Page 3 Agenda Item 1 Admissions Forum 11 October 2011 – Item 2

Minutes of Sutton Admission Forum Tuesday 14 June 2011, 10.00am, Civic Offices

Present Core Membership Local Authority Cllr Kirsty Jerome A Cllr Moira Butt Primary schools – Louise Austin (Primary Head) Dorchester Primary Community Karen Rhodes (Primary Head) Rushy Meadow Primary A Terry Gorley (Primary Governor) Robin Hood Junior Primary schools – Brian Stevens (Primary Chair) St Dunstan’s C of E Primary Voluntary-Aided A Margaret Sinclair (Primary Head) St Mary’s Infants Secondary schools Jane Pascoe (Secondary Chair) Stanley Park High School – Community Will Smith (Secondary Head) Secondary schools Rosemary Satchell (Secondary Chair) High School – Foundation Barbara Greatorex (Secondary Head) Wallington High School for Girls A Simon Brown (Secondary Chair) Secondary schools A* Philip Howard (Secondary Governor) The John Fisher School – Voluntary Aided Diocesan Board Carol Jerwood Church of A Simon Parr Roman Catholic Parent Members A Gemma Fitzpatrick tba tba tba Local Community To be confirmed Representative

A = Absent A* = Absent, but represented by an alternate.

Others Present

Pam Cooper Cheam Park Farm Infants’ School Samantha Chung Stanley Park Infants’ School Marian Primarolo Stanley Park Infants’ School Damien Charnock Wilson’s School John Hordley St Philomena’s School pp Philip Howard Paul Harding Carshalton High School for Girls Steve Hume Glenthorne High School pp Simon Brown Karin Rowsell Nonsuch High School for Girls Peter Smart Wallington County Grammar School Brenda Morley Peter Simpson Joint Acting Strategic Director Nigel Simms Head of Pupil Based Commissioning Sharman Lawson Executive Head, Planning and Commissioning Peter Gasparelli Head of Admissions Bob Dixon LBS School Governance – Minuting Clerk

1 Agenda Item 1 Page 4 Admissions Forum 11 October 2011 – Item 2

1. INTRODUCTION & APOLOGIES

Cllr Jerome welcomed members to the meeting.

Apologies had been received from Simon Brown (Glenthorne High School), Peter Butterworth (Overton Grange School), Terry Gorley (Robin Hood Junior School), Jackie Saddington (Cheam Park Farm Junior School), Shirley Gruffydd (Holy Trinity CofE Junior School), Martin Kearsey (Devonshire Primary), Gary Kirkwood (Foresters Primary School), Dave Christmas (Brookfield Primary School) and Gemma Fitzpatrick.

RESOLUTION noted

Cllr Jerome welcomed Marian Primarolo to the Forum as an observer. Members were also advised that Gemma Fitzpatrick had resigned as Parent Member; she was thanked for her contribution to the Forum.

2. MINUTES & MATTERS ARISING

a) Minutes of the meeting held on 8 February 2011 had been circulated.

b) Paul Harding said that he did not agree with Minute 5, detailing changes with admission arrangements for schools currently consulting. In particular, he did not recall the Forum having been told of the introduction of a 6km priority circle for Wallington Girls; he was sure that other Headteachers were equally unaware since comment would have been made at the Forum meeting. Cllr Jerome said that the information had been published in the papers available to the meeting1 and she was sorry if members felt that the matter had not been addressed sufficiently thoroughly. Mr Harding responded that he felt more information should be given in the actual papers presented to the meeting. Cllr Jerome agreed that this could be done but asked that schools assist by highlighting any changes when publishing their consultation documents. These documents would have to be mounted on the Council website even if schools became responsible for their own admission criteria under academy status.

Rosemary Satchell supported Mr Harding’s concerns, accepting that the detail might have been available but that there should have been more discussion.

On behalf of Wallington Girls, Barbara Greatorex said that the consultation process had been conducted as usual, with the documents being placed on the Council website and individual schools notified. She also mentioned a paper produced by Sharman Lawson in December 2010, circulated to all secondary schools, which had detailed the changes, including the introduction of a 6km circle.

1 Clerk’s Note; The paper presented to the Forum identified 7 schools that were consulting, gave a reference to the full consultation papers on the Council website and stated that paper copies of the consultation documents would be available at the Forum meeting. 2 Page 5 Agenda Item 1 Admissions Forum 11 October 2011 – Item 2

Steve Hume pointed out that changes in the admissions procedure for one school affected other schools. He also referred to a prior agreement that the balance of selective and non-selective places in the Borough would remain constant, and said that Glenthorne Governors had written to Sharman Lawson expressing their concern that the additional places at Wallington Girls would upset the balance. Barbara Greatorex said that earlier changes in procedures had resulted in a drop of about 40 in the number of in-Borough children being admitted, and the addition of 30 extra places with a priority circle had been an attempt to redress this imbalance.

Cllr Jerome reminded members that it was the LA’s responsibility to plan and provide enough places and thanked the 3 schools which had offered extra places. The system for offering places was very complex in Sutton with its mixture of selective/non-selective, mixed/single-sex schools.

