ANNEX A TO ITEM 11

FEEDBACK FROM THE STATUTORY NOTICE REPRESENTATION PERIOD AND LEA COMMENTS.

Objections and Representations

There were five written objections received during the representation period concerning the proposed published admission number of Gate Combined School following the publication of Statutory Notices on 13 November. Two were objections (including one from the Head Teacher) which seek to raise the admission number at age 4 from 45 to 60.

The other three were objections to the school’s proposal to seek this change, on the grounds that doing so would deny places at age 8 or 7 following change to ages of transfer to children attending Wavendon Church of First School.

The Statutory Notice for change in age range for Wavendon Gate included a continuation of the current arrangement whereby the Published Admission Number (PAN) would remain at 45 at age 4, with an additional 15 pupils being admitted at age 7 following change to the age of transfer from first schools. This split admission number is due to the admission of pupils from Wavendon First School to Wavendon Gate Combined, currently at age 8, but due to change to age 7 following school re-organisation. The current arrangement is not favoured by the headteacher and governors of Wavendon Gate Combined who would prefer a PAN of 60 at age 4, with no further admissions at age 7. Clearly this would not be achievable unless other provision was available for pupils from Wavendon First School and Wavendon Gate Combined could accommodate additional pupils at ages 4,5 and 6.

Following school re-organisation Wavendon Gate Combined will no longer teach Year 7 pupils and two classrooms will become available for other uses. The school proposes that it could then accommodate the additional pupils aged 4,5 and 6. The LEA accepts this view, and has communicated this to the headteacher. However, it could not agree to such a change until alternative provision for pupils from Wavendon First became available.

Options for pupils from Wavendon First are being explored but have not yet been developed sufficiently to be communicated. The intention is to find and agree a workable solution with the headteacher and governors of Wavendon First School and the Church of England Diocesan Authority for this Voluntary Controlled School. Once an acceptable solution is found, the change in PAN could be made at Wavendon Gate Combined. In essence, therefore, the alternative proposal by Wavendon Gate Combined School looks likely to be achievable but only when satisfactory provision for pupils from Wavendon First School has been agreed with school governors and the Church of England Diocese. The LEA response to the headteacher and governors of

L:\Committee\2003-04\CABINET\03 FEB 04\03-02-04_ITEM11_ANNEXA.doc

Wavendon Gate Combined School follows as Appendix 1 to this annex, and will form part of the papers to the School Organisation Committee.

There was a further objection received by the School Organisation Committee and copied to the Chief Education Officer to the proposals concerning Campus. The objection was submitted by the Headteacher and Chair of Governors of Stanton Middle School. The objection was about the proposed published admission number and the consultation process followed by the governing bodies of the Campus, in conjunction with the LEA. Strictly, it is a matter for the Campus governing bodies to respond to the objection.

With this second objection, the Cabinet should note that it was received after the published deadline for the receipt of comments and objections (24 December), with a postmark clearly indicating 29 December. There is therefore the question as to whether the School Organisation Committee will deem it a valid objection which requires their consideration.

In the event of the School Organisation Committee agreeing to consider the objection and in order to assist the Committee in its consideration of the proposals, a response on behalf of the Council, as an interested participant in the processes, is put forward as at Appendix 2 to this Annex. This response has been discussed with the principal and chairs of governors of Stantonbury Campus.

The Council understands that the objection from Stanton Middle School is based on the following points:

• Stantonbury Campus has not consulted with the LEA and with the schools in the relevant area which are admission authorities in their own right about a significant change to its admission arrangements (the reduction of the PAN).

• The LEA must ensure there are sufficient school places for the children in its area and take steps to address any shortfalls. The considerable reduction in the admission number will mean there will not be sufficient places at Stantonbury Campus for pupils who live within the designated area.

• Had this information been made available to the Headteacher and Governing body of Stanton Middle School as part of a properly conducted consultation leading up to the changes in ages of transfer, it would have been a relevant factor in their response to any consultation.

• Stantonbury Campus (and all other foundation schools) should have carried out the consultation on changing the ages of transfer themselves, or have formally agreed in advance for the LEA to carry out the consultation on their behalf.

L:\Committee\2003-04\CABINET\03 FEB 04\03-02-04_ITEM11_ANNEXA.doc

Officers are confident in the view that all proper processes have been followed both in setting the PAN for the Campus and in the conduct of the consultation processes.

