Children and Young People’s Service Scrutiny 1 March 2012 Sub-Committee

School Admissions Update

All Wards

Report authorised by : Executive Director Children and Young People’s Service: Debbie Jones

Executive summary This report is to update and inform Committee of the following:

1. Provide an update on secondary transfer 2012 2. Provide a brief update on primary admissions 2012 3. Provide a final report on the MEDSOC Panel Review 4. Provide an update on school admissions (i.e.: summary of new Admissions Codes & Direct Offer By Schools (DOBS) initiative)

Summary of financial implications There are no financial implications regarding this document and its content and this has been confirmed by both Divisional and Corporate Finance.

Recommendations (1) The report is broadly for information only. However, the recommendations provided as a result of the review have been accepted by CYPS and will be fully implemented in MEDSOC Practices. However, CYPS Scrutiny can provide feedback regarding this review as well.

Consultation Name of Directorate or Organisation Date sent Date Comments consultee to response appear in consultee received report para: from consultee

Internal Debbie Jones Executive Director of CYPS 11 Jan 11 Jan Eg. 4.1 2012 2012 Mike Pocock Divisional Director, EECP 11 Jan 11 Jan 2012 2012 Maggie Harriott Education Strategy Manager 11 Jan 11 Jan 2012 2012 Councillor Pete Cabinet Member for CYPS 13 Jan 13 Jan Robbins 2012 2012 Andrew Pavlou Governance & Democracy 22 Feb 22 Feb 2012 2012 Frank Higgins Corporate Finance 22 Feb 22 Feb 2012 2012 Alfred Ansong Department Finance 22 Feb 22 Feb 2012 2012

Entered in Consultation and Events Diary? No If yes, date

Report history Date report Report Date report sent: Report no.: drafted: deadline: 21/02/2012 17.02.12 21/02/2012 292/10-11 Report author and contact for queries: Peter Scott (Head of School Admissions) 020 7926 1469 [email protected]

Background documents N/A

Appendices - N/A

Special Circumstances Justifying Urgent Consideration

The Chair is of the opinion that although this report had not been available for at least five clear days before the meeting, nonetheless it should be considered now as a matter of urgency because of the special circumstances that this report contains important information about how admissions is working in Lambeth and will give the Chair and CYPS Scrutiny members a clearer picture on how Lambeth is cooperating with the Pan- Admissions procedure for both secondary and primary schools. Though the final outcomes of both the Pan-London Secondary Transfer and Primary Schemes are not included in the report, the information does still provide a good precursor for any subsequent information on final outcomes, which will be available to Lambeth Council departments, the Secretary of State and the Office of Schools Adjudicators shortly after the 1 March 2012. The report also informs the Committee on the results of a recent MEDSOC Review, a matter previously discussed at Scrutiny, and highlights recommendations that School Admissions and the MEDSOC Panel will be adopting. It had not been possible to obtain all necessary information in time for the dispatch of this agenda.

School Admissions Update

1. Context

1.1 This report will provide a update on

• Secondary Transfer 2012

• Primary Admissions 2012

• MEDSOC Panel Review

• Provide an update on school admissions (i.e.: summary of new Admissions Codes & Direct Offer By Schools (DOBS) initiative)

2. SECONDARY TRANSFER 2012

2.1 The following table highlights the number of on-time applications Lambeth LA has received. The 2012 data is compared with 2011.

Table 1 2011 ontime preference numbers for Lambeth schools Places Preferred school available FIRST SECOND THIRD FOURTH FIFTH SIXTH TOTAL Archbishop Tenison's School 92 50 58 66 42 28 27 271 Bishop Thomas Grant Catholic 180 229 174 186 155 107 54 905 Charles Edward Brooke Church of Girls' School 90 9 20 23 23 25 9 109 Dunraven School 192 335 370 315 270 151 90 1531 Evelyn Grace 180 185 131 107 115 56 49 643 La Retraite Roman Catholic Girls' School 150 110 127 116 72 45 35 505 180 92 142 150 112 69 52 617 Lilian Baylis Technology School 124 106 88 86 71 60 41 452 St Martin-in-the-Fields High School for Girls 140 98 89 87 74 42 35 425 Stockwell Park High School 210 110 117 108 89 60 39 523 The Elmgreen School 180 140 173 149 140 109 69 780 The London Nautical School 120 148 110 106 82 60 30 536 The Norwood School 150 56 78 93 88 58 47 420 TOTALS 1988 1668 1677 1592 1333 870 577 7717

2012 ontime preference numbers for Lambeth schools Places Pref. Estab. available FIRST SECOND THIRD FOURTH FIFTH SIXTH TOTAL Archbishop Tenison's School 92 46 43 54 45 16 19 223 Bishop Thomas Grant Catholic Secondary School 180 233 196 182 133 87 52 883 Charles Edward Brooke Church of England Girls' School (St Gabriel’s College) 120 29 23 36 37 27 17 169 Dunraven School 192 323 365 329 214 128 86 1445 Evelyn Grace Academy 180 162 105 113 87 63 40 570 La Retraite Roman Catholic Girls' School 150 114 108 85 84 38 16 445 Lambeth Academy 180 87 134 133 103 81 55 593 Lilian Baylis Technology School 124 96 76 88 88 52 36 436 St Martin-in-the-Fields High School for Girls 140 71 93 87 61 54 26 392 Stockwell Park High School 210 124 94 94 84 47 37 480 The Elmgreen School 180 150 202 182 107 82 68 791 The London Nautical School 120 128 94 74 65 35 20 416 The Norwood School 150 52 72 92 80 70 57 423 Grand Total 2018 1615 1605 1549 1188 780 529 7266

Please note:

1. There is an increase in the number of secondary places available in Lambeth for 2012, due to the changes at St Gabriel’s College (CEB).

2. Most schools have received a lower number of on-time applications compared to last year. The most significant is The London Nautical, who has received 120 less applications than last year. This could be due to alternative/additional out-borough opportunities, or the reflection of more realistic parental preferences. However, this school, as are all our secondary schools, are still oversubscribed at the point of receipt of applications. The reduction in receipt of preferences for London Nautical should not have too much of a negative impact as the school normally admits only 30-37% of their places to Lambeth residents.

3. 11 out of the 13 schools are oversubscribed with first and second preferences alone. This still indicates the popularity of Lambeth secondary schools.

