This Is the Report of an All-Party Topic Group Which Was Established by Hertfordshire County

The Secondary School Place Planning Topic Group October 2006 Report of The Children, Schools & Families Scrutiny Committee Topic Group

Scrutiny 01992 555300 Executive Summary 3 Findings and Recommendations 4 Contents Glossary of terms and abbreviations 6 1 Introduction 7 1.1 Establishment of the topic group and ways of working 7 1.2 Remit of the topic group 8 Secondary 2 Evidence presented by CSF Officers 9 School Place 2.1 Background to the problems experienced in Harpenden in the 2006 9 transfer Planning Topic 2.2 Overview of the secondary school place forecasting system 12 Group 2.3 How secondary school place planning forecasts are made 13 October 2006 3 The Harpenden experience 14 3.1 Focus for the investigation 14 3.2 Areas identified for further investigation 14 4 Lessons identified by CSF Officers 15 5 Findings and recommendations 17 5.1 CSF learning points 17 5.2 General findings 17 5.3 Forecasting, planning and modelling of school places 18 5.4 Change in parental preference and a growth in the positive 19 perception of Harpenden secondary schools 5.5 A higher number of sibling connections 20 5.6 Impact of PAN London 21 5.7 Potential abuse of short-term addresses 21 5.8 Transfers from independent sector schools 22 5.9 Impact of the admissions rules and changes to designated routes to 23 schools 6 Conclusions 23 Appendix 1 – Membership of the Topic Group 25 Appendix 2 – List of meetings 26 Appendix 3 – Scoping document 28 Appendix 4 – Slides of a presentation on pupil forecasting methodology 31 Appendix 5 - Area Secondary School Forecast Variance Analysis 36 Appendix 6 – Slides of a presentation on the mainstream pupil number 37 forecasting system Appendix 7 – List of questions to CSF and Corporate Services officers 44 Appendix 8 – Letters from Employees of and Estate Agents 55 Appendix 9 – Submissions made to the topic group 59 Appendix 9.1 – Speaker Submissions 60 Appendix 9.2 – Other Submissions 68

2 The Secondary School Place Planning Topic Group

Executive Summary

This is the report of an all-party Topic Group which was established by Hertfordshire County Council’s Children, Schools & Families Scrutiny Committee (in consultation with the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Overview & Scrutiny Committee) to review the experience in forecasting and planning secondary school places for 2006/07 within the Greater Harpenden Area in order to identify lessons which could be applied to future ’hot spot’ areas.

The Group comprised five County Councillors (including the Chairman and Vice- Chairman of the Children, Schools & Families Scrutiny Committee and the Chairman of the Education Panel), four primary school parent representatives from the ‘Greater Harpenden’ area and a Head Teacher of a school outside the area. The Group was led by an independent Chairman - Terry Douris – who represents the National Governors’ Association on the Children, School & Families Scrutiny Committee. Full details of the Topic Group’s membership can be found at Appendix 1, and full details of the Group’s remit can be found in the scoping document attached at Appendix 3.

The Topic Group held a number of meetings and took evidence from the current and former Executive Members for Education, parents and those affected by the 2006 secondary school transfer, and officers from both the Children, Schools & Families (CSF) and Corporate Services Departments. Having considered the evidence the Group established a number of findings and agreed a series of recommendations, and these are listed below. The Topic Group’s recommendations will be reported to the Children, Schools & Families Scrutiny Committee and the Overview & Scrutiny Committee with the recommendation that the Executive Member for Education and the Director of Children, Schools & Families take these forward for action. Action on the Topic Group’s recommendations will be monitored on a six-monthly basis by the Overview & Scrutiny Committee.

Members of the Topic Group were very sympathetic to the stress and emotional concerns experienced by children and their parents from any uncertainty over the allocation of a place at their preferred school. Whilst accepting that it may never be possible to fully eliminate this, it is an objective that the school placement planning and forecasting system should be seeking to achieve.

The work of the Group is detailed in the main body of the report, with supporting information contained in the appendices. It includes a number of lessons identified by CSF officers, the details of which can be found on page 15. These were endorsed by the Group, who also made a number of additional findings and recommendations.

A summary of the Group’s findings and recommendations is listed overleaf.

3 Findings

1 The Group sympathises with the stress and emotional concerns experienced by children and their parents when a place at a their preferred school is not available, leaving them with no option but to consider going through an appeal process; 2 The overall accuracy of the school forecast and placement planning process can help hide potential ‘hot spot’ areas; 3 Whilst parental preference is a cornerstone of the Authority’s code of practice, and local admission arrangements should seek to meet this to the maximum extent possible, an education authority cannot keep adding places to popular or local schools indefinitely; 4 More could be done to limit the impact of siblings by making further changes to the admission rules; 5 Whilst the abuse of short term or accommodation addresses by parents was not the predominant factor behind the problems experienced in Harpenden, there is sufficient evidence to indicate that more needs to be done to deter this.

Recommendations 1 That the Director of CSF ensures that the learning points presented by his officers are acted upon with immediate effect across the county, and that learning points 4 and 5 are incorporated within formalised processes; 2 That the Director of CSF initiates a review of the potential number of ‘hot spot’ areas; 3 That CSF introduces a more ‘granular’ level of modelling (e.g. parish) for ‘hot spot’ areas and that the result of the modelling be factored into the final planning of places; 4 That where forecast numbers are above or below planned admission numbers serious account of this should be taken at an early stage; 5 That when forecasts are made a report, together with a ‘hot spot forecast’, should be sent to the Executive Member and local county councillors to facilitate the use of their local constituency knowledge; 6 That the Executive Member should commission a review of the admission rules and for this review to take account of both practice by other education authorities and experiences in the ‘Greater Harpenden’ and other ‘hot spot’ areas; 7 That the Executive Member be invited to suggest to the Government that the flexibility which is no longer available following the introduction of PAN London is built back into the system; 8 That opportunity should be taken during the publication of this report to draw attention to the Authority’s resolve to take action against any parent who abuses the system through the use of short term addresses.

4 9 That there should be a greater use of head teachers’ and schools’ local knowledge during the application checking process, with a proactive approach towards identifying those who use addresses fraudulently; 10 That there should be positive early contact with independent schools in respect of obtaining information about likely transfers; 11 That greater consideration should be given to the potential impact resulting from rule changes which are being considered or the resolution of any perceived anomaly, so that the full impact of such changes is appreciated and planned for; 12 That where place planning problems occur CSF must identify whether these are short-term or not.

Glossary of Terms and Abbreviations

Admissions Rules Rules which determine whether a child qualifies for a place at a particular school. The Admissions Rules are considered by the Education Panel in March each year in consultation with the County Admissions Forum, with final approval by Cabinet.

Cohort A single year group e.g. year 7 Continuing Interest A list maintained by HCC of parents who have not secured a place at their preferred school and wish that to remain under consideration.

DfES Department for Education and Skills ‘Greater Harpenden’ For the purpose of this report, ‘Greater Harpenden’ means the areas of Redbourn, Wheathampstead, Kimpton, Breachwood Green, St Paul’s Walden, Markyate and Flamstead

IYV In Year Variation NOR Number on roll. The actual number of pupils in a given cohort/year group

Nicky Line A former railway line which runs between Hemel Hempstead and Harpenden. It is now a cycleway and footpath.

OSA Office of the Schools Adjudicator PAN Published Admission Numbers PAN London The co-ordination of school admissions in London and contiguous areas.

PLASC Pupil Level Annual School Census: the information which every school is required to supply to the DfES each January and which includes such data items as pupil name and unique pupil number (UPN)

Planning area Planning areas are used to forecast the future demand and manage the supply of places

Priority area Priority areas are used to designate the parts of the county from which students are given priority to schools in that area UPN Unique Pupil Number: a number which identifies each pupil in England uniquely. UPNs are allocated to pupils according to a nationally specified formula on first entry to school (or in some cases earlier). Pupils UPNs are intended to remain with them throughout their school career regardless of any change in school or LEA. Independent schools are not required to issue UPNs

The Report

1 Introduction

1.1 Establishment of the Topic Group and Ways of Working

1.1.1 The issue of the 2006/07 secondary school transfer in the ‘Greater Harpenden’ area was initially proposed for scrutiny by the Chairman of the Children, Schools & Families Scrutiny Committee at a meeting held on 15 March 2006. 1.1.2 As a result of the discussions Topic Group Members which took place at the Committee, and following  Terry Douris (Chairman) discussion between the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the CSF  County Councillor Nigel Brook Scrutiny Committee and the  County Councillor Tanis Kent Chairman and Vice-Chairman of  County Councillor Aislinn Lee the Overview & Scrutiny Committee, it was agreed that the  County Councillor Richard issue of secondary school place Roberts planning was one which required  County Councillor Richard Smith urgent scrutiny. Consequently, (Vice-Chairman) the Secondary School Place  Tracey Dunn (Harpenden parent Planning Topic Group was representative) established using the urgency procedures provided for in the  Lesley Glass (Kimpton parent County Council’s Constitution representative) (Annex 9A).  Alan Gray (Head Teacher 1.1.3 Five County Councillor members representative – Sandringham together with an independent School, St Albans) representative from amongst the  Bob Parry (Wheathampstead added members of the CSF parent representative) Scrutiny Committee (Terry  Jan Robertson (Markyate parent Douris) were appointed to the representative) topic group; Terry Douris was subsequently elected Chairman, and County Councillor Richard Smith was elected Vice-Chairman 1.1.4 The group first met on 18 April 2006 following which four primary school parent governor representatives were co-opted to the group (one each from the areas of Harpenden, Markyate, Wheathampstead and Kimpton, which were amongst those most directly affected by the situation) along with a Head Teacher representative appointed by the Hertfordshire Association of Secondary School Heads. The membership of the Group is shown in the panel above.

7 1.1.5 A full list of meetings of the topic group can be found at Appendix 2. Agendas, papers and minutes of meetings can be found at the special web pages developed to publicise the meeting dates, agenda papers and reports: www.hertsdirect.org/sspp. 1.1.6 Aware of the level of local interest in the issue, the Topic Remit of the Topic Group Group was keen to facilitate To consider: public involvement and provide an opportunity for local views to  the Council’s forecasting be expressed. To this end, a systems and software and the number of meetings were held interrelation between forcasts in Wheathampstead in the and actual pupil numbers evening, written submissions were sought (see Appendix 9)  to identify possible improvements and the topic group received to those systems and software presentations from a number of  to learn from what happened in speakers at a meeting held on 7 June 2006. the ‘Greater Harpenden’ area this year including: 1.2 Remit of the Topic Group oWhy the projections varied from 1.2.1 The remit of the Group is shown the normal standard on the right. Clarification of this was provided in a document oImpact of local route anomalies entitled Guidance For Meetings o“Discrepancies” between which can be viewed on the Priority Areas and Planning web pages or made available Areas on request - see details on the rear cover to this report. oImpact of single sex planning areas 1.2.2 Whilst not part of their formal remit, the Topic Group oWhether there has been any recognised that the Admissions impact from the increasing Rules have an impact on the number of short term house allocation of school places and rentals received a number of representations suggesting  to assess the impact of the changes to the rules, or planning process with the aim of recommending that the rules informing future processes for should be reviewed. areas which are potential 'hot 1.2.3 The Group did not itself have spots' the authority to make changes to the Rules but decided to make some recommendations about rule changes to the Executive Member – see page 20

8 2 Evidence presented by CSF Officers 2.1 Background to the problems experienced in Harpenden in the 2006 transfer 2.1.1 As a Local Education Authority the County Council has a statutory obligation to provide a place at a secondary school for every child within Hertfordshire who requires one, and as such it also has responsibility for planning for the likely future demand for places. 2.1.2 Generally the County Council has a good record Accuracy of Forecast in planning places • Audit Commission guidelines are for Local Authorities to produce throughout the County as forecasts that are within +/-1% accurate for both primary and shown in the slide opposite, secondary pupils. taken from the presentation • County–wide, the accuracy of the forecasts is as follows: made to the Group by Jim SECONDARY PRIMARY Year of Forecast Actual Overall Forecast Actual Overall Dalton (CSF Head of Forecast Total Total Accuracy at Total Total Accuracy at NOR NOR Secondary NOR NOR Primary Access and Participation) April 2003 79972 78158 2.3% 87108 86800 0.4% on Pupil Forecasting April 2004 78943 79677 -0.9% 85560 84807 0.9% Methodology. A copy of all April 2005 79951 80331 -0.5% 84471 83937 0.6%

the slides used in this Hertfordshire County Council presentation can be found www.hertsdirect.org in Appendix 4. 2.1.3 Evidence presented at the meeting on 7 September indicated extremes between individual forecasts for admissions compared with that for the total number of secondary school places. A detailed table is included in Appendix 5 but the following graph plots the variations in forecasts and actual for both admissions and total secondary school places for each part of Hertfordshire. Other areas with greater -% variance between admissions and total secondary place forecasts (a +% variation would result in a surplus of places) did not encounter the same problems in meeting parental preferences as in Greater Harpenden, thus suggesting that the forecasts can help hide “hot spot” areas – see section 5 for the Group’s findings & recommendations.

15.00%

10.00%

-5.00%

-10.00%

-15.00% Admissions Total School Numbers -20.00% Harpenden -25.00%

Graph showing variations in forecasts admissions & total secondary school places for different parts of Hertfordshire 9 2.1.4 New residential developments, school reorganisations, changes to the Admissions Other hotspot areas Rules and designated routes to school, and Hotspot areas have in the past population changes are all factors which can occurred in other parts of the affect the number of school places needed in county such as: a particular area.  Mill End 2.1.5 There are also additional pressures in trying to meet parental preferences, and where  Maple Cross there is one, or a group of schools which are  Letchworth held in high regard this can lead to the development of a ‘hot spot’ area, where demand for school places exceeds the available supply see section 5.4 on page 19.

2.1.6 Greater Harpenden has been one such ‘hot spot’ area. Additional places have had to be made available at Sir John Lawes, St George’s, Roundwood Park and Sandringham to accommodate the increase in demand. 2.1.7 In addition to taking 20 borders, as a voluntary-aided school, St George’s has traditionally made provision for a number of children (8 in 2005) from outside the area and this needs to be taken account of in the planning process.

Harpenden admissions to Year 7 against number of year 6 primary pupils

l 540 i p u p

f o 520 o N

500 Year 6 pupils in previous year in local primary schools

480 Actual Year 7 admissions

460 April 2005 Forecast admissions to Year 7

440 2002/3 2003/4 2004/5 2005/6 2006/7 2007/8

2.1.8 The above graph displays the correlation between the numbers of Year 6 pupils in HCC primary schools within the Harpenden planning area and the number of pupils who were admitted into Year 7 in the Harpenden secondary schools the following year, i.e. Year 6 pupils in 2002/3 transferring to Year 7 in 2003/4.