It should be noted that the proposal for the PAN for Stantonbury Campus to be reduced from 540 to 480 for admission in September 2004 was originally consulted upon in spring 2003 as part of the main round of consultation on admission arrangements. This consultation was carried out by the governors of the campus following advice from the LEA. There is no evidence that the consultation was carried out in an improper or inadequate manner: quite the opposite and therefore this part of the Stanton objection would appear to be unfounded. Furthermore, at that time no objections whatsoever were made to the proposed reduction or to the conduct of the consultation. Projections of pupil demand based on known numbers of pupils in feeder schools and existing patterns of parental preference, indicated that it would be possible to meet all in-area preferences, certainly for the 2004 and 2005 intakes.

In the longer term, because of falling rolls in the area, it had been proposed that from 2006, the PAN should be further reduced to 420. Data indicated that this would lead to a very tight-but manageable-match between in-area demand and secondary provision in the area.

The number of pupils in the area is declining. As at August 2003, Health Authority data indicated that there were 752 8 -12 year olds in the area served by the school, but only 540 one year olds. Numbers of all ages from 1 to 12 are shown below.

Numbers of children in area served by Stantonbury Campus as at August 2003. Age 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Number 540 497 596 588 563 602 555 608 629 680 683 752

The figures show a downward trend.

Figures for pupils aged 12 to 15 at Stantonbury Campus show that approximately 74% of children living in the area attend the Campus. If this figure is applied to year groups not yet at the Campus the figures show:

Age 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 74% of HA data 399 367 440 435 416 445 410 449 465 503 505 556*

* numbers at Stantonbury in Year 8 in September 2003.

These figures have been shared with the Campus and will inform future admission numbers.

The relevant part of the Law (the primary legislation) actually states in respect of the LEA’s general duty:

L:\Committee\2003-04\CABINET\03 FEB 04\03-02-04_ITEM11_ANNEXA.doc

"An LEA has a general duty to secure sufficient school places for the age, aptitudes, abilities and any special educational needs of the population in its area". This does not necessarily mean sufficient to meet in-area demand in a localised part of the LEA's area.

The 420 PAN for Stantonbury Campus has been in the public domain at least since June 2003. (Ref Cabinet Report and Technical Background Paper) The matters relating to demography/ pupil number projections are also set out in the School Organisation Plan which was published in draft for consultation in July 2003 and approved by the SOC at its meeting on 7 November. The Governing Body of Stantonbury Campus and the schools in its area should have been aware, through circulated documents and briefings, of the figures included within the LEA’s planning and consultative documentation and have therefore had ample opportunities to question or challenge figures and the conclusions drawn from those figures. Discussions specifically relating to projections and the Campus’s ability to accommodate in-area demand took place between officers and the Principal of Stantonbury in the autumn prior to the publication of statutory notices.

Foundation schools (and voluntary schools) have the responsibility for the publication of statutory notices in respect of certain changes. This is exactly what has happened with the proposals for changes in age of transfer across the school system in .

There is also a responsibility for any proposers of change to consult prior to the publication of statutory notices but the nature and extent of that consultation is not tightly prescribed by regulation and is therefore subject to local determination in the light of local circumstances, arrangements and precedent.

The proposals are in respect of a system-wide change and, as such, there are considerations that are far wider than could possibly be dealt with by a single school, although it is fully accepted that all schools should be true partners and all views properly taken into account. Such system-wide change needs therefore to be initiated, managed and co-ordinated by the LEA.

There has been a long, detailed and inclusive process of consultation (See Annex 5). All Milton Keynes schools have been involved from the outset. There has been a recognition of the need, for the reasons touched upon previously, for the LEA to lead the processes.

Over the last eighteen months or so individual schools have been able both to contribute to the debate and the detailed formulation of proposals but, at the same time have also been able, should they so wish, to reserve their position until the latter part of the process. Only at this point, when the decision formally to sign up to the statutory proposals had to be taken, were schools, as it were, required to show their hand.

L:\Committee\2003-04\CABINET\03 FEB 04\03-02-04_ITEM11_ANNEXA.doc

It does not follow therefore, that the consultations have not been carried out properly, nor does it mean that foundation and voluntary schools have in some way neglected their responsibilities in respect of consultation.

Any school or any other interested party has had the necessary information made available to them. There have been opportunities to be fully involved, to make views known and to change the direction of change. The framework of principles as set out in the main report in the section on “Requirements for Consultation” has been adhered to and therefore the objections relating to the conduct of the consultations are rejected.

L:\Committee\2003-04\CABINET\03 FEB 04\03-02-04_ITEM11_ANNEXA.doc