4. St Gabriel’s College (CEB) has received a higher number of applications this year than last. This 35% increase is fairly significant. 126 of these applicants in the 2012 round are female. The remaining 43 are boys. If the school becomes undersubscribed at the point of iteration, then the vacancies would largely be filled by boys as this represents the cohort of children without an offer.

2.2 Table 2 identifies the criteria parents want their child’s application to be considered under. However, it is important to note that the information below will change significantly, as admission authorities decide whether places will be offered on medical/social grounds and they will also confirm if children do have siblings on roll. This data will change significantly after National Offer Day (NOD, which is the 1 March 2012)

Table 2 - 2012 Grand Pref. Estab. DIST LAC MEDSOC SIBL Total Archbishop Tenison's School 201 4 4 14 223 Bishop Thomas Grant Catholic Secondary School 794 3 21 65 883 Charles Edward Brooke Church of England Girls' School 156 2 3 8 169 Dunraven School 1319 7 43 76 1445 Evelyn Grace Academy 514 4 11 41 570 La Retraite Roman Catholic Girls' School 399 3 6 37 445 Lambeth Academy 538 6 10 39 593 Lilian Baylis Technology School 383 1 7 45 436 St Martin-in-the-Fields High School for Girls 358 4 9 21 392 Stockwell Park High School 412 2 6 60 480 The Elmgreen School 705 4 26 56 791 The London Nautical School 382 2 14 18 416 The Norwood School 381 2 11 29 423 Grand Total 6542 44 171 509 7266

Please note:

• There will be little comfort to many families as a result of the reduced numbers of people applying to schools such as Dunraven. This year they have 76 siblings applying for a place there. This represents 40% of their total available places. If all these children are confirmed as siblings, they will certainly be offered a place, leaving only 116 places available for those children applying on the grounds of distance via banding. Only 1 in 12 children would receive an offer.

• The Elmgreen receives the second highest number of medical/social applications in the borough.

2.3 Table 3 indentifies a breakdown in applications made to Lambeth schools, and schools in other LAs by Lambeth and other LA residents:

Table 3 - 2012 Lambeth Other LA Grand Pref. Estab. residents residents Total Archbishop Tenison's School 153 70 223 Archbishop Tenison's School CofE High School 8 0 8 Ashcroft Technology Academy 63 0 63 Bacon's College 11 0 11 Battersea Park School 38 0 38 Bishop Challoner Catholic Collegiate Boy's School 1 0 1 Bishop Challoner Catholic Collegiate Girl's School 1 0 1 Bishop Justus Church of England School 1 0 1 Bishop Thomas Grant Catholic Secondary School 493 390 883 Bishopsford Arts College 10 0 10 Bolingbroke Academy 45 0 45 Brockhill Park School 1 0 1 Burntwood School 113 0 113 Carshalton High School for Boys 6 0 6 Carshalton High School for Girls 2 0 2 Cheam High School 1 0 1 Chelsea Academy 16 0 16 Chesham High School 1 0 1 Chestnut Grove School 250 0 250 Chiswick Community School 1 0 1 Coloma Convent Girls' School 38 0 38 1 0 1 Coombe Boys School 2 0 2 Coombe Girls' School 2 0 2 Dartford for Girls 1 0 1 De Stafford College of Technology & the Arts 1 0 1 1 0 1 Dunraven School 1164 281 1445 Edenham High School 2 0 2 Elliott School 8 0 8 Epsom and Ewell High School 1 0 1 Ernest Bevin College 79 0 79 Evelyn Grace Academy 532 38 570 6 0 6 Fulham Cross Secondary School 1 0 1 Glenthorne High School 3 0 3 Graveney School 408 0 408 Greenshaw High School 6 0 6 Haberdashers' Aske's Hatcham College 27 0 27 Haberdashers' Aske's Knight Academy 3 0 3 Hammersmith Academy 1 0 1 Harris Academy at Beckenham 4 0 4 Harris Academy Bermondsey 11 0 11 Harris Academy Bromley 2 0 2 Harris Academy Purley 8 0 8 Harris Academy South Norwood 90 0 90 Harris Boy's Academy East Dulwich 25 0 25 Harris City Academy Crystal Palace 286 0 286 Harris Girls' Academy East Dulwich 26 0 26 Henry Compton Secondary School 1 0 1 Highworth Grammar School for Girls 1 0 1 Holland Park School 6 0 6 Hurlingham and Chelsea Secondary School 5 0 5 John Paul II School 1 0 1 King Solomon Academy 3 0 3 Kingsdale Foundation School 376 0 376 La Retraite Roman Catholic Girls' School 280 165 445 Lady Margaret School 6 0 6 Lambeth Academy 550 43 593 Langley Park School for Boys 1 0 1 Lilian Baylis Technology School 391 45 436 for Girls 3 0 3 Nonsuch High School for Girls 8 0 8 Norbury Manor Business and Enterprise College for Girls 69 0 69 Northbrook Church of England School 1 0 1 Notre Dame Roman Catholic Girls' School 84 0 84 Oasis Academy Coulsdon 1 0 1 4 0 4 254 0 254 Prendergast - Ladywell Fields College 2 0 2 Prendergast - Vale College 1 0 1 Prendergast-Hilly Fields College 4 0 4 Quintin Kynaston School 3 0 3 Ravens Wood School 1 0 1 Raynes Park High School 3 0 3 Ricards Lodge High School 8 0 8 Richmond Park Academy 1 0 1 Royal Alexandra and Albert School 1 0 1 Rutlish School 5 0 5 Sacred Heart High School 14 0 14 Sacred Heart Roman Catholic Secondary School 161 0 161 St Gabriel’s College 118 51 169 Saint John Bosco College 36 0 36 Saint Thomas More RC School 87 0 87

Sedgehill School 1 0 1 Shirley High School and Performing Arts College 3 0 3 Southfields Community College 18 0 18 St Andrew's CE School 3 0 3 St Augustine's CofE Secondary School 3 0 3

St Bede's School 1 0 1 St Cecilia's, Wandsworth Church of England School 26 0 26 St George RC School 2 0 2 St Joseph's College 150 0 150

St Mark's Church of England Academy 34 0 34 St Martin-in-the-Fields High School for Girls 323 69 392 St Mary's High School 4 0 4 St Michael's RC School 29 0 29 St Olave's School 15 0 15