10 2.1.9 Since 2002/3, a lesser number of pupils have Harpenden Forecasts and Actual admission transferred into numbers Harpenden secondary Year Forecast Previous Forecast Allocations Actual Year schools than were in the Forecast Year of year’s Year 6 Admissions as at end of 7 (PLASC) published Admission NOR in to Year 7 CI process previous Year 6 cohort to Year 7 Harpenden Primaries* in primary schools within 2002** Sept ‘03 592 503 562 549

the Harpenden planning April ‘03 Sept ’04 556 501 490 520

area. The 2005 forecast April ‘04 Sept ’05 543 522 543 548 continued this trend to April ’05 Sept ‘06 608 553 561*** n/a project admissions to *This includes primary schools in the areas of Redbourn, Harpenden, Wheathampstead, The Waldens and secondary school, using Hemel Rural North. ** Pre-dates current forecast system the current year group ***As at Round 3 of Continuing Interest process, May 2006, with additional places available through In Year Variations Hertfordshire County Council numbers in the primary www.hertsdirect.org schools within the area. It is clear from the graph that the admissions to Year 7 in September 2005 were greater than the number of pupils in the previous Year 6 cohort in the primary schools within the area. 2.1.10 Annual pupil forecasts for September admission are made in the April of the previous year, and from April 2002 to April 2005 the trend in Greater Harpenden had been for the Number on Roll (NOR) in Year 6 to be greater than the actual numbers for admission to Year 7. 2.1.11 The April 2005 forecast could not take account of a change to this trend which became evident in September 2005, and the September 2006 Year 7 ‘Greater Harpenden’ cohort was, according to the annual pupil forecast, projected to be 553 pupils from an unusually large Year 6 cohort of 608 pupils. 2.1.12 When it became apparent that the number of pupils who would require first preference places in Year 7 in 2006 was greater than had been anticipated it was initially considered that the shortfall would be 11 places – a level at which it was decided that specific action would not be required. However, the discrepancy subsequently proved to be larger, resulting in 82 pupils not being allocated one of their ranked preferences at a Greater Harpenden secondary school. 2.1.13 At the time of writing this report, and following the increase in places referred to in paragraph 2.1.6, six children who are resident in the parishes of Harpenden, Harpenden Rural and Wheathampstead had an outstanding continuing interest application for a Harpenden School as at the final run of the secondary transfer continuing interest process. Four of these children have been allocated a ranked school outside Harpenden. From the remaining 2 pupils, one pupil was allocated Sandringham (second rank) as at allocation day, but this place was removed as the parent/carer did not respond to the non-responder letter. The final pupil was a late applicant who moved to Harpenden during the continuing interest process. The parents/carers of four of these six children have requested that their names remain of the continuing interest list for the Autumn term 2006 and these applications will be administered as part of the ’In Year’ process should places become available.

11 2.2 Overview of the secondary school place forecasting system 2.2.1 The current system for forecasting school places was introduced in 2003 following a review by the Audit Commission, carried out at the County Council’s request, into the former system.

Objectives & Purpose of Forecasting

• To project pupil numbers at planning area level to inform school place planning activity, e.g. - As a tool to identify areas of rising surplus places - Setting published admission numbers - Reporting to DfES on projected pupil numbers, HCC wide

Hertfordshire County Council www.hertsdirect.org

2.2.2 The system is therefore based on the recommendations of the Audit Commission, and for secondary (and middle) school planning it centres around the division of the county into 22 ‘planning areas’. 2.2.3 These ‘planning areas’ are different to ‘priority areas’. Each school has a ‘priority Planning and Priority area’ consisting of a number of parishes, Areas whose children have precedence in the Planning areas are used to allocation of places for that school. The forecast the future demand planning and priority areas are not and manage the supply of necessarily coterminous. places. 2.2.4 The Commission recommends that Priority areas are used to forecasts should be between +/-1% designate the parts of the accurate across the whole area of the county from which students county, and the topic group received are given priority to schools evidence that from 2003 onwards (i.e. from in that area. the date of the introduction of the new planning system) the forecasts for the county as a whole, for both secondary and primary places, have met the Audit Commission’s requirements in this regard. 2.2.5 The topic group received evidence that across the county as a whole, the number of children who were allocated one of their ranked schools showed a slight improvement between 2005 and 2006, albeit that this trend has not been reflected in the Greater Harpenden area.

12 2.3 How Secondary School place planning forecasts are made 2.3.1 The School Access Team (Planning) uses an Oracle-based system to forecast the number of pupil places which will be required in a given year. The system can also provide modelling on how proposed changes (for example to the admissions rules) will affect pupil movements in a given area see section 5.3 on page 18 for the Topic Groups recommendation.

Simplified flow chart of the forecasting process 7

SECONDARY January PRIMARY Previous New Housing Pupil Completions uses Movement Count. GP Data. Patterns

To Predict To Predict To Predict future future New Pupils Reception Admission Classes Classes

Data from external Source Data Created in Software Create Area Produce Forecasts Complete Forecast And split down to Forecast Schools Report

Produce Variance Compare this Report year's Actuals with Used to improve previous years forecast accuracy Forecast

2.3.2 The topic group received a detailed presentation and demonstration of the working of the software system, and the slides which were used in this presentation are attached at Appendix 6. 2.3.3 Each spring a number of datasets is entered into the system. This includes the actual numbers of pupils by school (this data comes from the DfES’s annual pupil count, the PLASC); information from the local health authority regarding the number of children aged under five and GP registrations (for primary school projections), and information from Hertfordshire County Council’s Environment Department regarding future housing development plans. 2.3.4 The system automatically takes account of data from the three previous years: thus, the number of children who have, for example, moved out of the state education sector over the previous three years will inform the forecast for the following year. The greatest weighting is given to the most recent information, although the system can be modelled to give a different balance. 2.3.5 From this information an initial projection is made which is subject to analysis by planning officers who apply local knowledge and identify obvious discrepancies. The result is the annual pupil forecast, produced in April each year.

13 3 The Harpenden Experience 3.1 Focus for the investigation 3.1.1 The focus of the Topic Group’s scrutiny was to discover if there were any lessons arising from the 2006 transfer situation in Harpenden (see section 2.1) which could be applied to future ‘hot spot’ areas, or which could be acted upon to mitigate school place planning problems in the Harpenden area in future. 3.1.2 As a key part of its investigations the Topic Group sought the input and experience of affected parents and interest groups. A significant number of comments and ideas was received, and those who wished to speak directly to the topic group were invited to do so at a meeting held at the Hertfordshire Development Centre in Wheathampstead on 7 June 2006. Copies of the submissions received by those who spoke at the meeting are attached at Appendix 9. 3.1.3 Questions from those who were unable to speak at the meeting Areas identified for further were collated with those from investigation members of the topic group.  Modelling of forecasts Responses to these questions were provided by officers at the  Change in parental preference following meeting, and a full list of and a growth in the positive questions, with responses, is perception of Harpenden attached at Appendix 7. secondary schools

3.2 Areas identified for further  A higher number of sibling connections investigation 3.2.1 The comments and submissions  Impact of PAN London received, together with evidence  Potential abuse of short term from Members and officers, addresses revealed a series of possible factors which the topic group felt  Transfers from independent were contributing to the increase in sector schools the number of pupils seeking a  Impact of the Admissions Rules secondary school place in and changes to designated Harpenden. routes to school 3.2.2 A number of areas were identified as requiring further investigation and in addition to seeking answers to the questions in Appendix 7, CSF was asked to track the following for the previous three years:  Where children in year six went to in year 7  Where children in year 7 came from. 3.2.3 The issues outlined in the box above are further explored in section 5 on page 17.

14 4 Lessons identified by CSF Officers 4.1.1 The report presented by CSF to the meeting on 7 September 2006 included the following points indicating what CSF had learnt as a result of their experience both from forecasting & planning places in Harpenden during the previous year and from meetings of the Topic Group.

CSF Learning Point 1 Secondary Transfer meetings Each year CSF staff hold approximately 12 meetings across the County in late September and early October to explain the secondary transfer process and answer questions. This year these meetings will have CSF Learning Point 2 an increased local flavour; and the potential issues in possible ‘hot spot’ Stronger wording about abuses areas will be explained. The guidance in the ‘Moving On’ This year’s meeting in Harpenden booklet about the consequences of was at Roundwood Park on 27 giving false or misleading information September and, in addition, officers says both ‘we may withdraw’ and ‘we attended a parents’ meeting in will withdraw’. Wheathampstead on 13 September. On the basis of the data, officers think the anecdotal belief about the extent of abuses is exaggerated. Nevertheless the wording in the booklet is to be made stronger, so parents are in no doubt that they must expect their place to be withdrawn if they have provided incorrect information.

CSF Learning Point 3 Appointment of an Admissions Adviser The County Council has secured a Government Grant to appoint an Admissions Adviser over two years. She or he will be responsible for helping parents and carers for whom secondary transfer will be a challenge. These will mainly be parents who have difficulty understanding the opportunities available to their children, but will also include families faced with the difficulties of a ‘hot spot’ area.

15 CSF Learning Point 4 Early examination of numbers and trends in ‘hot spot’ areas. When there is a risk that an area may be a ‘hot spot’, CSF needs to examine the year 5/6 numbers and trends in plenty CSF Learning Point 6 of time to be able to explore Adding places. possible corrective action. This will include the geographical It should be possible to anticipate distribution of pupils in order to the need to add places before supplement the data from the planned admission numbers are forecasting system with local agreed. knowledge. When this does not happen, bearing in mind the Authority’s responsibility to plan across an area and consider the impact on other schools of adding additional places, CSF needs to exploit the Authority’s ability to add a small number of places without having to apply to The Schools’ Adjudicator for an In Year Variation, as in Harpenden this year. The limit to ‘small’ is not defined CSF Learning Point 5 in the Code of Practice on Early discussion with Admissions, but recent advice secondary school head to CSF is that an addition of 5% teachers. should be acceptable. If it becomes clear that there These places should be agreed may be a problem with with schools and made insufficient places in an area available for the initial to meet demand, CSF allocation, thereby reducing the officers need to have the number of families distressed earliest possible discussion when places are first with local head teachers to announced. explore the scope for adding additional places.

16 5 Findings and recommendations 5.1 CSF Learning Points 5.1.1 The Group endorsed the learning points that had Recommendation 1 been identified by CSF That the Director of CSF ensures that the Officers and are learning points presented by his officers are confident that the acted on with immediate effect across the Overview & Scrutiny county, and that learning points 4 and 5 are Committee will ensure incorporated within formalised processes. they are enacted upon as part of its regular review of scrutiny recommendations. 5.1.2 Having endorsed the CSF learning points the Group went on to make a number of additional findings and recommendations. In doing so it noted that one of the benefits of such an investigation is that it helps concentrate the minds of service officers to address such issues. 5.2 General findings 5.2.1 Whilst the remit of the Topic Group did not Finding 1 extend to resolving the The Group sympathises with the stress and current concerns being emotional concerns experienced by experienced by local children and their parents when a place at parents, the Group was their preferred school is not available pleased to learn that the leaving them with no option but to consider vast majority of children going through an appeal process. had obtained places in schools within the ‘Greater Harpenden’ area. 5.2.2 In view of the potential Finding 2 variations in the accuracy of forecasts for The overall accuracy of the school forecast admission numbers and and placement planning process can help total number of hide potential ‘hot spot’ areas. secondary school places, detailed in paragraph 2.1.3, the Group felt that more needs to be done Recommendation 2 by CSF to review the That the Director of CSF initiates a review number of places with of the potential number of ‘hot spot’ areas. potential to become hot spot areas.

17 5.3 Forecasting, Planning and Modelling of school places 5.3.1 Initial information as to where children within ‘Greater Harpenden’ in year six Number of Children went to and those in year 7 came from with no UPN over the previous three years was presented to the Group at its meeting on 2004 - 57 06 July 2006. The detailed spreadsheets have not been reproduced 2005 - 59 in this report but the Group requested 2006 - 70 further information in respect of those children in year 7 who did not have Unique Pupil Number (UPN). 5.3.2 This additional information was presented to the Group on 7 September 2006. A copy of that report is available on request or can be downloaded from www.hertsdirect.org/sspp 5.3.3 The forecasting and planning system can also provide modelling on how proposed changes (for example to admissions rules) will affect pupil movements in a given area. Parent representatives of the Group did not consider this is carried out at a ‘granular’ level. 5.3.4 Evidence was presented by parent representatives that the minutes of Children Schools and families from 18/11/2004 showed that some modelling had been done on possible changes to admission arrangements for 2006/2007 at a parish level. This showed a net loss of 23 places for Harpenden, a net loss of 9 for Wheathampstead and a net gain of 25 for Redbourn. It concluded Recommendation 3 that "Whilst it would That CSF introduces a more ‘granular’ level appear that in overall of modelling (e.g. parish) for hot spot areas terms there would be no and that the result of the modelling be significant changes in factored into the final planning of places. allocations, there are a few parishes where there could be significant losses or gains." but this was never factored into the final forecast. 5.3.5 There is a difference between the forecast figure produced by the computer software and the final planning figure which is arrived at following the application of local knowledge. This is acknowledged in the CSF Learning Point 4 (see section 4 on page 15). Forecasts are however made on the basis of historical data Recommendation 4 and the Group considered Where forecast numbers are above or it was important to stress below planned admission numbers serious the need for more account of this should be taken at an early consideration to be given stage. to potential variations in forecast and planned admission numbers.

18 5.3.6 The Group also considered that more Recommendation 5 should be done to keep When forecasts are made a report, together both the Executive with a hotspot forecast, should be sent to Member and local the Executive Member and local county county councillors councillors to facilitate the use of their local informed. The latter constituency knowledge. would facilitate use of local knowledge about their constituency. 5.4 Change in parental preference and a growth in the positive perception of Harpenden secondary schools 5.4.1 Whilst consideration has to be given to parents who have difficulty in accessing a local school, the County Council has a responsibility to all parents across the county and therefore cannot implement actions in one area which are not carried out in another area where the problem just happens to be not as large. 5.4.2 Whilst the authority seeks to meet parental preferences it cannot in 100% of cases offer a guarantee of a place at a child’s nearest school or even at a school in the same town, nor does the system require this. 5.4.3 The Authority must consider the knock-on effects of actions in one area for parents in another area of the county. For example, if too many places are created in one area than are needed then those places are taken by children from further away. These children may also have sibling connections which will create even further demand for places. 5.4.4 Since there is a fixed number of children requiring secondary places, increasing the number of places in one area is likely to result in fewer children attending other schools which will have a detrimental effect on those schools. As an authority with responsibility for the viability of all schools, HCC must take account of this.

5.4.5 There are also physical Finding 3 constraints connected with the size of school buildings Whilst parental preference is a cornerstone and availability of land to of the Authority’s code of practise and local extend that mean an admission arrangements should seek to education authority cannot meet this to the maximum extent possible, keep adding places to an education authority cannot keep adding popular or local schools places to popular or local schools indefinitely – to give that indefinitely. impression would be misleading.

19 5.5 A higher number of sibling connections

5.5.1 Following an objection by Essex County Council and other admitting authorities, the OSA has made a determination which affects the admission rules for Hertfordshire County Council community schools.

5.5.2 The OSA has determined that the admission rule which allows priority to be given to children of school staff (‘the staff rule’) must be removed, and that the sibling rule must be changed to stipulate that it applies to a sibling of a child who is in the school (i.e. in year 7 - 11) at the date of admission, rather than at the date of application.

5.5.3 The change to the staff rule is unlikely to have a significant impact; however, the change to the sibling rule will have ramifications since some schools in the county have quite a large proportion of their entry admitted under the sibling rule. CSF has not yet had an opportunity to undertake an exercise to ascertain how many places are likely to be freed up by the sibling rule change.

5.5.4 Having taken account of the potential impact of the OSA adjudication that will remove Finding 4 one year group of siblings, More could be done to limit the impact of the Topic Group considered siblings by making further changes to the that more could be done to admission rules. limit the impact of siblings by making further changes to the admission rules.

5.5.5 The Topic Group are aware that other education authorities have different sibling rules and considered that it would be beneficial for the Hertfordshire admission rules to be reviewed to take account of practice elsewhere and the lessons experienced from ‘Greater Harpenden’ and other ‘hot spot’ areas.

