: / Rob Thompson – Chair (SPHC), Andrew Turk (HGA Sec), Peter Higgs (HGA NS & NC), Val Morgan (PHC), Steve Shepherd (PHC), Cara Parker (NCMA), David White (TLP), Penny Clarke (TLP), Cllr Roy Perry, Cllr Peter Edgar, Roy Lee (HGA Pri), Richard Carlyle (SHC), Grahame Sammons (SHC), Martina Humber (HGA Pri), Craig Williams (PHC), Sue Wilkes (EY), Gren Earney (SHC), Phil Johnson (SPHC), Trudie Cawthra (PHC), Jilly Myers (PHC), Michelle Petzer (PHC), Ria Allan (SHC), Julie Turvey (SHC), Jane Dyke (EY), Ian Waine (PHC), Louise Fitzpatrick (PHC), Sylvia Vine (HGA Sec), Phil Coverdale (HGA Spec), Deborah Saxby (HGA Spec)
Also present: / John Coughlan, Steve Crocker (for item 4), Felicity Roe, Sarah Pook, Gordon Shinn, Andrew Minall, Thomas Whiffen, Carole Scott (minutes), Martin Goff for items 5 & 6,
Apologies: / Julie Taylor (Academy), Amanda Rowley (SHC), Robin Gray (HGA Sec), Margaret Cooper (HGA), Matt Quinn (Diocesan), John Clarke