St Philomena's School 39 0 39 St Saviour's and St Olave's Church of England School 50 0 50 St Ursula's Convent School 2 0 2 Stockwell Park High School 452 28 480 Streatham and Clapham High School 1 1 Sutton Grammar School for Boys 51 0 51 20 0 20

The Archbishop Lanfranc School 3 0 3 The Cardinal Vaughan Memorial RC School 25 0 25 The Charter Academy 258 0 258 The City of London Academy 16 0 16 The Elmgreen School 698 93 791 The Globe Academy 24 0 24 The 189 0 189 The Harris Academy at Peckham 5 0 5 The Harris Academy Merton 83 0 83 The Henrietta Barnett School 2 0 2 The Holy Cross School 2 0 2 The John Fisher School 14 0 14 The King's School 1 0 1 The London Nautical School 168 248 416 The London Oratory School 42 0 42 The Norwood School 349 74 423 The Ravensbourne School 1 0 1 The Royal Grammar School 1 0 1 The 31 0 31 The St Thomas the Apostle College 5 0 5 The Tiffin Girls' School 25 0 25 The UCL Academy 2 0 2 Thomas More School 1 0 1 Tiffin School 13 0 13 Tonbridge Grammar School for Girls 1 0 1 Ursuline High School Wimbledon 54 0 54 Virgo Fidelis Convent Senior School 75 0 75 Wallington Grammar School 13 0 13 Wallington High School for Girls 25 0 25 Walworth Academy 31 0 31 Warlingham School 1 0 1 Westminster Academy 9 0 9 Westminster City Boy's School 50 0 50 Westwood Girls' College for Language and Arts 21 0 21 Wilson's School 17 0 17 Wimbledon College 38 0 38 Woodcote High School 1 0 1 Grand Total 9964 1596 11560

3. PRIMARY ADMISSIONS 2012

3.1 The statutory deadline for receiving all on-time applications for children due to start reception in September 2012 was Sunday 15 January 2012, at which point Lambeth LA received 3099 on-time applications.

3.2 1875 are online applications (60%) and the rest is paper applications. Comparison data is as follows:

APPLICATIONS (CAFs) 2011 2012

Total Paper CAFs 1583 1223 Total On-line CAFs 1391 1875 TOTALS 2974 3098 3500

3000

2500

2000 2011 1500 2012

1000

500

0 Total Paper CAFs Total On-line CAFs TOTALS

3.3 Please note, Lambeth Admissions are going through the double checking procedures at present and there maybe some duplicate CAFs (i.e CAFs from people who have submitted both a paper and an online form). Though these numbers should be small, there maybe a change in some totals for 2012 applications.

3.4 The following schools were applied to (by Lambeth families only. This data will increase once we interact with the Pan-London Register and receive out-of borough preferences on the 8 February 2012):