Recommendation 6 The Executive Member should commission a review of the admission rules and for this review to take account of both practice by other education authorities and experiences in the Greater Harpenden and other ‘hot spot’ areas.

20 5.6 Impact of PAN London 5.6.1 The Group was informed by the Deputy PAN London Leader who had been the previous In order to achieve each child Executive Member responsible for being offered one school place it is schools that the PAN London system necessary to keep to a strict restricts flexibility in the forecasting and timetable throughout London and placement planning process. England. This is in order to achieve a single offer on National Allocation Day, 1 March, each Recommendation 7 year. From 8 January 2007 all PANs will be recorded on the That the Executive Member be invited to system and to increase or suggest to the Government that flexibility that is decrease the PAN after this date no longer available following the introduction of could lead to a claim of PAN London is built back into the system; maladministration.

5.7 Potential abuse of short term addresses 5.7.1 The Group had been particularly interested in whether applications to Harpenden Schools have been distorted by families who are not long- term residents in the area. An analysis of the children whose address changed between their 2005 secondary transfer application, at the time of allocation in March 2005 and their secondary school attendance recorded through the PLASC return in January 2006 indicated that 706 pupils applied for the three schools. Of these, 40 changed address within the same locality and 17 moved between towns; of the 17, 10 moved out of Harpenden to:  St Albans (4)  Welwyn Garden City (1) and  Luton (5 - including one pair of twins). 5.7.2 Another issue of concern to the Group was whether places are secured at Harpenden Secondary Schools by parents providing false or misleading information. All such allegations are thoroughly investigated and the position this year for the whole County shows there have been 12 allegations. Satisfactory evidence was provided in 10 cases, one application was withdrawn; and in one case (for Sir John Lawes) investigations are continuing.

5.7.3 A number of references to the abuse of short term and accommodation addresses were made during presentations by local parents. Letters were submitted to the Group from both employees of and local estate agents and these are included in Appendix 8.

5.7.4 There is a difference between renting accommodation on a short-term basis in order to secure a school place for a child and using an address on the application from which is not the child’s true address, and can be a fraudulent act.

21 5.7.5 The Head of Scrutiny had also informed the Group Finding 5 that the Chairman of the Hertfordshire Branch of That whilst the abuse of short term or the National Association of accommodation addresses by parents Estate Agents had advised was not the predominant factor behind the that providing the topic problems experienced in Harpenden, group with hard evidence there is sufficient evidence to indicate that of suggested use of short- more needs to be done to deter this. term lets would prove very difficult, and whilst there may be anecdotal reports of people taking short-term lets to secure school Recommendation 8 places he did not feel that The opportunity should be taken during the this was happening in publication of this report to draw attention to sufficient numbers to the Authority’s resolve to take action against produce the results seen any parent who abuses the system through this year. the use of short term addresses.

5.7.6 The Topic Group is supportive of the proposal Recommendation 9 by CSF in the CSF There should be a greater use of head Learning Point 3 (see teachers’ and schools’ local knowledge page 15) that the wording during the application checking process, in the Moving On booklet with a proactive approach towards should be much stronger identifying those who use addresses in respect of the fraudulently. Authority’s determination o to take action against anyone who abuses the system. In addition they would like to see greater use of local knowledge within schools during the application checking process. 5.8 Transfers from independent sector schools 5.8.1 One of the factors affecting demand for secondary Recommendation 10 school places is the potential transfer of year 7 There should be positive early contact pupils from independent to with independent schools in respect of state schools. obtaining information about likely transfers. 5.8.2 The Group considered that more could be done, particularly as part of the planning process, to seek information in respect of the intention of parents whose children may transfer from the independent sector. 5.9 Impact of the Admissions rules and changes to designated routes to school

22 5.9.1 A further factor in the Harpenden experience was the adoption of the ‘Nicky Line’ as a cycleway under the ‘Safer Routes to School’ scheme. The admissions rules stipulate that a cycleway adopted by Hertfordshire County Council qualifies as a designated route to school. 5.9.2 This has meant that the distance from Redbourn to Harpenden schools is now shorter than the distance from some parts of Harpenden, and as a result children from Redbourn are allocated places in Harpenden schools ahead of those who live in ‘Greater Harpenden’. 5.9.3 This change did not cause the problems experienced in the ‘Greater Harpenden’ area this year but it did move the problem. However, in the current ‘hot spot’ situation some parents feel that the ‘Nicky Line’ ruling jeopardises the chances of children from ‘Greater Harpenden’ obtaining a place at a school which is local to them. 5.9.4 It is not the wish of the Group to create division Recommendation 11 between different areas of Greater consideration should be given to the the ‘Greater Harpenden’ potential impact resulting from rule changes community on this issue. that are being considered, or the resolution of They do however feel that any perceived anomaly so that the full impact of not enough was done to such changes is appreciated and planned for. fully appreciate the impact of the change in status of the Nicky Line. 6 Conclusions 6.1.1 The Topic Group was aware from the outset of the importance of this piece of scrutiny to parents in the ‘Greater Harpenden’ area and other parts of the County who have suffered similar experiences in the past. 6.1.2 It is clear that the pressure for secondary school places in the ‘Greater Harpenden’ area will remain in at least the short term. This may not always be the case with ‘hot spot’ areas, and Recommendation 12 where place planning Where place planning problems occur CSF problems occur CSF must identify whether these are short-term or must identify whether not. these are short-term or not. 6.1.3 This report has presented the Topic Group’s findings and recommendations in respect of how the school place planning process may be improved in ‘hot spot’ areas in future years, and implementation of the group’s recommendations will be monitored by the Overview & Scrutiny Committee on a regular basis. 6.1.4 The final meeting of the Group expressed their thanks to David Moses, Head of Scrutiny who acted as Lead Officer and Emma Lund,

23 Democratic Services Officer who helped plan the meetings, made arrangements for witnesses to give evidence, kept records of proceedings and helped with the drafting of this report. They also thanked Jim Dalton, Head of Access & Participation and his colleagues within CSF for providing detailed information as requested by the Group. 6.1.5 Finally, If the uncertainties experienced by parents living in such ‘hot spot’ areas are minimised in future the Group’s work will have been worthwhile.

24 Appendix 1 – Membership of the Topic Group

Membership

The following County Councillors were appointed to the Topic Group:

Nigel Brook (Conservative) Tanis Kent (Labour) Aislinn Lee (Liberal Democrat) Richard Roberts (Conservative) Richard Smith (Conservative, Vice-Chairman)

The following Added Members were appointed to the Topic Group:

Terry Douris (Chairman) Tracey Dunn, parent representative (Harpenden) Lesley Glass, parent representative (Kimpton) Alan Gray, Head Teacher representative Bob Parry, parent representative (Wheathampstead) Jan Robertson, parent representative (Markyate)

To provide independent support David Moses, Head of Scrutiny, acted as the Lead Officer for the Group. Administrative support was provided by Emma Lund of the County Secretary’s Democratic Services section.

25 Appendix 2 - List of meetings

Agendas, papers and minutes of the meetings of the Topic Group can be obtained from www.hertsdirect.org/sspp . Meetings took place as follows, and for those meetings marked ‘*’ a recording of the meeting is available on request to [email protected] .

18 April 2006 Location: County Hall, Hertford

 Appointment of Chairman  Remit of the Topic Group  Method of operation  Presentation on the 2006 forecasting and place planning  Definition of the ‘Greater Harpenden’ area

*18 May 2006 Location: Hertfordshire Development Centre, Wheathampstead

 ‘Guidance for Meetings’ and more on the remit of the Topic Group  Presentation on the 2006 forecasting and place planning in the ‘Greater Harpenden’ area  Work programme  Dates for future meetings

*7 June 2006 Location: Hertfordshire Development Centre, Wheathampstead

 Evidence from parents and those affected by the 2006 transfer  Work programme  Dates for future meetings

*23 June 2006 Location: County Hall, Hertford

 Written submissions  Questions to CSF and Corporate Services Officers  Evidence from Executive Members  Work Programme  Dates for future meetings

*6 July 2006 Location: Hertfordshire Development Centre, Wheathampstead

26  Update on information requested at previous meetings  Work programme  Dates for future meetings

*7 September 2006 Location: County Hall, Hertford

 Update on information requested at previous meetings  Skeleton report of the topic group  Arrangements for finalising the report

21 September 2006 Location: County Hall, Hertford

 Draft report of the Topic Group

27 Appendix 3 – Scoping Document

TOPIC: Secondary Schools Place Planning

Raised by: Tanis Kent Date: 15/03/06

Purpose of the Scrutiny: To review the experience in forecasting & planning secondary school places for 2006/07 within the Greater Harpenden Area in order to identify lessons which could be applied to future “hot spot “ areas.

Initial comments (if any) of: Chief Officer: The provision of school places and admission arrangements are amongst the most important of the County Council's responsibilities. They involve many stakeholders and are inevitably quite complicated. There were difficulties in Harpenden this year. It will be very helpful for the topic group to rigorously scrutinise the whole system, the particular issues which arose in Harpenden and to identify lessons learnt, so that there can be improvements for the future and confidence in the overall system. Head of Scrutiny: This is an important piece of scrutiny which will drill into an area of public concern, thus fulfilling one of the main objectives for scrutiny i.e. to reflect the public voice. The urgency of this piece of work is recognised and the Overview & Scrutiny Committee will need to consider the impact of this on other parts of the work programme.

FRAMEWORK FOR SCRUTINY: Issues and Questions to be addressed: The remit of the scrutiny exercise does not include a review of the rules but should consider:  the Council’s forecasting systems and software and the inter-relation between forcasts and actual pupils numbers  to identify possible improvements to those systems and software  to learn from what happened in the “greater Harpenden” area this year including: o Why the projections varied from the normal standard o Impact of local route anomalies o “Discrepancies” between Priority Areas and Planning Areas o Impact of single sex planning areas o Whether there has been any impact from the increasing number of short term house rentals  to assess the impact of the planning process with the aim of informing future process for areas that are potential 'hotspots'

28 Method (Committee/ Topic Group/ or other informal meetings or visits) A topic group has been established by the Chairmen & Vice-chairmen of the Overview & Scrutiny and the Children Schools & Families Committee using the urgency route provided for within the HCC Scrutiny Guidelines.

Likely sources of evidence/ witnesses:  Local County Councillors  Executive Member  CSF School Access Officers  Parents  Governors  Head Teachers

Resources Lead officer: David Moses, Head of Scrutiny

Meeting Emma Lund, Democratic Services Officer Administrator: Specialist Advisor: Jim Dalton, Head of Access & Participation, CSF Other:

Scope approved by Scrutiny Committee on : Listed for Scrutiny Committee on:

TOPIC GROUP (if required) Membership: Terry Douris (Chairman) Bryan Hammond Aislinn Lee Tanis Kent Richard Roberts Richard Smith 4 x Local Parent Governors 1 x local Head Teacher

Remit To identify the lessons from the forecasting and planning of secondary school places for 2006/07 within the Great Harpenden area and to consider how these could be applied to future “hot spots”. The scrutiny exercise to be complete by late summer/early autumn in order to influence arrangements for 2007/08.

The Topic Group are encouraged wherever possible to hold meetings within the Greater Harpenden area and to facilitate public involvement.

29 PROGRAMME: (timescales and current position) 18 April 2006 Initial meeting to develop a work programme and identify potential witnesses

OUTCOME(S) (when scrutiny completed)

30 Appendix 4 – Slides of a presentation on pupil forecasting methodology, Harpenden forecasts and place planning

Scrutiny Presentation

Pupil Forecasting Methodology, Harpenden forecasts and place planning

Pupil Forecasts - Background

• Local Authorities have a statutory duty to secure an adequate number of school places for resident children of statutory school age.

• Our forecasting system is the means by which the future supply and demand for places is calculated.

• The system, introduced in 2003, is based on the audit commission’s recommendations for pupil number forecasting.

Methodology

• Forecasts are based on 22 education planning areas, e.g. Hemel Hempstead, St Albans, Harpenden. See map.

• Data sets are imported into the forecasting system in April each year to produce the annual pupil forecasts.

• The data sets include: – Actual Pupil Numbers (PLASC) - Unique pupil number, year group, their school now and last year.

– GP Registrations (Health Authority) - Postcodes and dates of birth

– New Housing Completions Predictions (Environment Department Database)

31 Calculating the forecast

GP Registrations Number of 0 – 5 year olds in an area to predict future reception admissions (taking account of cohort survival) Actual Pupil Numbers Cohort Survival rates Secondary transfer predictions New Housing Pupil yield from new developments housing

Schools Details of new/closed schools, capacities and admission numbers

Weightings 3:2:1 using three years of historic data

Accuracy of Forecast

• Audit Commission guidelines are for Local Authorities to produce forecasts that are within +/-1% accurate for both primary and secondary pupils.

• County–wide, the accuracy of the forecasts is as follows:

SECONDARY PRIMARY Year of Forecast Actual Overall Forecast Actual Overall Forecast Total Total Accuracy at Total Total Accuracy at NOR NOR Secondary NOR NOR Primary April 2003 79972 78158 2.3% 87108 86800 0.4%

April 2004 78943 79677 -0.9% 85560 84807 0.9%

April 2005 79951 80331 -0.5% 84471 83937 0.6%

Harpenden forecasts of pupil numbers

• The Harpenden secondary planning area includes St George’s, Sir John Lawes & Roundwood Park schools.

• Within the Harpenden planning area, the accuracy of the forecasts are as follows:

SECONDARY PRIMARY Year of Forecast Actual Overall Forecast Actual Overall Forecast Total Total Accuracy at Total Total Accuracy at NOR NOR Secondary NOR NOR Primary April 2003 3247 3293 -1.4% 4092 4021 1.7%

April 2004 3320 3362 -1.3% 4043 4000 1.1%

April 2005 3386 3425 -1.2% 4052 4041 0.3%

32 Harpenden Forecasts and Actual admission numbers

Year Forecast Previous Forecast Allocations Actual Year Forecast Year of year’s Year 6 Admissions as at end of 7 (PLASC) published Admission NOR in to Year 7 CI process to Year 7 Harpenden Primaries* 2002** Sept ‘03 592 503 562 549

April ‘03 Sept ’04 556 501 490 520

April ‘04 Sept ’05 543 522 543 548

April ’05 Sept ‘06 608 553 561*** n/a

*This includes primary schools in the areas of Redbourn, Harpenden, Wheathampstead, The Waldens and Hemel Rural North. ** Pre-dates current forecast system ***As at Round 3 of Continuing Interest process, May 2006, with additional places available through In Year Variations Hertfordshire County Council www.hertsdirect.org

Harpenden admissions to Year 7 against number of year 6 primary pupils

560 s l i Year 6 pupils in previous year in p

p local primary schools

N Actual Year 7 admissions 520

April 2005 Forecast admissions 500 to Year 7

440 2002/3 2003/4 2004/5 2005/6 2006/7 2007/8

Meeting parental preference 2005 2006

No % No % No of Hertfordshire children allocated a 12288 94% 11603 94.06% ranked school Non ranked allocations 784 6% 733 5.94%

Previous hotspots: South West Herts Mill End & Maple Cross Letchworth

33 Additional places provided in Harpenden

PAN PAN PAN PAN PAN PAN PAN IYV 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2006 Sir John Lawes 162 162 180 180 180 180 180 187

St George’s* 150 150 150 150 150 180 180 180

Roundwood Park 165 165 180 180 180 182 182 207

Area Total 477 477 510 510 510 542 542 574

* The Admission numbers include 20 boarders

Managing the forecast demand

• Although the forecast showed unsatisfied demand from 11 children in the area for September 2006, previous experience had shown that this was not a level where action would be required.