Damian Charnock pointed out that the adoption of academy status, with schools being responsible for their own admissions policies, would change the situation. The schools had committed to work together to produce a coherent plan which would then be discussed with the LA. c) The Forum discussed the mid-year admissions process, which was now co-ordinated by the LA. There had been initial problems with the IT systems; these were still causing some difficulty but the scale was much less.

3. UPDATE ON NEW SCHOOL ADMISSIONS CODE

Peter Gasparelli introduced his paper, which sought to identify the key issues in the draft Admissions Code and Admission Appeals Code which the Government had issued for consultation. It was anticipated that the new Codes would be introduced in January 2012 and apply to the September 2013 intake. Changes related to mid-year admissions might be introduced in September 2012, but would require separate legislation to remove determined schemes already in place.

One change introduced by the new Code was that the Admission Forum would no longer be a statutory requirement. He reminded members that this had been briefly discussed at the February meeting, and that the consensus had been to continue on a voluntary basis, with membership and terms of reference to be agreed. It was agreed that a full discussion should take place at the next meeting, by which time the final shape of the Code would be known. Cllr Jerome asked whether the Forum felt a working party should be established to review the role of the Forum, its membership and terms of reference. She said that Cheam Park Farm Junior School had raised the question of primary schools with academy status being a defined category for separate representation. Damian Charnock said that the secondary schools wished to discuss the issue amongst themselves, which would then lead to a decision on whether they wished for a working party. Primary schools would equally discuss the question via the Sutton Primary Heads Group. Cllr Jerome agreed this

3 Agenda Item 1 Page 6 Admissions Forum 11 October 2011 – Item 2

course of action and asked that any decision be communicated to Sharman Lawson and/or Peter Gasparelli.

One feature of the new code that would significantly affect the selective schools is that ‘testing before preference’ is now to be a statutory requirement. However, it was not clear in the draft code whether this applied only to testing for selective schools or also to the assessment of bandings or to selection by aptitude, which may affect a number of Sutton schools.

Peter Gasparelli said that the LA would be making a response to the consultation, both as an individual Authority and also as part of a pan- London response. The response was in process of being drafted. Some practical difficulties had already been identified, such as implementing the statutory duty to have information displayed on the Council website within 24 hours. Cllr Jerome suggested that schools would wish to respond either individually or as a group.

Carol Jerwood said that the Diocese had concerns over infant class size legislation and the rulings on siblings and multiple births and the effect on appeals; the Diocese would be responding to DfE on this area of the proposals.

Pam Cooper expressed concern about the removal of the requirement to hold admission appeals on neutral ground, since this could put undue pressure on the applicant. However, Damian Charnock said that secondary schools welcomed the easement, pointing out the loss of management time if their numerous appeals had to be held off site. It was suggested that primary schools, which typically had only one or two appeals, might group together to exchange appeal accommodation between themselves.

4. MEETING TO DISCUSS EAST OF LB SUTTON

a) Sharman Lawson introduced the paper which sought to explore ways of meeting demand for secondary places in the eastern part of the Borough from 2013. The move of Stanley Park High School to a new site would have the effect of sliding its catchment area towards the new venue. This may disadvantage the Beddington and Roundshaw areas, which were, however, areas of population growth. Use of Merton schools as back-up was not sustainable in the long term, since that Borough has its own population pressures. The possible options that had been examined were: Ø Establishing priority areas, quoting the example of the Worcester Park circle for Cheam High. Ø Employing the Fair Access Protocol to force places for otherwise unplaced pupils. Ø Utilising the old Stanley Park High School site

Jane Pascoe put forward a proposal for the use of the SPHS site. She pointed out that the school had always considered itself to be part of the local community, and noted that the new SEN building would remain in 4 Page 7 Agenda Item 1 Admissions Forum 11 October 2011 – Item 2

use. The problem to be addressed was that of a shortage of places and she suggested that, in a multi-choice Borough such as Sutton, parents might welcome an even wider choice of schools. Her concern was that, if Sutton did not utilise the site for educational purposes, a private group would take it over and install their own academy. Her proposal was therefore to establish an all-through free school catering for the 5-16 age range, sponsored jointly by the academies, and following the principles set out by the organisation ‘Human Scale Education’ 2. Backing for this scheme had been expressed by the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation and others. She hoped it would be possible to work with the LA and with the Academy Group.

Steve Hume felt the use of a Merton school to make additional offers was not satisfactory to some parents, but also believed the use of the existing Stanley Park site may not be the appropriate solution.

Damian Charnock agreed that wide discussion was necessary and that it would be sensible to look at continued use of the Stanley Park site in view of the increased demand for places now being predicted. He was aware of the urgency attaching to the discussions, but said that time should still be allowed to assess the impact on each individual school.

Cllr Jerome said that any solution must include proposals for filling the funding gap in the budget for the new Stanley Park building, which had been constructed on the basis that a large part of the existing site would be sold. The gap was several £M, although the exact amounts involved were a matter of commercial confidence. Nigel Simms said that preparations for disposal had already begun, planning for a new development on the site had started, and the decision whether to retain the site therefore needed to be taken very swiftly. Damian Charnock pointed out that the Government would be likely to look favourably on any proposals involving the re-use of the site; both commercial and free school groups would be able to bid. Brenda Morley asked for a firm date after which it would be too late to prevent disposal of the site. Nigel Simms replied that any decision to retain the site should be made as soon as possible, since plans for disposal were already well under way, but that he would contact the Asset Management team to ascertain a firm date.