Places Grand Pref. Estab. available 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th Total Ab Kettleby Community 1 1 Alderbrook Primary School 2 1 4 7 2 3 19 All Saints CofE Aided Infant School 1 1 All Saints' CofE Primary School 1 1 All Saints Infant School 2 1 3 1 1 8 Allen Edwards Primary School 53 30 28 24 11 7 153 Allfarthing Primary School 1 1 2 Archbishop Sumner Church of England Primary School 60 45 28 13 9 6 3 104 Ark Oval Primary 2 2 Ashburnham Primary School 1 1 Ashmole Primary School 30 18 24 21 8 11 3 85 Balgowan Primary School 1 1 Beatrix Potter Primary School 1 1 Beecholme First School 1 1 Bellenden Primary School 1 1 Belleville Primary School 1 8 9 4 4 1 27 Bessemer Grange Primary School 6 3 7 3 3 4 26 Beulah Nursery Infant School 1 1 2 1 1 6 Bickley Primary 1 1 Bishop Gilpin CofE First School 1 1 Bonneville Primary School 60 32 26 34 33 10 8 143 Bonnygate Primary School 1 1 Bousfield Primary School 1 1 Brixton -Christ Church Brixton Church of England Primary School 60 14 24 10 11 8 5 72 Broadmead Primary School 1 1 Broadwater Primary School 1 1 2 Brunswick Park Primary School 1 1 1 3 Burdett Coutts and Townshend Foundation CofE Primary School 1 2 1 2 6 Busbridge Infant School 1 1 Charles Dickens Primary School 3 5 8 3 1 20 Charlotte Sharman Primary School 6 1 3 1 1 12 Chesterton Primary School 2 1 3 Christ Church CofE Primary School 1 1 2 Churchill Gardens Primary School 2 2 Clapham Manor Primary School 60 90 89 50 30 12 12 283 Cobourg Primary School 1 1 Colville Primary School 1 1 Comber Grove Primary School 1 4 2 1 1 9 Corpus Christi Catholic Primary School 52 90 68 35 19 9 6 227 Crampton School 2 2 3 1 8 Cranmer Primary School 1 1 Crawford Primary School 11 3 1 3 2 2 22 Crown Lane Primary School 60 46 23 21 30 21 15 156 Cypress Infant School 1 1 2 4 David Livingstone Primary School 1 1 1 3 Davidson Primary School 1 1 2 Dilkes Primary School 1 1 Dog Kennel Hill School 1 3 1 2 3 1 11 Downsview Primary School 2 1 2 3 1 9 Dulwich Hamlet Junior School 1 1 2 Dulwich Village Church of England Infants' School 14 34 13 6 9 6 82 Bexley School 1 1 1 Bexley School 2 1 1 Bexley School 3 1 1 Bromley School 1 3 3 Bromley School 2 1 1 Bromley School 3 1 1 Bromley School 4 1 1 Bromley School 5 2 1 3 Kingston-Upon-Thames 1 1 Outer London LA 1 1 Outer London LA 1 1 Durand Academy 125 127 57 45 29 18 11 287 Eardley School 12 6 6 5 2 2 33 Eliot Bank Primary School 1 2 3 Elm Wood Primary School 60 77 111 75 27 19 18 327 Elmwood Infant School 1 1 English Martyrs Roman Catholic Primary School 1 1 Fairchildes Primary School 1 1 Fairlawn Primary School 1 1 Fenstanton Primary School 90 34 16 17 12 17 5 101 Fircroft Primary School 1 1 Freshfield Primary School 1 1 Friars Primary School 4 5 3 5 1 18 Furzedown Primary School 2 2 2 2 8 Garden Primary School 1 2 2 5 Gatton Primary 5 2 4 2 1 14 Glenbrook Primary School 60 21 17 16 15 12 10 91 Gonville Primary School 1 2 1 4 Goodrich School 2 2 4 Goose Green Primary School 3 2 4 9 Grange School 1 1 Granton Primary School 57 32 26 28 13 11 6 116 Groombridge St Thomas' Church of England Primary School 1 1 Hallfield Primary School 1 1 Hampden Gurney CofE Primary School 1 1 Heathbrook Primary School 60 39 30 30 12 7 4 122 Heber Primary School 4 1 1 6 Henry Cavendish Primary School (Balham site) 60 64 43 27 14 13 5 166 Henry Cavendish Primary School (Streatham site) 60 50 39 35 27 13 10 174 Henry Fawcett Primary School 60 24 16 14 11 6 5 76 Herbert Morrison Primary School 28 27 17 13 10 4 6 77 Hill Mead Primary School 60 43 13 13 16 18 10 113 Hillbrook School 4 1 2 1 1 9 Hitherfield Primary School 85 68 53 43 41 24 16 245 Holy Ghost RC Primary School 2 1 2 1 6 Holy Trinity Catholic Primary School 1 1 Holy Trinity Church of England Primary School 60 44 33 22 13 17 10 139 Holy Trinity CofE Primary School 2 1 3 Honeywell Infant School 7 5 3 10 7 1 33 Horniman Primary School 1 1 2 Immanuel and St Andrew Church of England Primary School 60 49 44 30 12 9 5 149 Iqra Primary School 30 27 35 19 5 5 3 94 Ivydale Primary School 1 1 James Dixon Primary School 1 1 2 Jessop Primary School 60 22 21 16 21 17 12 109 Johanna Primary Oasis Waterloo Academy 30 31 10 6 12 4 3 66 John Burns Primary School 3 1 1 6 1 12 John Donne Primary School 1 1 John Ruskin Primary School 2 3 1 1 1 8 Jubilee Primary School 60 42 31 30 40 16 23 182 Julian's Primary School (Streatham site) 30 60 54 48 41 26 15 244 Julian's Primary School (West Norwood site) 60 20 44 33 18 10 9 134 Kelvin Grove Primary School 1 1 Kensington Avenue Primary School 2 1 1 1 1 6 Keyworth Primary School 1 1 1 1 4 King Athelstan Primary School 1 1 Kings Avenue Primary School 60 39 46 43 34 21 28 211 Kingswood Primary School 120 119 96 67 41 17 12 352 Langbourne Primary School 1 1 1 3 1 7 Lark Hall Primary School 60 32 12 14 6 8 6 78 Liberty School 1 1 1 3 Lonesome Primary School 2 2 5 9 Loughborough Primary School 60 34 28 17 17 8 7 111 Lyndhurst Primary School 8 4 2 2 4 1 21 Macaulay Church of England Primary School 30 26 21 14 7 6 6 80 Maple Infants' School 1 1 Marlborough Primary School 1 1 Merton Abbey First School 1 1 Michael Faraday School 1 1 Millbank Primary School 6 3 4 1 4 2 20 Norbury Manor Primary School 3 2 2 4 3 1 15 Oliver Goldsmith Primary School 1 1 2 Oratory Roman Catholic Primary School 1 1 2 Orchard Primary School 25 43 23 12 6 5 1 90 Our Lady of Compassion Catholic Primary School 2 2 Park Hill Infant School 1 1 Park Walk Primary School 1 1 Paxton Primary School 30 32 27 45 21 13 6 144 Peckham Park Primary School 1 1 Penwortham Primary School 3 3 4 4 14 Prendergast - Vale College 1 1 Ravenstone Primary School 6 26 5 6 43 Reay Primary School 30 61 52 24 11 12 10 170 Richard Atkins Primary School 60 38 22 36 26 20 18 160 Robert Browning Primary School 1 1 2 Rockmount Primary School 9 3 8 12 5 5 42 Rosendale Primary School 90 139 95 86 72 34 24 450 Royston Primary School 1 1 Sacred Heart Catholic Primary School 1 1 Sacred Heart Primary School 1 1 Saint Joseph's Roman Catholic School 2 2 Sellincourt Primary School 1 1 Servite RC Primary School 1 1 Shaftesbury Park Primary School 3 2 1 6 Sherwood Park Primary School 1 1 Singlegate First School 1 1 Sir James Barrie Primary School 3 1 1 5 Smallwood Primary School 1 1 Soho Parish CofE Primary School 1 1 2 South Norwood Primary School 1 1 Southwark Park School 1 1 Ss Peter & Paul RC Primary School 1 1 2 St Andrew's Catholic Primary School 60 65 40 28 13 15 10 171 St Andrew's Church of England Primary School 30 26 22 13 15 6 8 90 St Anne's Catholic Primary School 54 44 24 19 13 3 5 108 St Anselm's Catholic Primary School 4 1 2 4 1 12 St Anthony's Catholic Primary School 1 1 2 2 2 8 St Barnabas' CofE Primary School 1 1 2 St Bede's Catholic Infant School 60 51 24 23 8 4 5 115 St Boniface RC Primary School 1 1 2 1 5 St Chad's RC Primary School 1 2 3 St Clement and St James CofE Primary School 1 1 St Clement Dane's CofE Primary School 8 1 2 2 1 14 St Cyprian's Greek Orthodox Primary School 2 1 1 1 5 St Edward's RC Primary School 1 1 St Gabriel's CofE Primary School 1 1 2 4 St George's Cathedral RC Primary School 11 5 4 2 1 23 St George's CofE Primary School 5 1 2 1 9 St George's Hanover Square CofE Primary School 1 1 St Helen's Catholic Primary School 38 24 28 27 11 9 10 109 St James the Great RC Primary and Nursery School 4 5 4 1 1 15 St Jerome's Catholic Primary School 2 2 St John The Divine Church of England Primary School 30 14 8 12 4 5 5 48 St John's and St Clement's Church of England Primary School 1 1 2 St John's Angell Town Church of England Primary School 30 23 18 16 7 7 2 73 St John's CofE Aided Infant School 1 1 St John's Walworth Church of England Primary School 1 1 St Joseph RC Primary School 2 1 3 St Joseph Roman Catholic Primary School 1 1 St Joseph's Catholic Infant School 3 2 1 1 7 St Joseph's Catholic Junior School 1 1 St Joseph's RC Infant School 28 5 5 4 1 1 44 St Joseph's RC Primary School 2 2 St Joseph's Roman Catholic Primary School 1 1 St Jude's Church of England Primary School 30 38 30 27 17 14 3 129 St Leonard's Church of England Primary School 30 31 30 20 14 15 7 117 St Luke's Church of England Primary School 30 15 11 17 14 11 6 74 St Mark's Church of England Primary School 30 15 13 14 9 12 6 69 St Mark's First School 1 1 2 St Mary Abbots CofE Primary School 1 1 St Mary Magdalene Church of England Primary School 1 1 St Mary's Catholic Primary School 1 1 St Mary's Catholic Primary School (Battersea) 3 1 1 5 St Mary's Roman Catholic Primary School (Lambeth) 45 47 35 23 14 12 8 139 1 1 St Matthew's School 3 1 4 St Paul's Church of England Primary School 1 1 2 St Peter's Eaton Square CofE Primary School 7 3 3 1 1 15 St Saviour's Church of England Primary School 30 28 17 16 7 7 3 78 St Stephen's Church of England Primary School 30 22 11 13 8 7 3 64 St Thomas Becket Catholic Primary School 3 3 St Thomas of Canterbury Catholic Primary School 1 1 2 St Vincent de Paul RC Primary School 2 1 1 4 Stanford Primary School 2 5 6 6 2 2 23 Stockwell Primary School 60 60 51 41 36 28 17 233 Streatham - Christ Church Streatham Church of England Primary School 30 35 35 15 10 9 134 Streatham Wells Primary School 30 53 68 45 45 39 21 271 Strewart Fleming Primary School 1 1 Sudbourne Primary School 45 103 65 53 42 22 15 300 Sunnyhill Primary School 60 56 39 39 31 26 18 209 Swaffield Primary School 1 2 3 Telferscot Primary School 30 46 63 31 23 10 10 183 The Cathedral School of St Saviour and St Mary Overie 1 3 4 4 1 13 The Globe Academy 1 1 The Sherwood School 2 2 Tower Bridge Primary School 1 1 Trinity St Mary's CofE Primary School 1 1 2 Trinity St Peter's CofE Primary School 1 1 Valley Primary 1 1 1 3 Vauxhall Primary School 60 24 20 20 10 9 4 87 Walnut Tree Walk Primary School 50 29 19 12 6 13 7 86 West Thornton Primary School 1 1 2 Westminster Cathedral RC Primary School 4 2 2 8 Whitehorse Manor Infant School 1 1 1 3 William Morris Primary School 1 1 Wix Primary School 16 4 5 10 2 2 39 Woodlands Primary School 1 1 Woodmansterne Primary School 60 60 42 24 15 13 6 160 Wyvil Primary School 60 59 21 21 13 9 12 135 Grand Total 3124 3089 2374 1924 1366 928 641 10322