• Consideration was given to the demand for places balanced with the potential risk providing additional places may have created for the future.

Possible reasons for the current position

We have looked at the possible reasons for the current position which may be attributed to one or more of the following: • Change in parental preference • A growth in positive perception of Harpenden secondary schools • A higher number of sibling connections • Impact of changes to schools outside the area, e.g. – Schools in neighbouring areas going through difficulties – A change within the independent school sector, e.g. increase in fees/closure/achievement • Impact of PAN London

34 Lessons to be learned

• The April 2006 forecast has started to take account of the increase in the proportion of pupils transferring to secondary school in Harpenden and has revised Year 7 estimates to reflect the change. Year Forecast Forecast Year Previous Forecast Allocations Actual Year 7 published of Admission year’s Year 6 Admissions to as at end of (PLASC) to Year 7 NOR in Year 7 CI process Harpenden Primaries April 2006 Sept ‘07 574 555 n/a n/a

• Improve the process of monitoring and evaluating the demand within identified hotspots within the planning function • Review lessons to be learned at the end of this process

35 2005/2006 Forecast (July 2005) PLASC 2006 Variance (using forecast as baseline) Other Appendix 6 – Mainstream Pupil Number Forecasting System – s Admissi Compuls Tot Admissi Tot Admissi Tot Admissi i

Areas ons ory 16+ al ons al ons al ons % Total % y l

a 2,04 2,08

Letchworthn 366 1,413 266 5 370 3 -4 -38 -1.1% -1.9% A

e 1,31 1,33

Baldockc 222 878 218 8 215 3 7 -15 3.2% -1.1% n a

Roystoni Upper 182 360 162 704 171 701 11 3 6.0% 0.4% r

Roystona Middle 156 552 0 708 161 701 -5 7 -3.2% 1.0% V

s 2,93 2,91

Hitchina 483 1,927 524 4 493 0 -10 24 -2.1% 0.8% c e

r 7,62 7,65

Stevenageo 1,334 5,375 919 8 1,320 3 14 -25 1.0% -0.3% F

Buntingfordl Upper 199 407 200 806 195 788 4 18 2.0% 2.2% o

Buntingfordo Middle 164 588 0 752 196 767 -32 -15 -19.5% -2.0% h c

Bishop'sS Stortford/ 1,16 5,67 5,76 Sawbridgeworth 896 3,617 5 8 933 5 -37 -87 -4.1% -1.5% y r

a 4,30 4,37 Hertfordd & Ware 697 2,824 785 6 712 0 -15 -64 -2.2% -1.5% n o

c 3,27 3,23

Hoddesdone 559 2,243 472 4 535 1 24 43 4.3% 1.3% S

a 3,97 3,95

Cheshunte 683 2,776 518 7 656 8 27 19 4.0% 0.5% r A 3,38 3,42 –

Harpenden 509 2,149 728 6 545 5 -36 -39 -7.1% -1.2% 5

x 3,31 3,27 Welwyni Garden City 594 2,283 441 8 552 5 42 43 7.1% 1.3% d n

e 1,67 9,17 9,19

St Albansp 1,486 6,010 9 5 1,498 4 -12 -19 -0.8% -0.2% p

A 1,30 1,29 Hatfield 225 931 151 7 199 8 26 9 11.6% 0.7%

3,21 3,29 Potters Bar 480 2,058 681 9 517 7 -37 -78 -7.7% -2.4%

1,29 1,28 Borehamwood 217 909 166 2 195 9 22 3 10.1% 0.2%

1,44 1,48 Tring 209 946 291 6 233 8 -24 -42 -11.5% -2.9%

Berkhampsted Upper 196 394 206 796 200 814 -4 -18 -2.0% -2.3%

Berkhampsted Middle 194 562 0 756 191 743 3 13 1.5% 1.7%

1,08 7,24 7,23 Hemel Hempstead 1,232 4,935 2 9 1,226 9 6 10 0.5% 0.1%

3,58 3,65 Rickmansworth 572 2,325 689 6 604 2 -32 -66 -5.6% -1.8%

1,33 6,83 6,84 Watford 1,090 4,410 4 4 1,112 3 -22 -9 -2.0% -0.1%

3,45 3,51 Bushey 582 2,384 491 7 36 572 4 10 -57 1.7% -1.6%

13,1 79,9 80,3 County 13,527 53,256 68 51 13,601 31 -74 -380 -0.5% -0.5% SSPP Topic Group

Mainstream Pupil Number Forecasting System

Kate Ma Planning Officer, School Places Team

Outline Programme

• Overview of Forecasting System • Objective & Purpose • Methodology • Producing Pupil Forecasts • Analysis • Demonstration

Overview of the Forecasting System

• Introduced in 2003 • Software system - Oracle database • User web interface • Methodology based on Audit Commission’s recommendations for pupil forecasting • Produces annual pupil forecasts • Forecast modelling

37 Objectives & Purpose of Forecasting

• To project pupil numbers at planning area level to inform school place planning activity, e.g. - As a tool to identify areas of rising surplus places - Setting published admission numbers - Reporting to DfES on projected pupil numbers, HCC wide

Forecast Methodology

• Forecasts are based on 22 education planning areas (secondary)

• These are sub divided into primary planning areas

• Updated data sets are imported into the forecasting system in April each year

• From these data sets, the annual pupil forecasts are produced

Annual Data Imports

• Actual Pupil Numbers (PLASC) - Unique pupil number, year group, their school now and last year.

• GP Registrations (Health Authority) - Postcodes and dates of birth

• New Housing Completions Predictions (Environment Department Database)

• Postcode file

• School data

38 Simplified flow chart of the forecasting process 7

SECONDARY January PRIMARY Previous New Housing Pupil Completions uses Movement Count. GP Data. Patterns

To Predict To Predict To Predict future future New Pupils Reception Admission Classes Classes

Data from external Source Data Created in Software Create Area Produce Forecasts Complete Forecast And split down to Forecast Schools Report

Produce Variance Compare this Report year's Actuals with Used to improve previous years forecast accuracy Forecast

Data set samples – Pupil Data

Data sets – Housing Development Description

39 Data sets – Housing Development House Type

Data sets – Housing Development Completion Forecast

Housing Developments

• Source: Environment Department • Contains all new developments from Local Plan allocations through to planning permissions • Identified by number of bedrooms and geographical location

40 New Housing Pupil Yield

No of No of Primary per Secondary No of Bedrooms 1000 per 1000

Unknown/0Bed 251 130

1Bed 10 10

2Bed 61 34

3Bed 245 124

4Bed 348 167

5+Bed 542 291

2006/7 Pupil Forecasts • 2006/7 Pupil Forecast - Secondary & Primary - Used to inform the planning process at planning area level

• Make-Up of 2006/7 Forecast - Secondary & Primary - Admissions/Births/Surviving Cohorts/Pupils from new housing

Analysis of projections prior to publication

• Variance Analysis – by area – under/over estimations Correlation between current cohort and future projections • Analysis of 0 – 4 year old data • Local Intelligence

41 Forecasting System Demonstration

Harpenden Secondary population trends

Harpenden Secondary Pupils Actual & Forecast

3,400 R O N

3,300 l a t o T 3,200

2,900 2002/3 2003/4 2004/5 2005/6 2006/7 2007/8 2008/9 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13

2006/7 Harpenden Yr 7 Forecasts

Harpenden Adm iss ions to Year 7 (2006/7 Se condary Fore cas t) against Prim ary Year 6 NOR

560 Forecast Admissions to Year 7 s l

i 540 p u p

o 520 Actual Admissions to Year 7 N

500 Pupils in previous Year 6 in Harpenden primary schools 480

440 2002/3 2003/4 2004/5 2005/6 2006/7 2007/8 2008/9 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13

42 2006/7 Forecast Reception Trends - Harpenden

2006/7 Primary Forecast - Admissions to Reception and GP registration data

600 n e r d l i GP Registration data h 550 c

o N 500 2006/7 Reception Forecasts

350 2002/3 2003/4 2004/5 2005/6 2006/7 2007/8 2008/9 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13

43 Appendix 7 – List of questions from the Secondary Schools Place Planning Topic Group to CSF and Corporate Services Officers, with answers

No. Question Answer

1 Generic question 1.1 What the objectives of the forecasting system are and what The objectives of the forecasting system are to produce an does it seek to achieve? effective and reliable estimate of the future demand for school places. The system seeks to achieve calculations for 22 secondary (inc middle) school planning areas and 94 primary areas that are +/- 1% accurate, as recommended by the Audit Commission. 1.2 Why does the forecasting not consider the medium or long term The system does consider the medium/long term outlook. The outlook? 2006/07 forecast, produced in April 2006, projects annual numbers to 2012/13 and a long term average for 2025/26. 1.3 How and with what frequency is the forecasting system The current system was introduced in 2003 and has not yet been audited? formally audited. However the outputs are analysed each year before publication. 1.4 How are the forecasting system results validated? Is it part of The forecasting system is validated annually for the School the Audit or is it separately scrutinised? Organisation Committee, most recently in April 2006 when the accuracy of the 2005/06 forecast was assessed. This showed that at county level the forecast for total primary numbers was 0.6% above the actual, whereas for primary admissions it was 0.7% above. For secondary schools, the estimate of total numbers was 0.5% below the actual, and 0.4% below the actual for secondary admissions. 1.5 What is the relationship between the forecasted figures and the The forecast is the starting point for a discussion and then a actual place planning process? Is there a discussion on the judgement on whether HCC should seek to increase or reduce forecasting findings? the supply of school places in an area. Each area is considered and a decision taken about whether action is necessary.

44 1.6 What criteria exists in making place planning judgements with There are criteria for reviewing the supply of school places. regard to provision? If such a criteria exists, is it reviewed on a These have been described in the School Organisation Plans regular basis and what influence do the findings have? since 1999 and are published for each school places review. The criteria have been regularly reviewed and adjusted. The current wording dates from Autumn 2006 setting out eleven factors that are taken into account as follows: • reflects parental preferences for schools • produces primary schools normally not less than two forms of entry in size • provides sufficient places for current demand and the potential for future growth in places to reflect the demographic cycle and possible future housing developments • responds to any future demographic decline by reducing capacity normally to within about 10% of predicted demand • responds to parents' and faith groups' desires for faith schools where evidence of sufficient demand exists • produces school buildings which conform to the County Council specification that is based on DfES Building Bulletins and area guidelines for school premises • provides schools with a total site and a total team games and playing field area in accordance with DfES Regulations, on a separate site if necessary • reflects the CSF concept of 'extended' schools by providing, where appropriate, facilities for community and other service use • achieves an equitable geographical distribution of provision, taking account of existing communities and transport barriers like railways and major roads • locates schools in a way which reduces traffic congestion around school sites and encourages safer routes to schools • provides for schools which change their character to be

45 established as new schools i.e., with a new head and governing body. 1.7 When was the criteria last changed? See 1.6 1.8 Do Planning Managers share their experiences and successes Yes in removing ‘hotspots’ with each other on a regular basis? 1.9 How many ‘in year’ admissions for Year 7 were there at the The LA will provide the figures for all the schools, except St following schools: Roundwood, St George’s, Sir John Lawes, George’s which will have to be asked. Sandringham, STAGs and Verulam in 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005/06. This information broken down into those moving in from/out of the area and those transferring from another Harpenden priority area school. 1.10 Which county runs the most accurate forecasting system and Being sought, but may not be available. how does HCC’s system compare? 2 Learning from the past 2.1 What account does the forecasting system take of past The system automatically takes account of data from the three performance and is learning factored back into the model, e.g. previous years, thereby factoring in past performance. In addition should error rates be applied in certain circumstances and to developmental work is undertaken to investigate and correct certain degrees where unexpected, persistent and unexplained causes for concern, for example a greater variance at admissions variances between forecasts and actuals occur? in the 'three tier' parts of the county. As indicated in Jim Dalton's presentation we are examining possible reasons for the discrepancies in Harpenden. The methodology for error rates is the potential to amend the weighted averages (see 6.1) to react to local intelligence. 2.2 What are the actuals v projections for each parish for the last 3 Not available yet. years and what are the allocations for the last three years by: parish by rule? ‘From’ and ‘To’ which Schools number of siblings who got an automatic place

46 number of children who went to independent schools 2.3 What is the pre and post continuing interest? (i.e. not just to the "Pre continuing interest" is the initial allocation. "Post continuing PAN but what numbers did the schools actually end up with at interest" is the position after places that become available are re- the end of the allocation process) allocated to parents who express a continuing interest for a place at that school. The eventual year 7 numbers in Harpenden for 2005/06, as recorded in the 'PLASC' return in January 2006 were: St George's 186 (total 1137) Sir John Lawes 183 (total 1130) Roundwood Park 179 (total 1158) Total 548 (3425) 2.4 How many Harpenden children were not allocated Harpenden To come schools in the first round and what are the predictions for next year? 3 Questions arising from Jim Dalton’s presentation 3.1 Why did Mr Dalton’s handouts show the capacity for St The difference between 160 and 180 is the capacity for 20 George’s as 180 when the moving on booklet shows it as 160? boarders in addition to the day students. The handout explained that the numbers at St George's included the boarders. 3.2 Why are there different planning and priority areas each The planning areas are used to forecast the future demand and providing different statistics? manage the supply of places. The priority areas are used to designate the parts of the county from which students are given priority to schools in that area. The statistics are always drawn from the planning areas. 3.3 How are the Year 6 numbers translated to the Admissions The technical way of doing this is known as 'cohort survival'. The Forecast? system records the difference, plus or minus, between the number of year 6 students and the number of year 7s a year later over three years; and uses that information to predict the future number of year 7s from the year groups coming through. 3.4 With a far too low estimate of places required and even then not When we were setting the 2006 PANs in July 2005 for the having enough places to satisfy that forecast why on earth was secondary schools in Harpenden we had the following information nothing done to address the problem way back in April/May available.

47 2005. The Executive Member has stated in public that he had Previous Year 6 NOR in Actual year 7 no idea of the problem until places were allocated in Harpenden Forecast (as at Jan’ of February/March this year. What is the point in forecasting if no Primaries Admissions to the following action is taken when the forecast is as dire as this? For Forecast year 7 year) i.e.

September 03 592 503 549 + 46

September 04 556 501 520 + 19

September 05 543 522 We did not have the actual year 7 number until February / March 06. It was then that we became aware that there were 548 pupils in year 7 at the three schools. This indicted an increase of 39 pupils against the forecast of 509 – i.e. a significant change in the previous trend. It indicated a net gain on the number of pupils in the previous year 6 cohort where previous figures showed a net loss of between 6.5 & 7.5%. The two Community Schools, Roundwood Park and Sir John Lawes have been expanded to 6FE in recent years and they are now up to their site capacity. (In fact Sir John Lawes now has insufficient site capacity) Significant building works have been undertaken at both schools to achieve the expansion and there is further funding in the Capital Programme to replace temporary accommodation with permanent classrooms at both schools. At St. George’s Voluntary Aided School building works are being undertaken to provide permanent accommodation to expand the school by one form of entry to 180 pupils per year group (including 20 boarders). Currently there are temporary classrooms on site to accommodate the additional pupils which the school began taking in September 2005.