Cllr Jerome said that she welcomed the opportunity to work with schools on planning of places. An additional complication was the likely move into the Borough of people moving from higher-cost areas after the planned changes in benefits come into effect. Will Smith said that the information now being discussed should have been disseminated earlier, perhaps via the Secondary Partnership. Cllr Jerome pointed out that option c, the possible re-use of the site had been raised for the first time only at the meeting of 26 May which was the subject of the paper now being discussed by the Forum.

2 http://www.hse.org.uk/pdf/HSE87_The%20Management%20of%20Change.pdf 5 Agenda Item 1 Page 8 Admissions Forum 11 October 2011 – Item 2

Damian Charnock undertook that the meeting of the Academies Board to be held the following day would identify a lead person to work with Sharman Lawson to explore the ideas in the paper.

Jane Pascoe asked whether there was an alternative plan for handling the projected increase in numbers should re-use of the Stanley Park site not go ahead. Cllr Jerome replied that officials were preparing alternative plans and that it would be premature to give any detail at this stage. Peter Simpson added that it was necessary to look at all options, that the cancellation of the BSF programme had cut off a source of funding, and that expansion was down to individual schools. Steve Hume said that it was therefore necessary to understand the relationship between schools and the LA regarding place-planning.

Damian Charnock said that the academies needed to know the Borough’s plans in order to best inform their discussions. Sharman Lawson said that she was working to ensure a robust set of data, involving a match of known birth data with migration information, she expected to complete this work during August and would present her findings to the Secondary Heads Board in September. Karin Rowsell added that the Board would also need to be informed of funding availability and implementation possibilities.

5. UPDATE ON PRIMARY EXPANSION

A paper identified the 5 schools being proposed for expansion in September 2013. One round of consultation meetings had already taken place; concerns expressed during the meetings had related to traffic and access to the sites, but the response had been generally positive. A second round of meetings would take place in July. There were also three bulge classes being provided this September, which could impact the 2012 and 2013 plans, but were necessitated because the number of children remaining in the public sector for primary education had risen to 89.5% from the historic level of 87%. There was some concern that the Borough was running out of places where expansion was physically possible.

6. UPDATE ON FAIR ACCESS PROTOCOL

A table had been circulated showing the number of children placed under the FAP during the last 4 years. Peter Gasparelli said he had been contacted by Greenshaw who did not feel their numbers were correct, and these concerns would be pursued outside the meeting.

The draft Fair Access protocol for 2011/12 had been circulated. It was based largely upon the previous version but with a change in para 5.9 which had been discussed by the Secondary Heads Board and by the Vulnerable Pupils Panel. It was pointed out that the Secondary Heads had only agreed to admit 4 children under the protocol, rather than the 6 specified in the first line of this paragraph. Sharman Lawson said that the LA had a duty to provide for all pupils and that the figure of 6 had been retained from the earlier version of the protocol. After further discussion it 6 Page 9 Agenda Item 1 Admissions Forum 11 October 2011 – Item 2

was agreed that the paper would be reworked to show that schools will admit up to 4 pupils within the protocol. It was further accepted that the admission of any pupils in excess of 4 once all appropriate schools had reached this limit, would be placed through the protocol.

The paper was agreed for circulation and agreement by schools , subject to checking the correct terminology re academies, maintained schools, etc.

7/8. PRIMARY & SECONDARY OFFERS 2011

Two papers were tabled on the day, showing the offers made in respect of primary and secondary school places for September 2011, after 2 rounds of offers had taken place. In reply to Rosemary Satchell, Peter Gasparelli said that the ‘distance’ column represented the distance from the school of the furthest-away pupil’s residence, as defined by each school’s admission criteria; this was why there were 2 separate figures for Cheam High relating to the ‘normal’ and to the Worcester Park distance criteria. Louise Austin asked why some pupils were apparently in receipt of multiple offers; it was explained that in the first instance a child receives an offer from only one school but can then be offered a place from the waiting list of another school; in these circumstances the child has a choice of which offer to accept.

Brian Stevens said that the process had been very late in filling his school, St Dunstan’s, as it appeared that Surrey were later than Sutton in making offers. Peter Gasparelli said that Surrey were part of the pan-London admissions procedure for those children living close to the Sutton - Surrey boundary. Brain Stevens said that many children had taken up places at Cuddington Croft, leaving vacancies at St Dunstan’s; it was suggested that Cuddington Croft or another Surrey school might have made extra places available, which had then created movement in the locality.

9. ANY OTHER BUSINESS

The Forum was advised that the annual report on Admissions would be issued for comment in the following week.

10. DATE OF NEXT MEETING

11 October 2011, 10.00 am, Meeting Room 1, Civic Offices

The meeting closed at 11.45am

7 Page 10

This page is intentionally left blank