MEDSOC Review 2012

1. Introduction

1.1 After an Independent Appeals Panel (IAP) hearing held in July 2011 Mr Simon Hooberman (Chair of Governors for Hitherfield Primary) submitted a complaint to scrutiny. The basis of the complaint was due to, what he regarded as insufficient paperwork regarding a MEDSOC (medical/social) decision being presented at the hearing. A complaint was submitted to Scrutiny and the EECP Directorate informed Scrutiny attendees that a review of the MEDSOC Panel would occur to help ensure that a professional service is delivered to all vulnerable families seeking support via this criteria.

2. Current MEDSOC Panel Arrangements

2.1 Lambeth’s MEDSOC (medical/social needs) Panel is the multi-agency body which considers all applications made to Lambeth community and voluntary-controlled schools. These applicants seek for special priority to be given to their application over other distance based applications on the grounds of some extenuating medical or social need. Any child who receives a positive outcome is virtually guaranteed a place at the named school.

2.2 The LA’s admissions criteria for Lambeth community and voluntary-controlled schools are as follows:

i. To children looked after. ii. Siblings iii. Children with a professionally supported medical or social need that the school is especially able to meet. iv. Priority will be given on the basis of distance.

2.3 Agreed MEDSOC applications will not be prioritised over children looked after (i) or siblings (ii) in the above criteria.

2.4 Panel members will only be looking at and considering applications made by parents of non-statemented children. Panel members will need to reach a decision with regards to the following:

• Which application will be approved with MEDSOC priority, and

• Name the community/voluntary controlled school which the Panel feels would be especially able to meet the child’s needs.

2.5 All Panel decisions are final and are binding for both school and children. The has stated in the Admissions Code that:-

Where the LA is the school’s admission authority, the governing body is under a duty to implement the LA’s decisions on individual applications, and to act in accordance with the LA’s admission arrangements. Admission arrangements, in relation to a maintained school, are the arrangements made by the school’s admission authority for the admission of pupils to the school, including the admission policy. Admission arrangements therefore include the number of pupils to be admitted in each year it is intended to admit pupils; the criteria to be used in the event of oversubscription; any selective arrangements in use or envisaged; the application process including forms, timetables, co-ordinated arrangements, waiting lists; and admission arrangements for pupils with disabilities, special educational needs or challenging behaviour.”

2.6 Lambeth LA retains its responsibilities to formally decide which applications will be regarded as MEDSOC and those that will not via this panel. Though this panel will have a Chair, all final decisions should be regarded as panel decisions.

2.1.1 Composition

2.1.2 The MEDSOC Panel will comprise of the following:-

• A School Admissions Manager. • A representative from the Education Psychology Service (EPS) • A representative from SEN • A representative from a Lambeth school (Vacant post) • A representative from Early Years • A representative from Social Care • The Safeguarding Children’s Manager • A MEDSOC Panel Clerk, who will be a member of the School Admissions Team

2.1.3 Any member of this panel is eligible to stand for Chair.

2.1.4 In an effort to reduce carbon footprints, all Panel members will need to attend a meeting (if there are 15 cases or more) where these cases are viewed via an overhead projector. When the cases are less than 15 cases that need to be considered in one decision- making round, the cases will be forwarded to Panel members and then a ‘virtual panel’ will be held as members will submit their views electronically.