48 4 Defining school capacity 4.1 How is the true capacity of schools defined and agreed upon in The capacity of schools is calculated according to a government order to fairly derive the extent of under or over capacity in any formula known as net capacity. It takes account of the number of said school or area? rooms, their size, and intended use. It is applied consistently and ensures that all schools are assessed in the same way. For information the 2005 capacity in the Harpenden schools was. St George's 1092 Sir John Lawes 1154 Roundwood Park 1170 Total 3416 4.2 Does HCC have a list of feeder schools for each of the HCC does not have a formal list of feeder schools for each secondaries? ( the number coming from each would secondary school, because secondary admission is not based on immediately show the private school element and if this list is attendance at a named primary school. However, future year 7 kept then trends of application can be seen). numbers are partly derived from information about actual primary numbers and trends, including from the private sector. 4.3 Are the primary schools asked about the number of children No, not for forecasting purposes between the annual PLASC coming in as casual admissions during years 5 and 6? returns; although all casual admissions into year 6 from out of the area complete a secondary transfer application. 5 Demographic changes 5.1 We are told new housing developments are taken into account. All known housing developments are taken into account. The Is St Albans asked about the number of houses being actually information is drawn from the local District Plans, planning built in each settlement each year, and what size they are, so applications and consents. It does not include extensions. A list of that infilling and small developments are all counted? Also all the development in Harpenden currently included in the Harpenden town council seem to know how many extra beds forecast is being prepared. have been added to houses in a year, have they been asked for this information as part of the planning process? 5.2 What information does the County Council have in respect of In its function as education authority, HCC is interested in the any changes to the age profile of residents in the Harpenden current and future number of school aged children and young area and is this different from the rest of Hertfordshire? people. Other departments have different concerns. For example, Adult Care Services requires data on the elderly. In general the

49 County’s population is aging; but CSF officers cannot comment on how the overall demographic profile in Harpenden compares with the rest of the County. 5.3 Does the system take account of different demographic profiles The system does take account of the different profiles for 0-4’s in parts of the county? and school aged children across the County, but not older people. 5.4 What other demographic forecasting does the County Council To come use, what forecasts would they have given in respect of the numbers of year 6 children and what comparison takes place between the various systems? 5.5 When are private secondary school places confirmed? There This depends on the arrangements at each independent school. will be a proportion of children who accept a state place only to They tend to offer places shortly before maintained school places drop out and take up a private place. On the other side there are announced and to expect parents to confirm whether they will were parents who were after private schools who were then accept that place after the maintained sector announcements. offered, and took places at, St George’s. 5.6 Can the private schools be asked to allocate their places earlier See 5.5 in the school year i.e. January/February? 6 Computer system 6.1 How does the programme weigh the various contributing As previously indicated, Hertfordshire uses three years'.data. This factors? is usually weighted 3 to the last year, 2 to the previous year and 1 to the year before that; but can be modelled to give a different balance. 7 Impact of rule changes 7.1 Is any account taken when planning places of changes to To come admission rules such as the Nicky line or the proposed removal of free travel to faith schools which may lead to more St Dominic’s pupils seeking Harpenden schools?

50 8 Potential abuse of short term addresses 8.1 In future could there be a declaration on the application form The section on filling in the secondary transfer form in the Moving that states that all information concerning the child’s permanent On booklet states (page 11): address, time at this address, owner/occupier etc. comes with a “ Please make sure that the address and postcode you give us penalty should false information be given? Possible penalties are correct so that we can assess your application accurately. We could be lower ranking on continuing interest listing or exclusion regularly check addresses and if they are not correct, we may from rules 6 & 7 for the schools of their choice. have to withdraw our offer of a school place.” One allegedly fraudulent address in Harpenden is currently being investigated. Whenever substantiated allegations are made, they are followed up. Guidance on the Declaration on the application form states (page 16): “In this section we ask you to sign and date the application form. By doing this, you are confirming that all the information you have provided in the form is correct as at the time of application, and you have not deliberately given false information. ‘At the time of application’ means the closing date for applications. If you deliberately give false information, we may withdraw our offer of a school place. We will thoroughly investigate any allegations that a place has been obtained by an applicant providing false or misleading information. We will require any person accused of providing false or misleading information to provide proof of their address. Failure to provide any document reasonably required by the LEA to verify residence will lead to the place being withdrawn. We will then offer a place at the nearest community or voluntary- controlled school to the home address with available places. This may be some distance away.”

51 The actual wording of the Declaration is: “If you deliberately give false information, we may withdraw our offer of a school place. (See page 16.) All the information I have given on this form is correct. I understand that you may share this information with the schools that I have listed on this form in the co-ordinated scheme and other LEAs where appropriate. I understand that the LEA is entitled to request further information to satisfy themselves that the details given on this form are correct.” 8.2 Have the schools been asked to detail the number of children With regard to the admissions process, applicants are assessed either arriving at the school with a different address from that from the child’s permanent address as at the time of application given at application or who move addresses during year 7. This (which means the closing date for applications). If children move will give substance or not to the allegations about short term after Allocation Day and they are requesting a place through lets etc Continuing Interest then evidence of the move must be submitted to either the local admissions team or the Governing Body of a VA/Foundation school. A permanent residence can include rented accommodation providing the rental agreement is a minimum of 6 months and the child is living there. 1) Currently investigating individual cases where we have been informed of potential fraudulent addresses. 2) Where a place has been offered on the basis of fraudulent information, we would withdraw the offer of a school place and as an alternative offer a place at the nearest school to the actual home address which has an available place. This can happen up to the point of admission. 8.3 It was stated at the last meeting that there are 90 year 6 To come children living in Wheathampstead but only 61 attend the two schools. Is information about the addresses of children applying to Harpenden area schools collected and analysed so that this trend of local children not necessarily being in a local school is taken into consideration? This would cross check the information given to the above question.

52 8.4 If the following questions were included on the application form, To come could County do any checking of the answers as it may help us in the situation of people moving to get nearer to the school:  How long have you lived at this address (months/years)  How long has your child been at the current primary school?  Name your child’s current primary school and how long they have attended there? If less than 12 months please state the previous primary school and your previous address. 9 Questions not associated with forecasting place numbers. 9.1 Given that it is evident that there will be greater demand for HCC’s strategy is, and has been, to provide the maximum places than the PAN for the Greater Harpenden priority area, number of places in Harpenden secondary schools to meet local what is the HCC strategy to provide sufficient places in the demand, consistent with the constraints of school size and town area? planning considerations. 9.2 Given the level of public investment in schools such as St HCC does not accept that the admissions process at schools Georges, what are HCC going to do to make the admissions such as St George's does not truly benefit the local community process in such schools truly benefit the local community? Data to show the proportion of their students admitted from the planning area could be obtained. 9.3 HCC now encourage on line applications, which removes the All pre-checks are conducted on all applications regardless of checking process that applied to the paper submissions through whether paper or online. the primary school head teachers. How are HCC going to verify Head Teachers are given an online list of all online applicants to that information on the application, particularly in regard of end fraudulence. This provides the opportunity for Head Teachers residence, is correct under this system? to raise their own concerns about addresses as well. 9.4 How are HCC going to ensure that the Heads are properly 1) Annually Head Teachers are invited to attend briefings briefed in the nuances of the process, such that they are then conducted by local manager at beginning of process. able to properly brief their year 6 parents? 2) Annually a meeting is organised for Year 6 Parents to attend, to understand the admissions process for secondary transfer. These meetings are held across the County and a meeting was held locally at Roundwood Park School for Harpenden

53 parents. These are separate to the open evening events held by individual schools. 9.5 There have been problems of insufficient places for a number of Funding is currently included in the County Council’s capital years. As part of the planning process are active measures programme to replace temporary accommodation at Sir John being taken to see if Sir John Lawes and Roundwood Park can Lawes and Roundwood Park schools with permanent. There was be extended? It sounded at the last meeting that there are expansion at Sir John Lawes and Roundwood Park in 2002 and ideas but nothing is actually being done on the ground. at St George’s in 2005.

54 Appendix 8 - Letters from Estate Agents

30th May, 2006

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

RE: Shortage of school places for Harpenden residents

Having lived in Harpenden for forty-eight years, seen two children through education in the area and worked in estate agency for thirty two years in St. Albans and Harpenden I consider myself to be more than qualified to comment on the above matter.

One of the main reasons people move to Harpenden is because of its easy access to London and education, the two go hand in hand.

The expansion of private nursery school facilities in the area over the past ten years indicates the number of young professional people who move to the area when starting a family. This in turn means the requirement for infant and junior schools can be dictated at this level to a certain extent. A high percentage of a Harpenden estate agents mailing list will be people falling into this group.

Without question education is one of, if not the main reasons people move to the area, and on this basis I have always tried to keep abreast of the school situation. Over the years the number of infant and junior schools has increased and, as I explain to people on a daily basis, we are very lucky in Harpenden as all the schools are good. However, I would question if the number of places have grown at the same pace as requirement when people feel the need to move to the area as soon as, if not before, a child is born.

Harpenden is becoming a much "younger" town and I note this particularly as people move up the property chain. A lot of properties that we sell for people in the fifty plus age group are people moving/ retiring out of the area and young families moving in.

The next major moving point is when secondary education is being considered. With three very good but over-subscribed secondary schools in Harpenden the rush to move occurs when the eldest child is about a year away from making the all important choice. The phrase "catchment area" is one I hear day in and day out and direct people to County Halls website. However, this does not deter people from moving from one side of Harpenden to another in an attempt to "beat the system".

Up until a couple of years ago estate agents and solicitors were often asked for letters confirming that people were purchasing a property in the area and this would suffice in securing them a place at a secondary school. However, I appreciate that this system was abused and that now an exchange of contracts is needed in order to secure a place at secondary school. Whilst Harrison Murray does not deal with rental accommodation, I have been aware in the past of this system being abused with people renting on a short term basis to secure a school place.

It is my observation that the biggest problem with predicting the requirement of places required is not the family that grows "in the community" but the ones who move to Harpenden just before the move to

secondary schools; after the education authorities have set their prediction, but before selection is made.

I think it should also be taken into account that the criteria for St. Georges is different from the other two secondary schools in the area and therefore they take pupils from a wider area i.e. Slip End, Cardington and similar areas.

It is early days yet, but without doubt the selection process this year is going to have great effect on

55 property prices in the Southdown area. Already I have heard comments of it being a "no go area" because no secondary school places being offered in Harpenden. Not only as an estate agent, but also as a home-owner on Cross Farm Estate I am very concerned as to how the value of my property is going to fall.

I really do fail to understand how Harpenden can go from being a village to a town, yet the number of secondary schools in the immediate area has declined i.e. the closure of Wheathampstead Secondary School.

Far be it for me to tell the relevant authorities on how to organize education in the area, but I would have thought simple logic should be used: people from Harpenden should have priority to Harpenden schools and perhaps a minimum period of residency before being considered (unless essential for parental employment potential).

Unless a strong stand is taken soon to resolve the situation with regard to schools, Harpenden could well turn from being an affluent town to one being socially and economically damaged. One only has to observe the difference in traffic when the schools are on holiday to see how environmentally damaging ferrying children miles from their homes can be.

To summarise; the main reason most young families move to Harpenden is for the schools and a quality of life - you cannot have one without the other. It is therefore essential action is taken immediately to protect both.

Judith Franklin FNAEA (Sales co-ordinator - Harrison Murray Estate Agents)

56 2018 年 5 月 17 日星期四 Peter Lilley MP House of Commons London

SW1A 0AA Dear Mr Lilley

Secondary Schools Placement Planning

I am writing to express my shock and dismay at the number of Harpenden children who have failed to gain places at Harpenden schools this year. Although my children have grown up, my daughter was initially allocated an unsuitable school and whilst we successfully appealed, I understand and sympathise with the utter anguish suffered by the families so affected. I first came to Harpenden in 1960, grew up here and have worked as an estate agent in the town since 1982 (latterly in my own business active in residential sales and lettings). Over the years I have seen the growing success of all the Harpenden comprehensives. I have read studies which indicate that children’s and schools’ achievements are strongly influenced by the social class, educational background and pro-active involvement of the parents. Hence a virtuous circle arises where good schools attract well educated and affluent families, so exam results improve, which attracts more of the same, better teachers and so on. This drives property prices upwards and makes it increasingly difficult for all but the most affluent to live here. These market forces are inevitable and I have no argument with them but they do have the perhaps undesirable effect of engendering shortcuts, loopholes and dishonesty as less affluent people from some distance outside the town attempt to exploit the educational advantage without actually relocating to Harpenden. My own daughter, for example, had a friend living in Harrow, whose aunt’s address was used for her successful application. In my line of business we are aware of other ruses employed to circumvent the rules: we have seen people rent properties in Harpenden just for the period of the application, we have dealt with others buying small flats, subsequently letting them. The principle of client confidentiality prevents me from providing details but believe me, it happens. The result of this seems to be that the LEA seriously underestimates the number of places required. The consequences are bad for children as they spend more time travelling and less time doing homework, bad for communities which are divided by illogical allocations and, as hundreds of kids pass in cars and buses in opposite directions on the main roads between Hertfordshire’s towns and villages, totally in opposition to the country’s policy of reducing carbon dioxide emissions. How could this be dealt with? Perhaps the rules could be changed to give a longer qualifying period before children are eligible for places – this would ensure that families with an unequivocal commitment to the community got deserved places. Perhaps the geographical criteria could supersede others – after all, an older child living in Watford, who had originally qualified dishonestly for a Harpenden school, would endow its younger sibling with precedence over a child who had lived its whole life in Southdown or Wheathampstead. I’m very encouraged to learn that the LEA is taking this matter seriously and undertaking a ‘Scrutiny’. I offer the foregoing to this project’s data and hope it results in some much-needed and beneficial changes.

Yours sincerely

Richard Trendall ASHTONS

57 Allsopp Estate Agents

and Valuers

73 High Street Harpenden Hertfordshire AL5 2SL Tel: (01582) 766018 Fax: (01582) 761836 30th May 2006

Dear Mrs Hart

Thank you for your letter dated 27th May 2006 We have been Estate & Letting Agents in Harpenden for the last 25 years and have noticed a continual upward trend of people wishing to move into Harpenden from London or neighbouring counties. The main reasons given are good commuting links into London and the quality of the local state schools. Many of our applicants are parents with school age children who are wishing to relocate because of the schooling. A vast number of these actually state that they require property within a short distance of the schools of their choice. We have also noticed a rising trend towards people from outside the area being prepared to take up shorthold tenancies in order to have a Harpenden address and the demand is particularly strong at the time of school applications. We understand that local children in South Harpenden have been excluded this year from the Harpenden senior schools because of sheer volume of numbers.The housing stock in South Harpenden is predominantly 3 or 4 bedroomed and obviously appeals to families with school aged children. The schools situation will undoubtedly have an impact on house demand in this area. Equally the demand for houses in central Harpenden or Roundwood will increase.

We trust that this information will be of assistance.

Yours sincerely

R N Allsopp

58 Appendix 9 - Submissions made to the Topic Group

Throughout the course of its work the topic group received comments, questions and suggestions from those with an interest in its work. Those who wished to present directly to the topic group were asked to submit a written summary of their views in advance and from these a selection was invited to speak at a meeting held in Wheathampstead on 7 June 2006. Parents/carers who spoke at the meeting were:

Stan Dias Sara Hart Peter Hart and Graham Carr Michael Brooks Jonathan Wharton Andrew Mason

The following Councillors also spoke at the meeting:

Teresa Heritage, District Councillor, Harpenden South Ward and Harpenden Town Councillor

County Councillor Iris Tarry, Local Member, Harpenden South-West

County Councillor Derek Hills, Local Member, St Albans Rural

Powerpoint presentations produced by those who spoke at the meeting are available at www.hertsdirect.org/sspp. A selection of submissions received by the Topic Group is attached below.