Page 5 of 8

Action

1 / Welcome and apologies
Rob welcomed everyone to the meeting. Apologies were noted as above. Rob thanked Gren Earney for his contributions and services to Schools Forum, as this would be his last meeting.
2 / Minutes of the last meeting held on 12 May 2011
The minutes were agreed to be correct.
3 / Matters arising
Item 6 Green paper on SEN – responding to consultation –Thomas and Fliss Dickinson amended the responses on the consultation. Thomas gave an update on the response and confirmed it will available on the Schools Forum website. It is expected legislative proposals will keep emerging over the next 6-7 months. We should have firm proposals as a result of the green paper by December/January.
Item 8 – DfE consultation paper School funding – This had been sent with cross references. The next consultation is expected before the summer recess (late July) and is thought to be a 13 week consultation so there will be time to discuss it at the October Schools Forum.
4 / School pupils’ (Years 7 to 11) career guidance to September 2012
Steve Crocker explained the paper outlines the current levels of careers guidance provided to schools, which is above the minimum level, and the proposals to meet the funding gap for September 2011 to August 2012 before responsibility passes to schools, as expected in the Education Bill currently before Parliament. There may be dip in the service during the interim period. He further explained we are in the process of redesigning services so we can offer a sold service should schools wish to buy in. It is proposed to use a combined budget of £473k, from the brought forward underspendings for this year and £338k, from the same source to continue to August 2012. Steve referred to para 3.4 of the report which sets out basis of the service and para 3.5 the basis that the service schools can expect to receive. Consultation has taken place with a reference group of schools and colleges to reach this position.
David White asked how long will it be before we know what will be on the table by September 2012. Steve responded that we know what can be offered in September 2012 and pricing structures etc are being looked at. Intelligence from schools is that it is too far ahead for schools to make decisions, but HCC know what can be offered. It is expected that there may be some private organisations also making offers. It was confirmed that Secondary schools will have to find funding from their own budgets. Phil Johnson asked about the Specialist Out of County team and it was confirmed a small team will continue outside of this as this is a statutory duty, probably located within SEN.
The recommendations were both agreed.
5 / School Admissions Code – Resources update and the future direction
Martin Goff (MG) presented his paper and apologised for not updating the wording in the recommendations, which were originally for the Resources groups but are the same for Schools Forum. Martin explained the draft School Admissions Code (SAC) has been released and there are 12 changes (see appendix 1) that will have the most impact for Hampshire and he was now bringing those to the attention of Schools Forum. He particularly highlighted items 8, 10 and 11.
It is likely that the new SAC will remove the requirement for HCC to co-ordinate in-year applications and this change is supported. The timetable for the proposed changes is unclear. The Consultation ends mid August and it is thought there will be a new version of the Code in September, which will be effective in early 2012. Therefore the school year will have started with HCC having to co-ordinate in-year applications but finishing the school year not doing so. Referring to the wording where parents will be allowed to apply direct to schools in the future, Martin said that Hampshire is happy with that process and that schools must let Hampshire County Council (HCC) know when they have received an application.
There is a proposal to, rather than wait until January 2012 , schools handle in year admissions from September 2011.
Michelle spoke of the issues with schools on borders and requested that we try and liaise with other counties so that everyone found out about schools places at the same time. Martin confirmed we do liaise with others and South West region colleagues agreed to go with same offer date as HCC but some South East region authorities offered an earlier date this year.
Martin explained that Admissions matters have not been easy since Easter 2011. Primary and Secondary appeals are running at the same time and there have been many applications for the September intake. The Admissions Team have essentially done well with the extra staffing for in-year applications. In the interim the staff resource will be retained and managed within the current budget with changes arising early in the new calendar year.
Michelle Petzer asked if more money was needed to run the Admissions process more effectively in the future. Martin explained the additional funding (some permanent and more recently a fixed term one year approval) has been for in-year admissions. The key feature of the current delays was that the offer date was first moved through changes in legislation from January to April. Because Easter was so late the actual date proved to be 28 April. In future it is likely that a new approach will presume that offers can be made quickly to parents, offers will be presumed to have been accepted and then schools could take over. However schools will still be doing this process in May and June. Schools can now take ownership of main round waiting lists; the reason HCC ran main round waiting lists was because the HCC handled in-year admissions.
Penny Clarke asked about schools now being able to take more children and much larger classes if changes allow popular schools to increase their admission number. Martin replied that schools would be expected to offer a larger intake at the application stage. Community and Controlled schools would have to ask HCC if they want to take more children, as the decision is still in its hands. For Academies the decision would go up to Secretary of State (SoS) and it is felt that the SoS would agree. The maximum class size hasn’t changed for the infant phase but Secondary schools are able to set their own and so individual schools may choose to increase class sizes.
Richard Carlyle referred to class sizes in secondary schools and asked about appeals and a sold service for schools other than community – would this affect the appeal? It was explained that Hampshire runs an independent appeal panel sold service , there is a cost with schools able to choose between three levels f service. If a school doesn’t buy in then it would have to run it’s own independent appeals panel. Thomas advised there are delegated amounts for Trust and Foundation schools for appeals. Academies have got money for admissions appeals from LACSEG and they need to decide how to use that money i.e. through us or independently.
David White asked if there is capacity for support staff within schools to pick up some admissions work. Martin explained there is a lot of duplication with the in-year initiative and explained the co-ordinated process. This was confirmed by Julie Turvey. It should be more straightforward to the schools as they won’t have to liaise with both parents and the LA. The function within the Admissions team will be one of tracking, so it is expected there will be changes within the Admissions team.
The recommendations were all agreed.
6 / Impact of deferred entry
MG summarised his report. From September 2011 parents can choose to defer their child’s entry to YR and schools must keep the place for that child. Hampshire has always allowed deferment to January. This has always worked as any child deferred until that time would still be counted in the January census and then be included in funding. The new requirement that a child may now defer until after the Easter break would mean that child may not be included in the January census and it is proposed that any schools affected stand the impact financially of any such deferred entry to Reception classes. Parents must also be allowed to retain their pre-school place and Hampshire will continue to fund that place until they start in YR. Thomas confirmed that any child deferred until after the Easter holiday will be classed as Early Years in terms of funding. It is thought some parents may be using deferments to wait for a better place/offer.
Louise Fitzpatrick expressed concern that parents are using deferment to hang onto pre-school places. This affects planning, staffing etc. Louise stressed that colleagues in Primary schools are concerned that they won’t have the staffing/resources for the whole year where places aren’t filled. There are also concerns that people moving into the area may be refused a place as others are holding places. Trudie Cawthra felt that children who don’t start until after Easter have lower SATs results. Michelle Petzer said she was not sure if parents are aware their child may be missing a year and that children will start almost into Y1 and will not have that year in YR. It was felt that late starters did not have time to reach YR goals. Data also shows that part time starters don’t reach goals. Concern was also shown for SEN children who may need even more support if they start later. Relevant information has been published to parents. The Admissions function are talking with the Early Years team who are ensuring that schools, parents and EY settings are aware of the change. The Admission team are trying to monitor the situation. Attendance could be slowed down through part time attendance rather than deferment. Michelle Petzer explained she has stopped part time attendance as a result of data taken and results have improved this year. It was also felt social development was a crucial part of YR. Cara Parker informed the group that agreement with EY settings has been revised and dialogue is strong. Louise Fitzpatrick spoke of the importance of communication with EY settings and that schools may liaise with 15 EY settings, which could be practically difficult.
Felicity recommended that our Communications team need to work with a small group to create a parental leaflet – a section in the admissions document would be a good place but also something within EY settings. A draft is to be arranged as soon as possible.
The recommendations were both reluctantly accepted. / FR
7 / Academy update
Thomas explained the update was as at 1 July and that the paper provides an update on dealing with academy issues in relation to LACSEG funding and highlights some impacts on the constitution of Schools Forum on which a decision is required.
Thomas spoke of the issue around Schools Forum membership in line with Forum’s broad approach, as the number of conversions increase additional Academy representatives are required on School Forum. He referred to the amendments to the Constitution in appendix 2, and the revised text in item 2.2, highlighted in bold. It will be for Academies to choose their representatives, who could be from either Primary or Secondary Schools.
Finance Issues – The report goes through where we are in LACSEG. Thomas referred to Item 5 and the funding of 14-16 diplomas. A number of academies have a significant number of pupils on diplomas, some have a few and some have none. There will be a shortfall in funding, via 14-19 consortia, for the full delivery for the September 2010 cohort. It is proposed that this diploma completion be funded by one-off funding as outlined in the Budget report (Item 8 of this agenda). Thomas explained that the consortia will take the money and that money is being taken by schools/academies that have no students. It needs to be clear that academies are being given LACSEG money and in calculating that there is no logic in how the money will be used. Richard Carlyle asked if there were consortia sitting on money that hasn’t been used and should the LA claw it back? It was explained that balances that most of the consortia have is money that hasn’t been used as early as it should. As there will be no new money coming in, funds may be used for diplomas in the future. David White asked what the long term future of diplomas was and it was explained that there is only one more year anyway, so we are looking at a short term measure. Schools Forum has already agreed to cease funding for 12/13.
It was suggested that recommendation 7.3 be amended to read “Consortia balances to be explored to reach shortfall. School Forum to continue to fund 14-16 diplomas.” – Thomas can you amend as necessary here please?
Headteacher Conference budgets – Amounts that have gone from schools budget to LACSEG for those Academies that have converted.