2.1.5 Both the Chair, the Clerk and at least two other members of the panel will need to be present at any meeting for it to be quorate. If the Panel cannot be quorate then all decisions will have to be made by a senior member of the School Admissions Team with the final approval coming from a director within the CYPS. This will ensure that coordination will continue and statutory deadlines met without them being hindered by rescheduled meetings.

2.2.1 Frequency of Panel Meetings

2.2.2 The MEDSOC Panel will formally meet twice per year to consider on-time applications. The first meeting will be held in January of each year looking at applications made on the grounds of medical /social needs to participating (that is participating in coordination) community and voluntary-control secondary schools, and once in March/April of the same year where they will consider the on-time primary applications for reception class.

2.2.3 Dates, times and venues of meetings will be organised by the Clerk as well as confirmation of panel membership. Each Panel meeting will normally lasts for the morning subject to the number/complexity of cases.

2.3.1 Panel Procedures

2.3.2 The Panel will consider cases and makes a decision about:-

• Whether or not to regard an application as a MEDSOC application • Which school the MEDSOC application status applies to.

2.3.3 Post Panel follow -up

2.3.4 Decisions are recorded by the Clerk who will ensure that the ARETE Impulse (School Admissions) database is updated and all applications regarded as MEDSOC will be prioritised above distance based applications.

2.3.5 Parents will be informed in writing of the Panel’s decision as soon as practicably possible by the Clerk. Parents have no right of appeal against the panel’s decision but can appeal to the independent Appeals Panel if the child does not receive an offer from their preferred school.

2.4.1 Decision-making

2.4.2 As noted above the panel will decide which applications will be considered as MEDSOC and which school(s) these applications should be prioritised to. The LA retains its responsibilities and therefore this formal decision-making process will not to be delegated but remain with officers of Lambeth LA.

2.4.3 The Panel’s decisions are made in the context of legislation and guidance such as The School Admissions Code.

3. Background to Review

3.1 The MEDSOC panel has been running for a number of years, mostly very successfully and with considerable support. A significant number of places are now awarded on the strength of MEDSOC panels and it is therefore timely to review the panel’s workings to ensure they are appropriate in the current environment. In addition certain events, and one particular case which went to appeal, led to a request that some changes in process be considered further.

3.2 Summary of specific case

3.2.1 Child A’s parents were applying for a reception place at Rosendale Primary, as she was due to start school in September 2010. Child A had a very mild medical problem; Glue Ear. The paperwork attached to the application form (and subsequently the appeals paperwork from the families doctors) clearly stated that the child’s medical need was no longer an issue and that the child’s hearing was now perfectly normal. The MEDSOC Panel, after they saw this professional documentation, decided that the case did not meet the MEDSOC threshold and so rejected the case.

3.2.2 Due to staff shortages in the School Admissions Team there were certain non-statutory duties that could not be done/administered. Volunteers from other CYPS sections were called in to help with a number of tasks to help ensure Lambeth Admissions met its required statutory deadlines.

3.2.3 To further ensure that such deadlines were met, some non-statutory tasks were not done, such as writing out formal minutes for all 70 plus MEDSOC cases.

3.2.4 This process is normally a two or three day process, as minutes taken at the meeting is then transferred to another database, where the mail merge is created from. After the details are submitted to the database the information is then duplicated and transferred manually to the individual child’s record on the School Admissions Database system (IMPULSE). The mail merge is created and then letters are formed, which are sent out to parents on Pan-London Offer Day, 4 th April. As all of this work was taking place at the same time of meeting the statutory deadlines for iterations and notification days, it was felt that to administer the full MEDSOC process at this point would hinder Lambeth Admissions from participating with the rest of London’s admissions process and widely damage our reputation.

3.2.5 To save time and ensure Lambeth were able to fully cooperate with the Pan-London timetable, the following procedure was administered for the 2010 Primary Admissions Round:

1. A laptop, with IMPULSE on it, would be brought to the MEDSOC meeting where the Clerk could access individual children’s records. 2. As each case was being considered, the Clerk would update the child’s records directly onto IMPULSE, with regards to the decision made by the Panel. This would ensure that we would have the live data available to participate with the Pan-London Admissions process immediately after the meeting without any further administration. 3. Parents would be informed of decisions via the notification in the Pan-London Offer Day letters.

3.2.6 As part of his complaint, Mr Hooberman suggests that:

1. The MEDSOC Panel provide a service that is highly professional and thorough service.

2. In all cases there should be ‘formal Minutes’ of its hearings and staffing levels should never compromise this.

3. The role of the Clerk should probably not be “an alternating role” and further recommends that this function should not be performed within the Admissions Team but should be taken on by the Council’s own department that performs these tasks, such as Democratic Services

4. Investigation into MEDSOC panel systems procedures

Investigating officer: Secondary Adviser

Stage 1:

4.1 Familiarisation with the procedural workings of the MEDSOC Panel:

1. The Terms of Reference 2. Outcome letter that is sent to parents outlining the panel’s decision.

4.2 Review of documentation by Graham Jackson and Sue Quirk (Primary and Early Years Adviser)

4.1.1 Findings

1. The procedure’s and processes as noted in the Terms of Reference (TOR) are clear and easily understood. 2. However, there are some issues of consistency with regard to abbreviations, acronyms official nomenclature in both the TOR and the outcome letter. Also suggested rewording a key sentence to provide for greater clarity.