59 Appendix 9.1 - Speaker Submissions

Speaker 1: Stan Dias

I am a Year 6 Parent living in Southdown Harpenden that has been affected by the Schools Admission process this year. In order for the Topic Group to be able to make informed recommendations to the CSF, I would like the opportunity to give details to the Topic Group about what has happened to me this year and also clearly demonstrate and provide evidence as to how the application of the Admission Rules is fundamental and critical to the forecasting and planning process. Whereby the Council forecasts the total number of applications for admission, profiling of Parishes against the available actual places at each school needs to be carried out to see if there are any ‘hot spots’. In my case, at the first round of allocations, I did not receive any of my ranked choices (St Georges, Sir John Lawes & Roundwood Park). From my Pupil Audit report as of 01/03/2006, my distance to Roundwood Park is 3,534.480m, yet the last child to qualify under Rule 6 lived 8,714.240m away! Eighty-one children were admitted under Rule 6 to Roundwood Park, of which we know that 35 were allocated from Redbourn, yet all children from the Cross Farm estate in Southdown Harpenden were excluded from consideration, as we would only be considered under Rule7! I cannot believe that the current forecast and planning processes can foresee this, yet it is fundamental as to why I did not receive any of my ranked schools.

Here is an extract of some text from Sarah Vize, Senior Manager Admissions and Transport School Access, Children Schools & Families :- In summary this means that, within their priority area, every applicant will qualify for up to one community or voluntary controlled school under Rule 6, and for all others under Rule 7. In your case, at the initial allocation stage, you are correct that you were considered for a place at Sir John Lawes under Rule 6, as it was your closest school and you lived within the priority area. As there were more applicants to be considered under Rule 6 than there were places available, distance was used to decide who would be offered the place. Unfortunately, all places were allocated to children who lived closer to the school than you, and hence better met the rules. For Roundwood Park, you are correct that you were not considered for a place under Rule 6 because it was not your closest school. You were considered under Rule 7 but, again, the places available under that rule were filled by applicants who lived closer to the school than you.

This clearly shows that if enough school places are available for the demand, there will be no issues in the Greater Harpenden area. However, without any extra capacity being introduced into the schools, it also implies that the Priority areas may be too large

60 thereby causing undue extra demand (please refer to the fact that someone gets into Roundwood Park with a distance far greater than mine as stated above) to the Harpenden schools and in particular, the two non faith schools of Roundwood Park and Sir John Lawes as St.Georges applies it's own Admissions criteria, which is different to the ones used by the two non faith schools.

Speaker 2: Sara Hart

During the previous meeting of the Scrutiny Panel on Thursday 18th May 2006, one of the topics discussed was the possible occurrence of short-term rental of properties in Harpenden.

I have been asked to represent a large number of local parents and request permission to present evidence on this subject, which we think, will be of interest to The Panel and will hopefully assist them with the overall investigation that they have undertaken.

The evidence I would like to present is as a result of discussions which have taken place with several Estate Agents based in Harpenden, on the subject of short-term rentals and purchase of property to rent out immediately in order to ‘grab a favourable Harpenden address’, thus giving them an advantage over people who have lived in the area for a significant length of time. We believe that measures should be instigated to prevent/minimise the number of people taking advantage of this. (We accept that this is not an illegal practice but neither is it just and fair to the majority and planning and forecasting must adequately compensate for it.)

We believe that the planning/forecasting completely underestimates the size of this growing trend in the Harpenden area and the planning/forecasting stats will always be prone to error because of this and I would therefore also like to provide evidence that indicates that the effect of late applications as a result of late arrivals to the area needs to be considered when forecasting for admissions.

Specific individuals linked to these Estate Agents have offered to provide me with written evidence to reflect this and one agent has indicated that he would like to be given the opportunity to provide evidence himself, as they all feel strongly about the subject and fully understand the concerns of people living in the area.

Speaker 3: Peter Hart and Graham Carr

Subject 1 : Harpenden Secondary Schools – Supply vs Demand

Seemingly, gone are the good old days when you could live in a town and rely on your children being allocated a local school in the very town you live ! We now seem to be in the business of allowing a situation to exist whereby we are content to spend taxpayers money to run children miles away to a school well outside the town they live and split them up from others in their own town community ! What’s more, this makes a mockery of the authority’s healthy guidelines policy of encouraging children to walk or cycle to a local school !

61 Although the 2006 places shortfall situation has been mainly resolved (after an horrendous period of worry for those 2006 parents !), my group is in urgent need of being given a level of reassurance that the reasons for the forecasting/planning issues in 2006 are fully understood and that there is a strong desire to implement effective measures to resolve these issues going forward.

The forecasting statistics already show a shortfall for 2007-2008, although it is still very unclear what that shortfall truly is. 2006 reflected a similar forecasting shortfall before the actual figure proved to be even worse. This can only give us a very grim and unacceptable view of the future.

The forecasting and planning process appears lacking in a number of key areas and the statistics produced from the planning process to-date just don’t help to build confidence that the following factors are adequately compensated for in the Demand vs Supply modelling for this priority area :-

- Based on the last TG meeting, there appears to be a level of uncertainty as to the coverage of the priority area and the difference between the planning area and the priority area – clarity of this point is critical as it is obviously fundamental to the workings of the forecasting/planning model

- Harpenden is a growth area, Harpenden Secondary Schools are in strong demand year after year, they are continually oversubscribed and with further development in the area (e.g. Wheathampstead and Rothamstead Estate) and with future changes such as the fast train link to London and Eurostar link to France – demand can only grow !)

- Only 2 Harpenden Secondary Schools (Sir John Lawes and Roundwood Park) can be considered to serve the general Harpenden Community and Outlying Villages and these have serious capacity issues (it must be noted that St George’s is faith maintained and, consequently, cannot be considered to serve the wider community and additionally allows 10% intake from outside the priority area and has 20 border places which we believe ‘skew’ the available allocation figures)

- Late Applications/Short Term ‘Buy to Rent’ and Short Term Rentals are not adequately factored and from Estate Agent feedback this is a constant/growing trend

- Admission Rules/Changes in Admission Rules (e.g. Redbourn ‘Shortest Designated Route’ Nicky Line Ruling) impact forecasting/planning but this impact on allocation trend only appears to be adjusted after the impact has fed through to the figures of the following year (this is completely illogical as impact to forecasting and planning should be fully understood as ‘part and parcel’ of the rule approval process)

-Transfers from the Independent Sector schools are not adequately factored

-Soliciting of external authority’s feedback on likely movement into this authority’s/priority area also does not appear to be factored

-The reported stats have a tendency to show allocations in line with the PAN numbers but this effectively ‘hides’ year on shortfalls and additional numbers which schools have agreed to take to alleviate these shortfalls (The problems experienced in 2006 are not a 1 year blip !)

62 All the factors above influence demand so must be adequately compensated for in the forecasting and planning and supply/demand model.

The current priority area coverage is large but Harpenden Secondary Schools ability to meet the demand from this large priority area is limited and clearly already ‘strained to the limits’

I don’t believe anyone would dispute the fact that the ideal outcome would be a solution that ‘fits all’ but clearly this is untenable and difficult decisions need to be taken now.

Quite simply the forecasting and planning figures just don’t add up and I implore the TG to register this fact and take appropriate actions to resolve the situation.

Subject 2 :- Mitigation/Contingency and Forward Planning

From the feedback and experience so far, there seems to be a complete lack of both of these planning elements in the forecasting and planning process.

In our view there needs to be 2 clear areas of focus :-

1) A shortfall in places is already forecast for 2007-2008 and we need to know that this forecasted shortfall is accurate and not prone to the error experienced in 2006.

Mitigation/Contingency measures need to be taken now to alleviate/resolve this shortfall situation (a ‘hope it goes away mind set’ is not acceptable to any of our parents and this certainly appeared to be the case for the known shortfall forecast for 2006 when no tangible mitigation/contingency measures were in evidence).

We believe the following factors need the TG’s careful consideration:-

There are an estimated 23 children (without older siblings) who are currently in Year 5 in Grove School who live in similar South Harpenden areas equating to the children who experienced school allocation problems in 2006 i.e. this means that on a ‘like with like’ Rule 6/Rule 7 comparison basis there is a potentially bigger problem brewing for 2007-2008 allocations than experienced in 2006 when 16 children from GS were impacted.

Roundwood Park, Sir John Lawes and Sandringham increased their intake over their agreed PAN for 2006 to alleviate the 2006 shortfall. Evidence suggests this is getting a more and more remote possibility for future years as there is a clear limit to these schools admission capacity and the forecasting/planning process needs to fully acknowledge this situation. Roundwood Park may have additional scope for extra ‘mobile’ capacity but this requires clarification. Consequently, I would like to suggest to the TG that it would be a sensible measure to formally solicit feedback from the heads of these schools to confirm their view on their ability to take extra numbers in 2007 as they have done in 2006.

The impact of Admission Rules on forecasting and planning cannot be conveniently ignored e.g. it is clear from 2004/2005 stats that since the introduction of the Shortest Designated Route ‘Nicky Line Ruling’ virtually all Redbourn children are now obtaining a place at Roundwood Park effectively reducing the pool of places available for Harpenden children. This impact to the Harpenden community should have been forecast and mitigated.

63 The allocation figures for 2004/2005 also reflects that Roundwood Park provides circa. 45% less places to the Harpenden community than Sir John Lawes under Rules 6 and 7. Other villages in this large priority area (Flamstead, Kimpton, Markyate, Redbourn, Wheathampstead) absorb the remainder of the Roundwood Park places under these rules. This is a key fact when considering that Harpenden children NOT getting into SJL under Rule 6 (nearest school) have little chance of a place at Roundwood Park under Rule 7.

Measures can, and must, be taken now to minimise the ‘opportunists’ who obtain a favourable address in Harpenden around the time of the admission process to get ahead in the allocation queue. Prevention controls to limit this number must help the overall numbers situation.

The sibling rule accounts for a large % of allocations at all the schools (40% – 50% for SJL and Roundwood Park). Surely planning capacity would be helped substantially by ensuring this rule applied only within the priority area (which after all everything else seems to apply to !) and that the older sibling should be at the school when the younger sibling actually starts school rather than purely at the time of admission.

It is clear that the size/coverage of the priority area is dictating the demand on Harpenden’s already over sub-scribed/over-stretched secondary schools – can this really be considered a sustainable proposition with a growing community and such a large priority area to service ?

Worryingly ! - There are only 3 months to go before the admission process begins for the 2007 intake, please can I respectfully ask the TG to make some firm recommendations on measures that should be taken immediately to pre-empt and mitigate next years imminent shortfall issues.

2) Forward planning for 2008-2009 and onwards.

Irrespective of Birth Rate downward trends, the popularity of the Harpenden area, it’s secondary schools and the factors I have already outlined are likely to negate most of this positive factor – so there is no room for complacency !.

This problem is not going away, it needs effective forward planning now ! We urgently need a plan for the effective utilisation of current secondary school capacity mapped to sensible demographic priority areas and allocation criteria. This forward planning needs consideration of the need for additional secondary school capacity which could be the re-opening of closed schools/increased capacity in existing schools and/or re-allocation of primary school spare capacity in 'hot spot' areas. A review of the admission rules must be a key part of this exercise.

Speaker 4: Michael Brooks

I attended the meeting on the 18th May and would like to give evidence to the committee on the 7th June. I have a letter from Peter Lilley and John Harris (Children Schools and Families Director, Herts CC) that I would like to put into the public domain and present to the topic group.

I would like to present this as evidence as to future numbers and I would also like to write to the topic group to give my feedback and suggestions which I would also like to be made public if possible.

As I am in the “financial modeling” business myself I feel I can bring some good suggestions to the table.

Speaker 5: Jonathan Wharton Impact of Priority Area Size on Secondary School Allocation Planning Process The council have a responsibility to support the educational needs of all children. However, the current process seems to address the needs of only 95% of children, with the remaining 5% being used to plug the gaps in the under-subscribed schools, irrespective of their location. For example, children in Redbourn were offered places in Roundwood Park School, which is no easier for them to get to, than Astley Cooper School, given that the shortest designated route (Nicky Line) is unlikely to be used, due to safety concerns. As a consequence of this, a number of Harpenden children were allocated places at Astley Cooper School, 8 miles away. This would mean providing 'free' transport to these children, which the taxpayer would need to fund, and which would pass by Redbourn to get there! This clearly doesn’t make sense, when all these children, in both Harpenden and Redbourn, would be within cycling (or walking) distance of their school, if the allocation had been more equitable. The Problem For the last few years a number of parents within the Harpenden Priority Area have been let down by the process for allocating children to secondary schools. Once the local schools are fully allocated, any remaining children are being allocated to under-subscribed schools several miles outside their Priority Area and local community.

Impact of Problem Other than the very negative message of refusing a child the opportunity to attend a local school, and allocating them to a far-off school that they probably know nothing about, these are the obvious impacts that come to mind: · There is far less opportunity for social interaction/development outside the school environment · The child will be unable to pursue a healthy policy of either walking or cycling to school · Higher cost to the taxpayer as a result of the provision of free transport The only way you can ensure that every child has the opportunity to attend a school within (or close to) their local community is by ensuring that the size of each Priority Area is based on the school places available within the Priority Area. Cause of Problem Although the overall supply of school places across the Harpenden, St Albans and Hemel Hempstead Priority Areas is sufficient to satisfy the overall demand, there is clear evidence that for the last few years, the demand within the Harpenden Priority Area has significantly outweighed the supply of it’s school places. By contrast, the three Hemel Hempstead schools closest to the boundary with the Harpenden Priority Area, were all undersubscribed, following this year’s secondary allocation. The Solution The most obvious solution is to move the boundary between the Harpenden Priority Area and the Hemel Hempstead Priority Area, to the point where demand equates to supply within each Priority Area.

65 I accept that there may be people who wouldn’t be happy with the consequences of this change. However, it would result in every child having an opportunity to attend a local school, integrated with the local community.

Speaker 6: Andrew Mason

The presentation will focus on analysis of the ‘evidence’ provided by Jim Dalton at the meeting of May18th. It will focus on the cause, effect and potential solutions to the situation. Cause

- There are inadequate school places in the three Harpenden schools to service the requirements of the Priority Area - There is little evidence of a co-ordinated school place forecasting and planning process being applied to Harpenden schools - Forecasting is too short-term to support timely planning of school places - The figures that are being used to produce the forecast are wholly inadequate and potentially inaccurate - The areas used by the County’s education establishment do not line up i.e. Priority areas are different to Planning areas - Housing in Harpenden and surrounding areas is visibly growing and will add to the problem - The forecasting system takes no account of the effect of admission rules and local anomalies, and their longer term impact on actual places available in schools - The Siblings rule is under-estimated in its impact on actual places available - The admission rules 6 and 7 – both of which rely on distance as a tie-breaker – are the only ‘new’ places actually on offer to families new to the secondary admissions process - The effect of the St.George’s admissions policy is not adequately taken into account. - There appears to be little or no correlation between the Primary school admissions and secondary school admissions, and the effect that one has on the other - The forecast places against NOR for the past three years have been 90%, 96%, 90% - with this years abnormally high NOR corresponding with a lower level of forecast percentage of 90% - The latest forecast figures for the 2007 intake is 96% of a lower figure, however the forecast figure is already above PAN. Effect

There is a detrimental effect on the children, families and wider communities of those caught up in the Secondary Admissions process in Harpenden and the surrounding Priority Area, particularly for those affected for the first time. These include:

- The stress of participating in a lottery that potentially affects the rest of their lives - The impact of longer travel time and all that entails, including the increased health and safety risks imposed on the children - The effect on the Harpenden schools who are pressured to take on additional pupils above planned numbers year on year, and the associated costs - The effect on the environment on increased transport, and the associated costs in terms of cost of provision and the impact on the road infrastructure

66 Solution The County has a number of options with which to provide a solution:

- Increase the capacity of school places in Harpenden - Reduce the size of the Priority area that the Harpenden schools provide for - Change the admissions process by aligning the Siblings rule with the Priority area However, the County must act now to prevent a repeat in the next admissions year.

67 Appendix 9.2 - Other Submissions

The current Government agenda regarding schools focuses very much on the Every Child Matters agenda. This includes the significant issues of promoting the healthy development of students, and the issue of 'being safe' and teaching children how to be safe. LEAs also must be effective in ensuring these vital five outcomes for children, including the two outlined above.

Within Harpenden there are three secondary schools, all within walking distance for families living within the south Harpenden area. Therefore it should be possible for all these children to be allocated a place at a school within their own town, and thus be able to maintain a healthy and safe lifestyle by walking to and from school with their friends and peers.

However, the current situation is adversely affecting this important political agenda, on two fronts. The route anomaly of the 'Nicky Line' provides an unsafe, unlit path as a 'designated route' one which Redbourn parents have deemed to be 'unsafe' for their children. Also, the future implications are that south Harpenden residents will not be allocated a place within Harpenden, but will have to send their children to schools beyond their own home town. As a result these children will have to be driven to school, creating extra car journeys, and preventing these children from having a healthy walk at the beginning and end of each school day.

The current Year 5 at Grove Junior School includes at least 23 children who live within Harpenden, but beyond the maximum route (within south Harpenden)of any child given a place at any Harpenden School during the first round of allocations this year. All 23 mentioned have no older siblings, and will be relying on Rule 6 and 7 for a school place.

I am appealing to you on behalf of more than forty local parents, to ensure that children can receive an education locally. We believe in local learning for our children; we live in a town with three secondary schools, we should be able to have guaranteed entitlement to a place at one of these schools for our children. ------I suggest that, as part of its work, the Group should:- 1) Review the method used to forecast demand and assess how well it is carried out. This will no doubt have both a longer-term and shorter-term dimension (eg 3-5 year demand forecasting and in-year forecasting to determine this year's transfer requirement). The forecasting is a key process and the Group must satisfy themselves that the method and execution is sound and that any opportunities to improve are identified and implemented. 2) Review the method of capacity planning with respect to the schools concerned. I would expect this to cover both planned capacity requirements and a contingency capacity planning process.

3) Management of the secondary schools transfer process with respect to (for example), timing, communication with parents, responsiveness to email, letter and telephone enquiries etc. Areas of poor performance (in particular failures against stated service levels) must be identified and actioned.

4) Consider the most appropriate method to design-in a post-transfer review to pick up learning points and continuously improve from one year to the next. The Group's recommendations should seek to ensure that a similar Group does not have to be convened in future years.

The above points arise from our own experience this year. We are deeply unhappy with the process and expect the Group to rigorously and tenaciously identify and address the underlying issues. ------

 Can Jim Dalton be recalled to receive questions on the forecasts now that we have considered his presentation?

 Will Robert Gordon be called to give his opinion, and does it remain a commitment that Wheathampstead children attend local schools in Harpenden and St Albans?

 Is the development of the Wheathampstead Development Centre properly factored in to the forecast, and how many other places are predicted from new developments of all sizes in the area? What consideration has been given to developments in the past?

 Can data to be presented at the meeting be posted on the web site at least 3 days prior to the meeting?

 Figures are based on actual year 7 figures, but this is a factor of supply rather than demand – so what was the demand. Do they use the actual demand from the previous year to inform the prediction for the next year?

 Is it accepted that the additional 25 Sandringham places created in 2006 form part of the supply of Greater Harpenden places to come up with the actual 2006 figure?

 The model seems to be connected to actual places. How does the forecast consider the change in rules in 2004 to nearest school, from nearest school with available places after first choices?

 The ‘solution’ to the shortage of places was the creation of an additional form entry at St. Georges. There is no evidence that this has made any difference. What are the post codes of the 06/07 admissions for St Georges?

69  How many local places are available for local children, given the number of places at St. Georges awarded to children outside of the priority area?

 What are the numbers of children who have Greater Harpenden Schools as their nearest school – could this be run on the computer?

 What is the cost annually of under providing vs. the cost of over providing, and how does this affect the forecast model?

 What is the process following receipt of applications in the Autumn, and what is the earliest date that ‘actual’ figures can be received by County?

 The current forecast transfer for 2006/07 stands at 555. Over the past few years the minimum under estimation has been 19 places, indicating that the likely requirement will be a minimum of 574. Can a correcting factor be built in to the model, and if there is one currently, what is it?

 What happens if the forecast for 2006/07 shows that there will be a shortage of places? Where can this be accommodated given that the OSA has stated that 2005/06 is a one off, and that it seems Stags additional 12 places may not be available?

 Local schools available to Wheathampstead children include Stags, Verulam and Sandringham – the forecast needs to predict secondary transfer across these schools as well.

------

I live in Wheathampstead. I have two children at St Helens school in Wheathampstead and a younger child at the Wheathampstead Playgroup.

I went to the first meeting of the topic group with an open mind and interested to hear the rational as to why the model has consistently underestimated the demand for Year 7 places in the Harpenden Schools.

My background is I have an Economics degree from The London School of Economics. I am familiar with econometric modelling and do appreciate the potential problems faced in order to achieve consistently accurate predictions.

The question I have following a close and objective study of the information presented at the last Topic meeting is as follows.

Can you make an immediate adjustment for next year of 19 children, changing your estimate up from 555 to 574. Whilst also examining how to refine the model in the long term to achieve more accurate predictions.

The justification for doing this is threefold.

1. In the last 4 years the minimum you have underestimated year 7 places by is 19.

70 2. The relationship between children in Year 6 in Greater Harpenden primaries and places in Year 7 in the next year has according to your figures fundamentally shifted. In 2002 and 2003 on average there was a 7% discount of Actual year 7 to previous year 6. In 2004 and 2005 there was an average discount of 0% of Year 7 places needed to Year 6 . To get to this figure you have to add in the 25 places added at Sandringham this year to solve the problem of lack of places in Harpenden. Given there has clearly been a shift in the relationship in these two numbers , which you have used as the explanation as to why you have got the numbers wrong, you therefore need to apply a 0% discount to your number of children in Year 6, which would also suggest a number of 574 and an increase in 19 places.

3. The adjudicator made clear this year the scope for increasing places if you underestimate next year is now limited. Therefore you must ensure you do not make the same mistake as the last 4 years when in contrast there was scope to add numbers to your underestimates.

Could you please forward this to Terry Douris as it was clear form a comment that he made at the last meeting that he is very much aware of the consistent under estimates of places that has occured in the last 4 years . ------Dear Mr. Moses

My wife and I are writing to you as concerned parents with two children of school age.

Our son is in year 4 at the moment, and following the debacle of this year’s secondary school allocation we find ourselves worrying about his future education.

We originally moved to Harpenden over 14 yrs ago. We chose this town for 2 main reasons. Firstly, the ease of commuting to London and secondly, the high standards upheld by the local schools as we were planning to start a family. Many of our friends in Harpenden have expressed the same reasoning for accepting the higher property prices and paying increased council bills.

However, inadequate planning and changes to designated routes to schools, i.e. the introduction of the Nicky line from Redbourn to Roundwood School without analysing the repercussions for South Harpenden families, has left us feeling confused and anxious.

We now face the real prospect of our children being educated outside of the town in which they live, even though the town possess three secondary schools, this will have serious repercussions on their ability to be fully involved with after school activities, completion of homework tasks due to the time travelling to and from school, loss of friendships which have been forged since nursery school age, etc.. and all of this at a time in their lives which is full of new experiences, this should not be turned into a time of fear and loss.

Added to this is the question of property prices in South Harpenden, which will be affected by this. If families looking to move into Harpenden find that Southdown area houses do not guarantee a Harpenden secondary school it can only have an adverse consequence which in turn will affect the whole community of our town.

This brings me onto another concern, the allocation made this year potentially means that Harpenden children will be travelling west, circumnavigating Redbourn to arrive at their school in Hemel Hempstead, whilst Redbourn children are travelling east to arrive at a

71 Harpenden school. I therefore bring your attention to the councils own “School Travel Plan” in which the council puts forward concerns for children’s health, travel congestion and safety. Where is their consistency in planning?

We are writing this letter today to ask for some guarantees for the future.

1. That our children and others living in South Harpenden will be offered a secondary school place in Harpenden. 2. The council will reform the way in which allocations are made, and prior to changing designated routes etc. fully investigate the possible effects. 3. That the council will take a consistent view when arranging all aspects of living in Hertfordshire.

We do not believe that we asking for miracles, just common sense.

Both of us are working closely with other families in Harpenden to help find long term solutions and we are hopeful that the Topic Group will assist in this.

------

We would like to raise our concerns relating to the current secondary school fiasco in Harpenden. Our daughter is in year 5 so obviously this is quite a pressing situation for us and other similar families in Harpenden.

It is difficult to believe that with three secondary schools the County Council cannot find places in the local Harpenden schools for all children who attend primary schools in Harpenden. It strikes me as poor planning and lacking thought and care to the emotional impact this has had and will continue to have on the local community.

How can a County Council seriously think that it is acceptable?

1) To separate children from their peer group at a time when they are already extremely emotionally insecure.

2) Impose an additional 1 hour travel per day on what is already a long day, therefore reducing time for homework and socialising with friends they have made throughout their primary school years.

3) Think it is acceptable to penalise the same group of parents again in subsequent years. If our daughter as the eldest child is unable to be allocated a place in a Harpenden school next year, my younger child will have no rights under the sibling rule as his sister will be attending a school out of our local town. We will be in the less fortunate position of fighting for a place under the distance rule again! This means that my family will be unfairly penalised again because my daughter may have to attend a school in an area not of our choosing.

4) Have in place a sibling policy which prioritises children now living out of the priority area above children who still live in the area. We all know that families rent short term to get one child in so future children qualify under the sibling rule. They then move to less expensive areas including those out of Hertfordshire. Surely if you move out of Harpenden you should forfeit your rights under the sibling rule and revert to the distance rule?

72 5) Place additional unnecessary risk on these children with cross county travel at peak rush hour

6) Adopt a policy, Nicky Line, which clearly disadvantages one group of children (primarily South Harpenden) to the advantage of others.

7) Adopt a policy without care for the personal safety of Redbourn children should they consider using this route. We have all heard the nonsensical opinion of the County Council that it is a safe designated route because it is car free. In general this is not most parent’s main worry when their children make their own way to school. Redbourn parents are in agreement with this hence their failed appeal for paid transport under the 3 mile ruling. I am sure that if in fading light you walked along this cycle path with thick undergrowth, trees and inadequate lighting (none at some points), as children are expected to under County Council designated route policies, you would feel at risk so how appropriate is this for children?

8) State that no checks are made to ensure validity of requests for school places because this would be too much work. I am no computer expert but it would seem a simple task to compare council tax databases against a database of school requests and addresses to ensure validity.

9) For a council officer to state that it went to the heart of their planning policy that they did not want to create spaces in schools just to create "an artificial demand for more places in more desirable areas". An artificial demand was created because of the Nicky Line ruling. Children who previously would have gone to their nearest local school in Hemel Hempstead now obtain places that were not available to them previously.

I fully appreciate Redbourn parent’s concerns relating to the educational differences between schools in other areas. The council would be much better served if they spent their time and funds in rectifying this educational anomaly rather than penalizing all parents. Redbourn children will travel (by road) 4 miles to theirnearest local school in Hemel Hempstead instead of 5 miles to Roundwood. If the situation is not rectified my child will travel by public funded transport over 7 miles to school instead of cycling 1.5 miles to Sir John Lawes (her closest school).

We are sad that County Council policies are ruining what should be an exciting year for our daughter and her friends. They should be able to be excited about moving on to the next stage of their life and a local secondary school that they have already established links with. Instead of discussing their expectations and supporting each other with their fears and concerns that children naturally have they are instead facing a situation and all the stress involved with the knowledge they may end up in a school without any of their peer group.

This situation needs resolving immediately, it is not acceptable to have parents in the dark and concerned about which town their child will be schooled in. We think that parents in Harpenden should expect to have their children accommodated in schools in their own town. On paper it would appear that there should be adequate provision for Harpenden with some spare places open to children in other areas if unfair policies are removed.

We would appreciate a response from you and help in pushing this issue forward. Officials at the Topic Group meetings have made it clear that 2007-08 is not up for discussion that their remit is to find out what went wrong with forecasting for 2006-07 and reducing errors in

73 years subsequent to 2007-08. This clearly does not help us and all other parents in our position next year.

There is still time to redress the potential (and anticipated) issues for 2007-08 if corrective action is taken asap. Please do not allow this council to put parents and children through the same stress and upset next year or any other year!

I understand that a reconsideration of boundary lines for secondary school places is under negotiation. As a parent who lives in Markyate, I am disturbed by the fact that we might not be able to apply for Harpenden schools. Harpenden is closer to us than Hemel Hempstead in terms of travel time and there is an in-place transport system to Harpenden. Currently students cannot travel to school in Hemel Hempstead without making a bus change, not something I would trust a 12 year old to do safely on a routine basis. Additionally, there are no faith schools in Hemel Hempstead. As a Christian, it is very important to me that my son have the support of a faith school while dealing with the moral turmoil of teenagerhood.

I strongly feel that denying access to Harpenden schools would be an act of discrimination against Christians who desire to send their children to faith schools. It is also discriminatory towards working parents who cannot drive their children to school. Furthermore, it is detrimental to the environment to encourage longer regular car trips in order to ferry children to more distant schools.

I have been informed that there is a meeting at the HDC in Wheathampstead tomorrow evening (Thurs 6th July) regarding the problems facing parents of school age children in Harpenden and the surrounding villages. I am unable to attend the meeting but felt I should write to you to voice my feelings on this matter.

I am a resident of Markyate and have 2 small children who as yet are unaffected by the problems with secondary schooling. However, I still feel this is an important issue and one that needs to be addressed urgently.

I understand that there is a proposal being put forward to have the boundaries changed, meaning that children in Markyate and the other local villages will be forced to go to school in Hemel Hempstead (namely Astley Cooper school). I am aware of a few children in the village who have been allocated Astley Cooper for the new term starting in September. For those children whose parents do not drive this means a journey starting as early as 7am, taking 3 buses and a walk under 2 underpasses to reach the school - all of this for an 11 year old child starting secondary school seems barbaric to me.

I fully understand why parents in Harpenden want their children to take preference over those in the villages - they have paid Harpenden prices for their homes and wish their children to benefit from the excellent Harpenden schools. However, the children from the villages should not be penalised because their parents (many of

74 whom, including myself, were raised in Harpenden) cannot afford to live in Harpenden, and more importantly because the HCC has been unable to do some seemingly straightforward planning to ensure that there is sufficient school places for all. The closure of Wheathampstead school in the 1980's was opposed at the time for this very reason and was incredibly shortsighted. The building is now I understand from the local press potentially being sold off.