Stage 2:

4.2.1 Responses were requested by GJ by email and telephone from a range of key stakeholders as follows:

1. Simon Hooberman (by telephone) 2. Peter Scott (Chair of the MEDSOC Panel) 3. MEDSOC Panel Members (Pat Walsh -Early Intervention Youth Advisor, Sarwan Jandu (on the behalf of Graham Griffin – Schools Safeguarding Manager, Adam Yarnold – SEN Manager, Julie Johnson – Education Psychologist) 4. Kate Atkins - Head of School for Rosendale Primary 5. Sue Quirk - Early Years Foundation Stage School Improvement Adviser 6. Matthew Mannion – Democratic Services Team Leader

4.2.1 The following responses were received:

4.2.2 Simon Hooberman : During this telephone discussion the precise nature of Mr Hooberman’s concerns was reconfirmed relating to the three points outlined earlier in this document. GJ offered brief feedback of emerging views on MEDSOC procedures arising from the correspondents above. Mr Hooberman’s main concern was to ensure that minutes and particularly outcomes relating to MEDSOC decisions should always be sent and received on time. He cited the example of one parent who did not receive any notification. He also reiterated his view that the MEDSOC panel should ideally not be clerked or minuted by a member of the admissions team. Mr Hooberman did not accept Peter Scott’s view of constraints relating to either expertise in the area of admissions or the need to access the admissions data base which would preclude the clerking and minuting of MEDSOC panel meetings by a member of another council team. Mr Hooberman also did not accept that this would generate extra cost as it merely amounted to an internal reciprocal arrangement or at best an intra LA cost. Mr Hooberman’s continuing preference is for the MEDSOC panel to be chaired and minuted by Lambeth Democratic Services.

4.2.3 Peter Scott (MEDSOC Chair) Pre-MEDSOC Panel decisions on whether applications would be prioritised under this criterion was made in-house by School Admissions. I was the named responsible officer and would make decisions with other experienced Admission Officers, who assisted me in deciding cases in line with the community school admissions criteria. However, it was becoming increasingly challenging and difficult to make certain medical decisions, in particular, as none of the School Admissions staff had any professional medical experience.

I contacted some other LAs, who basically operated in exactly the same way as Lambeth Council. Hence in 2006, I decided to formulate the MEDSOC Panel.

4.2.3.1 Since the MEDSOC Panel was formed in 2006, we immediately made decisions on about 250 applications for our primary and secondary community schools. However, the main test of whether our decisions were sound would would be experienced via the scrutiny process at appeal hearings.

4.2.3.2 In my view the MEDSOC Panel has ensured that:

• Better decisions are made – we have a number of professionals with SEN, medical and social care experience, who provide much closer scrutiny to applications and help the panel deliver more informed, qualified and sound decisions. These decisions have been challenged at appeal hearings and the Council has been in a much better decision in defending its position when an offer cannot be made for a particular child at one of our schools. • Ensured that the Council is Code compliant – by providing a clear and fair way of processing such applications. Parents are fully aware of the Panel’s decision-making powers and make regular submissions to the panel if there has been a change in their child’s circumstances. • Provide a good service for some of our most vulnerable children – we have ensured that some of children that give us the most concern are placed in schools that they would not otherwise obtain a place in. This has improved the image of our service to many families, both to Lambeth and non-Lambeth residents. • Reduces carbon footprinting – An overhead projector is used at all meetings, which are held in a private room. The cases can clearly be seen by all Panel members. The clerk also logs into DataMap (the distance measurement system) in order that panel members can see home to school distances) IMPULSE Live (the School Admissions database, where panel members can see the full details of children’s applications and associated notes). • A robust decision-making model exists – Other LAs in London have asked Lambeth for their TOR and have mirrored procedures as far as allowed. This has presented Lambeth Council as a trailblazer. Many schools and LAs have copied our admissions criteria and now make panel based decisions.

4.2.3.3 I am pleased that the work of the Panel is being reviewed, as all systems should be reviewed to see if any improvements can be made. As Lambeth helped to trail blaze this initiative, it good practice for the LA to take a look at our practices and scrutinise it.. I was disappointed with some of the comments that Mr Hooberman made as the general feeling that I was getting from a number of other IAP members was that the work of the Panel was good. I do, however, understand that the MEDSOC Panel must ensure their work is above reproach and so feel it that we could comply with Mr Hooberman’s request accordingly.

1. The MEDSOC Panel to provide a service that is highly professional and thorough - This we have done and will continue to do in line with the reviewed and updated TOR.

2. In all cases there should be ‘formal Minutes’ of its hearings, and staffing levels should never compromise this – We have stated that this was not done for one admissions round and that this was a decision based on prioritising statutory workloads. We do normally take formal minutes but only resorted to this extraordinary decision for the primary admissions round 2011 as a bespoke arrangement outside of our TOR. We agree with this request and will seek to ensure that we take minutes at all hearings, as per usual.

3. The role of the Clerk should be “an alternating role” and should be performed by another department in the Council. –The Clerk is currently alternating as we have no service level agreement or otherwise with any other team/department to clerk the MEDSOC Panel. A lot of the work around MEDSOC decisions involves interaction with the School Admissions Database system and the Clerk would need not only access to this but also a good level of experience so they can navigate the system properly. Training to use this system takes months. There is also a licensing and cost issue as no-one is allowed to use the system without paying a substantial amount of money to the software provider. The Clerk will also need to be able to use DataMap measurement software.

This role only alternates depending on the availability of staff members at the time when the Panel will be considering cases. The letters must not (by law) be sent to families before offer day letters. They must be sent afterwards. Hence the Clerk also needs to work closely with the Admissions Team to ensure that timetables are honoured and that all follow-up work needs to be done with as little bureaucracy as possible. In light of the cost, expertise and case work factors associated with Clerking this Panel, I do not think this is a good way forward for the MEDSOC Panel to be outsourced to another Council Department (especially in the light of reshaping initiatives) at present.

4.3 Education Psychologist (MEDSOC Panel Member) - Most of our ‘in year’ Medsoc panel decisions are done via email. This is because we all work in different buildings and they are often just one case at a time. We only meet twice a year (once for Secondary and once for Primary) prior to the offer date as a face to face meeting. We met 25.1.12 for the Secondary panel. As you are aware we can only discuss community schools – so we are down to 3 (Lilian Baylis, Elmgreen and Norwood). I am not sure this is clear to parents. How other schools use their Medsoc criteria, if they have it at all, is something that is beyond our remit. I am not sure this is made clear to parents. We regularly ask for more information from admissions and extra documents (e.g. further reports from Social Care or the Police). I am not aware of how much training admissions staff have or get about what Medsoc is and what it can make decisions on. All the people that I have been on the Medsoc panel with, have always behaved very professionally. I have been a member from 2005. Incidentally I chair admissions appeals in another borough so am aware of the importance of clear decision making.