As far as I am concerned the issue does not lie with there being too many children from the villages wanting places at Harpenden schools (and I expect St Albans as well), but with the fact that the forecasting for school places was totally underestimated and our children are now facing the consequences. Changing the boundaries (again) is not the answer. I am just grateful that we have such an excellent Village School and Nursery that our youngsters are able to attend with no problems. It is a shame that this has to end once they reach 11 years of age.

I am writing with some concern regarding a meeting taking place at Hertfordshire development centre tomorrow 6th July, with reference to the lack of secondary school places in Harpenden. It unfortunately is on the same night as the village schools drama production and naturally parents do not wish to let their children down and are now in an awkward situation. Non attendance at the meeting is not a sign of disinterest, more a sign of loyalty to the school and their children. We are extremely worried and concerned and grossly offended at the campaign being mounted to remove choice of secondary school from village parents. Harpenden schools for Harpenden children, is offensive, and if it were attatched to race, sexual orientation or discrimination of any other sort would be illegal. The children in the villages are entitled to choice in their education and should be considered at every stage. I will be at the meeting and will be securing a choice for my child in this matter.

We are writing to you as we know many other concerned parents have in relation to the issue of school admission in Harpenden. We are parents of a year 5 child at The Grove School. We were dismayed when this year 16 children at the Grove school failed to be allocated a place at a Harpenden Secondary and instead were allocated places in schools in other towns many miles away. We were particularly concerned that without effective measures the same situation is likely to occur in 2007. We are aware that a scrutiny committee has been set up to look at forecasting. However, without any re-remit to look at the Admissions Rules and knowing that presently places are oversubscribed then a repeat of last year is inevitable. There has to be a question mark whether Roundwood Park and St John Lawes can be expected to expand temporarily on an emergency basis year on year.

We wish to direct you to The Code of Practice on Admissions which we believe you are failing to adhere to and point out that as a Local Education Authority you have a responsibility to provide a co-ordinated admission scheme which complies with the code . Failure to do so is a dereliction of your duty to children and parents and the present situation of Schools Admissions in Harpenden must be a mal-administration by yourselves. This must be rectified before School Admissions for 2007 and the Scrutiny committee with its present narrow remit which does not include Admissions Rules can hardly been deemed adequate.

75 In addition, comments made by committee members show a lack of understanding of the present legislative framework. We wish to split our comments into three sections

1 Code of Practice and admission Rules 2 Failure to look at the position of St Georges School 3 Emotional effect on children.

Code Of Practice

Under Section 84 of The Schools Standards and Framework Act 1998 The Local Education Authority should be complying with the Schools Admissions Code of Practice. In drawing up Admissions arrangements, admission authorities should aim to ensure that :

The arrangements enable parents’ preferences for the school of their choice to be met to the maximum extent possible:

Admission criteria are clear, fair and objective, for the benefit of all children, including those with special educational needs, disabilities or in public care

Local admission arrangements contribute to improving standards for all pupils

Local authorities consult each other and co-ordinate their arrangements , including over the rapid re-integration wherever sensible of children who have been excluded from other schools;

Parents have easy access to helpful admissions information;

Local admission arrangements achieve full compliance with all relevant legislation and guidance - and take full account of this Code.

The way the allocations were dealt with in 2006 failed to comply with this. Firstly there are too few school places for the number of children in the priority area so inevitably the LEA could not meet parental preference. This should have been a known in 2006 and is certainly a known fact for 2007. The LEA without taking action now to address the problem is inevitably going to fail in its duty to meet parental preference to the maximum extent. This is unacceptable and goes against the expectation of The Secretary of State for Education.

The present Admission criteria are neither fair nor objective. The operation of Rule 6 and 7 give parents no clear basis on which to make decisions as to the likelihood of their child receiving a place at a particular school. For example from The Pupil Audit Report it was clear that one child was offered a place under Rule 6 at Roundwood Park School who lived 8714 metres from the school when children living closer circa 3000m away where unsuccessful. Parents must be able to make informed decisions the Code goes on to say Above all, they need to be able to estimate their realistic chance of being offered a place for their child at any particular school.( page 20). Parents in South Harpenden in 2006 cannot have thought for one moment they would not get a secondary school place in their own town when children in outlying villages were given places.

.There is a lack of consultation with St George’s school to meet the needs of local children.

The information given to parents is not clear or helpful.

Legislation is not being complied with.

76 The same applies to the over subscription criteria which need to be objective, clear , fair, compatible with admissions and equal opportunity legislation. The criteria should be , as far as possible , be inclusive of all elements in the schools local community. To decide that parents and children one area, South Harpenden will not be allocated school placements in their own town is a clear breach of this. Over subscription criteria are to be clearly defined and objectively assessable. This is not and must again be a dereliction of duty or mal administration if they are not parents are generally bemused by the present system.

The other area of concern has come following attendance at the Topic group meeting on 7th June 2006. There was a comment by we believe by the chair that schools could not expand if there were places in schools within the priority area. This is not accurate and the Government is clear that they have made it easier for schools to expand. We believe at a previous meeting a comment was also made that parents should be encouraged to apply for under subscribed schools rather than creating demand by expanding schools. Firstly parents are being offered school places in under subscribed schools outside the priority area or many miles away if this is a policy either intentionally or by default to force parents and children into under subscribed schools it is a breach of the LEA’s statutory duty to have regard to the principle that pupils are to be educated in accordance with the wishes of their parents insofar as that would be compatible with the provision of efficient education and training and the avoidance of unreasonable public expenditure. 9page 46). To bus or taxi children to schools such as Francis Bacon which is the far side of St Albans or Astley Cooper in Hemel Hempstead must be an unreasonable use of public funds. This policy is also unlawful following The Court of Appeal Judgment in Rave Rotherham MBC ex p Clark That case clearly stated LEAS had a duty to meet expressed parental preference s before operating any other allocation policy. The case was also clear that LEAs had a duty to ensure a suitable school place within a reasonable travelling distance is available for children even when parents did not express a preference. II would therefore ask you to give a categorical assurance that the school admission policy for secondary schools in Harpenden will comply with statue and case law and no children in Harpenden will be offered a place at Astley Cooper School or Sir Francis Bacon school against parental wishes from 2007 onwards.

St George’s School

As stated previously as the LEA you have a duty to co-ordinate admissions. It is quite clear that St George’s School allocation of places is failing to meet local need and that as a matter of urgency for 2007 approaches should be made to the Governors to change their present allocation of places. If they are unwilling to take any action then it should be referred to the schools adjudicator. Again I refer to the code of practice. School admission arrangements should work for the benefit of all parents and children in an area. I further refer you to pages 12 faith schools can contribute to community cohesion by having admission policies that are inclusive of other faiths and of all elements of the population their local area. The code of practice goes on to state that the remainder could be community or open places. In 2006 St Georges allocated no places to children who were not of a faith or who did not have a sibling within the school. It also seems that 10% of places go to children outside the area. This in the present circumstances can no longer be acceptable and as the LEA you should be referring the matter to the schools adjudicator. In addition St Georges has the benefit of being a specialist science college if that status is not being used to the benefit of children with an aptitude for science and the community should St Georges continue to have the benefits that status confer?. If St Georges continues to admit children on the basis that their parents attended the school this is clearly described in the Code as a discriminatory practice and you have a duty as an LEA to promote equal opportunities and to challenge this.

77 Emotional Effect on children

South Harpenden is a distinct area of Harpenden and is known as Southdown . Southdown is more ethnically and culturally diverse that other areas of Harpenden and has a clear community feel. Many children attend The Grove schools that do much to foster links with the community. Part of those links are contact with the secondary schools within the neighbourhood for example. St John Lawes 6th form invited year 5 children to spend a day at St John Lawes school. . It must have been devastating for the 16 children in year 6 to be told that they could not attend the secondary schools with whom they were familiar but were to be offered places in schools they have never visited many miles away. While their peer group were able to look forward to transferring to secondary school which is daunting enough for an 11 year old child they were left without a school place. This should not be the actions of a responsible Department where child’s welfare should be a t the fore front.

I live in Markyate Village and would like to make the following points:

1. DISTANCES I have measured distances by car to both Roundwood and Astley Cooper and have concluded the following: Roundwood - the driving distance is 5.5 miles. This distance was measured through Kinsbourne Green and along the Luton Road, the most direct route from our village, however the distance along the Redbourn Lane and then the High Road is still only 7 miles. Astley Cooper - the driving distance is 8.3 miles via Redbourn Road and St Agnells Lane. The distance along the lane via Gaddedsen Lane and Pickford Road is slightly shorter but impassable by coach or mini bus in places and is mainly a single track lane. This would be a particularly dangerous route in the icy winter months and one I would challenge any bus to take! The conclusion therefore is that Roundwood is our nearest seconday school by quite a few miles!

2. ADDRESS We live in Markyate Village which is in St. Albans. Therefore our children have every right to attend a school in the St. Albans area. Had we wanted our children to attend a school in another area we would have lived in a different area!

3. HEALTH & STRESS It is clear that this uncertainty is having an effect on our children as young as even 9 in some cases. They are aware that some of their older friends have not been given places in the school of their choice and are concerned this is going to happen to them too. It is not right that parents and children have to be put through a process like this in order to fight for what is right. The local authority is fully aware of numbers of children within the area of St. Albans and it is their duty to to make provision in order that they all be placed in their local areas secondary school.

78 I am writing to you to share the “school place application experiences” of a Kimpton Family

Initial Reaction  Upon looking at the computer allocation, I went into shock and felt very sick  We had followed Council guidelines and were rewarded with a non-priority area school miles away  Told my child what had happened and not to worry  A minute later I ran round to a neighbours and burst into tears

After two weeks on a roller-coaster of emotions  Had lost a stone in weight  Was lucky to get three or four hours sleep a night  Became very angry (how dare they do this to my child?). We had known there was a problem, why didn’t the council and why didn’t they do something about the numbers they had known about since 2002 (and published in 2004) let alone the others they weren’t expecting.

What could we do?  Attended meetings, wrote to the council & MP, sent emails and supported each other  Whatever the council did they were not going to sort out everyone we had to act  Started to look for alternative options and realised that they would only present a short term fix and that we would have to go through this nightmare again with siblings

After two months.  Research became a full time job during school hours.  The phone bill more than doubled, paper & print cartridges flowed  another child got a place and our child got more depressed knowing that there was one less at their allocated school(yes we tried to lessen the impact on our children, but they are not stupid)  We heard that a friend’s child had started wetting the bed again  One of our friends is now on medication and to be honest none of us are feeling our best

There was never a consistent service from the council. Sometimes you’d get an answer, sometimes someone got back to you straight away, sometimes they wouldn’t tell you, sometimes the answers were hazy and sometimes there was just plain disinformation. We had been asking since March about transport …. funny how the answer was available for the Appeal panel but not for us when we asked previously

The lead up to the appeals  We don’t see anyone dropping out of the appeal process (they are too wound up to give in)  Three months after the start of this fiasco the mood in the villages is still sombre  Year 5 parents are asking questions, considering moving and asking what is happening  We try to be upbeat knowing full well that villagers will suffer again next year and if they suffer in the long term so will our whole community  We reckon that as a family: chasing the council; sending emails; attending meetings; researching our case; writing the Appeals; and preparing & sitting the Appeals consumed 200 man hours effort  The Appeal case for the council came through and as expected it tried to shut even more doors

79  Going to the appeal was exhausting.  The relief of knowing we had done our best was replaced with the numbness of knowing this nightmare was likely to go on for at least another month until the results came out

Now we wait and wait and wait. We are all tired of waiting but we have no choice. We have to keep going for our children. We have to hope that the two promised continuing interest runs will ease the pressure

When the results are out not everyone will be happy. Even those that are will be sad for those that aren’t and the worst thing is that this will be allowed to happen to villagers again and again and again.

Please do what you can to put an end to this injustice, please stop the harm to village children and communities. We are not asking for much … just local schools for local children.

Please find our observations and recommendations with regard to the way HCC Education Dept award Harpenden school places. Data held by HCC should have indicated that it would be a bumper year in terms of pupil numbers. Parents should have been advised of this. We suffered lack of information available by electronic data. We were not awarded our nearest school Children of Kimpton Village are scattered in different schools and different areas. We would like to see a system put in place to capture genuine children who actually live in the area i.e., proof of residency over several years. One of the criteria should be the length of time living in priority area.

I was disappointed to see, once again, a huge number of local children were not allocated one of their preferred schools in this years secondary transfer process. My son was in the same position in 2003, when over 50 children were not allocated one of their preferences. It seems lessons have not been learnt in the intervening years.

The period of time between our initial school allocation and entry to one of our preferred schools (3 months) was extremely stressful, emotional and draining for us as parents. Many, many hours were spent researching and building a case for appeal. My son felt rejected, that he was "not wanted " by the schools.

As parents we are led to believe we can express a preference to where our children will be educated. In Kimpton the reality is that expressing a preference makes no difference. The chances of children being allocated one of their preferences or even their nearest school are negilible unless they have a sibling already present. We might as well start preparing our appeals when we submit our secondary transfer application form.

We knew that because we live in Kimpton, we were disadvantaged because there are many more children who live closer to the Harpenden schools than we do, and that we stood little chance of

80 getting a place early on in the process at our closest school, Sir John Lawes. We took some comfort in the fact that in previous years, Kimpton children had eventually gained places at Harpenden schools through continuing interest and appeals; but this year, when we heard that the forecasting had been so badly wrong and that there were approaching 70 children in the Harpenden area, more than 2 forms of entry, who had not gained a place, we were left feeling despair. It did not seem possible that all these children could be accommodated satisfactorily. Although HCC managed to arrange additional places, it is not the case that parents are now satisfied. Several Kimpton parents have been forced into accepting places at Sandringham School which, although a good school, is not a local, community school as far as we are concerned. There is no recent history of transfer to Sandringham and no children living in the village currently attend the school. As the increase in places is for this year only, children placed there this year will be isolated and will become socially excluded within the community.

Since 1 March, our lives have been dominated by this issue. Our appeal has just been heard, but we may have to wait until almost mid-July before we know the outcome. This is hugely unsettling for our son, and has spoilt his last two terms at primary school, a time that should be exciting and enjoyable for him. All he wants is to be able to go to secondary school with his friends, which does not seem a lot to ask. We realised early on that our only chance of getting a place that our son and we were happy with was through appeal. This has placed immense pressure on us, particularly as we are acutely aware that the problems with the forecasting for this year will have reduced the number of places likely to be given on appeal. I work from home on a freelance basis and have been unable to take on work since March, partly because I have been suffering from insomnia and have been too stressed to concentrate and partly because I have spent so much time preparing for the appeal; this may not have been necessary but it was so important that I had to do everything I could. I did not want to look back and feel that I could have done more. If our appeal proves to be unsuccessful, I will feel that I have let my son down and failed as a parent and that it is my fault.

As well as the effects on the individuals concerned, we are very worried about the effects on the community. Scattering the village children around in different schools is socially divisive and will break up close, long-standing friendships. The reliance on appeals for local places put parents in competition with each other; this is a destructive force in a small community. In the longer term, the failure of Kimpton children to secure local school places will mean parents will not want to live in the village, putting the primary school at risk and turning the village into a retirement community.

All these problems have resulted from the failure to anticipate demand and to produce an accurate forecast of the number of places required in the Harpenden schools, especially but not exclusively this year. I really hope that something can be done to improve the situation in future years as I would not wish any one else to have to go through the stress and anxiety that we have gone through and are continuing to go through.

81 For further information about this report please contact:

David Moses, Head of Scrutiny Tel: 01992 555300 [email protected]