4.3.1 A member of the admission team makes notes during our discussions and notes the decision. This part of the process is all led and organised by admissions, so it is difficult to comment on what they write. I have not seen minutes of the meetings. It may be helpful (to save time and for accuracy) for the member of the admissions team to come with a spreadsheet list with all the names and DOB to be discussed so that the decision notes can be written directly onto the list. At the last meeting some time was spent copying the sometimes very unusual spellings of pupil names. Panel members have no further involvement beyond the meeting. I understand letters are sent out with the offer letters but we don’t usually see these.

4.3.2 I think the panel tries to weigh up all the factors associated with a particular case. There are Medsoc guidelines and we try to be as consistent as possible. Sometimes there are extenuating circumstances for a particular school and where the case is well made Medsoc would agree priority. No one in my experiences takes the duty lightly or unprofessionally as we are all very aware of the importance and anxiety the whole admission process causes both pupils and parents. From the outside occasionally decisions may look capricious but often outsiders do not have all the facts or documents.

4.3.3 To help parents and admissions staff, it may be useful to say in the school brochure that documents need to be current (i.e. no older than 2 years) to be considered. We often get reports 5/6 years out of date. Clearer advice about Medsoc needs to be in the brochure. It is currently a bullet point on page 9 and then on page 11 there is info about late Medsoc applications.

4.4 SEN manager (MEDSOC Panel Member ) Reiteration of points made above with the following additional points:

4.4.1 I think the actual panel meetings themselves are good, although they could be a bit better organised. There seems to be issues with IT as a recurrent problem. It could also be run more efficiently if Panel members had access to the papers prior to the Panel meeting so we can fully prepared with views.

4.4.2 A lot of the cases we look at could be ‘sieved’ out prior to the meeting as they clearly do not have the correct information – or they are not requesting a placement for a school that we can consider. I suggest that admissions go through the cases prior to the meeting so that the panel only consider relevant cases.

4.4.3 With the ad hoc cases we get throughout the year – it would useful to receive a response stating what the outcome was. We provide our views individually by email – but the actual out come is never shared. There also times when we request further information before a full decision can be made – but again this is not always responded to.

4.4.4 Finally looking at the current letter that goes out to parents (I hadn’t seen this previously) with MEDSOC outcome I think it should be carefully looked at again and re-written, as it is quite confusing for me to follow – so I imagine it could be even more so for a parent with English as a second language or with needs of their own.

4.5 Early Intervention Youth Adviser, Multi Agency Team (MAT) North Locality (MEDSOC Panel Member) - Chief amongst the MEDSOC panel’s strengths is that it consistently has a wealth of experience and knowledge around the table; this is working in partnership at its best. Peter is excellent at keeping us apprised of the most recent developments in admissions guidance and legislation. Also key is the organisation of the appeals prior to panel. We manage to make decisions often on up to as many as 40 appeals. Panel members have become very skilled at identifying key criteria required for a successful appeal.

4.6 Head of School – Rosendale - I have been a Headteacher in Lambeth for over a year and before that was a Deputy Headteacher with responsibility for Early Years. In both of these positions I have been involved in many appeal cases for Reception class places. I have always been impressed by the level of preparation undertaken by the Local Authority representative. My role at these appeal hearings is to put forward the school's point of view and not to discuss the admissions process or any representation to a Med Soc Panel. I am in the fortunate position that I know the representative from Lambeth will have all that necessary information and will be able to explain it to myself, the parents and the panel at the appeal hearing. In all of my experiences, there has been a very clear explanation of the reasoning behind any Med Soc panel decision and I have never been in a position to question their findings. From my perspective the process is working well. I find the Local Authority supportive and well informed.

4.7 Democratic Services - Democratic Services does not deal with MEDSOC panels directly. However, they are raised at Education Admission appeals regularly (including the results of MEDSOC panel hearings) either as a possible course of action that could be considered or as an action that has already taken place.

4.7.1 On some occasions parents have expressed concerns about the MEDSOC process or have demonstrated a lack of understanding as to what had actually happened It does not help the case for the admissions authority at appeals hearings if parents challenge the MEDSOC process and no written evidence can be provided to show that the process was correctly followed.

4.7.2 As always Democratic Services are available to discuss good governance arrangements for managing panels if that was considered useful.

5. Conclusions

5.1 Available evidence suggests that the MEDSOC panel has been a useful innovation with many positive features in terms of shared expertise and the ability to make decisions often from multiple applications on the basis of clear and fair criteria. Terms of reference and outcome letters were felt to be generally clear, although in need of some updating and clearer use of language on some individual points. These have been highlighted and sent to the Chair of MEDSOC for amendment. Panel members are largely positive about the work of the panel but do highlight aspects which would benefit from improvement in terms of working practices. These areas for improvement relating to sharing minutes and outcomes affirm some of the concerns raised by Mr Hooberman. It is reflective of good practice to ensure that systems are in place for providing minutes and outcomes to all members of the panel. It would seem to be particularly important that parental applicants receive notification of MEDSOC panel decisions within a stated time.

5.2 A difference of opinion remains concerning possibilities about (1) the clerking of the meeting and (2) the extent to which the Chair of the MEDSOC Panel’s position is relating to constraints concerning specialist knowledge, expertise and access to databases. Taking into consideration the need to avoid additional financial charges the Chair’s view should be upheld.

6. Recommendations.

1. That minor amendments should be made to TOR and outcome letter as outlined.

2. That all minutes of all meetings should be circulated in an agreed format as soon as possible after each MEDSOC panel meeting.

3. That outcomes and decisions on the basis of MEDSOC appeals are made within an agreed timescale to parents and carers.

4. Given the issues relating to internal charges and Mr Scott’s evidence about the need to access the admssions data base, the recommendation is that clerking should remain within admissions team on the grounds of efficiency and cost effectiveness.

7. Provide an update on school admissions (i.e.: summary of new Admissions Codes & Direct Offer By Schools (DOBS) initiative)

7.1 General Summary

7.2 The current School Admissions Code and School Admission Appeals Code came into force on 1 February, along with the following supporting regulations:

• The School Admissions (Admission Arrangements and Co-ordination of Admission Arrangements)(England) Regulations 2012 • The School Admissions (Appeals Arrangements)(England)Regulations 2012 • The School Admissions (Infant Class Sizes) (England)Regulations 2012

7.3 The School Admissions Code takes full effect on admissions arrangements being locally determined in respect of the pupil intake for the 2013/14 academic year and thereafter. However, for appeals lodged on or after 1 February 2012, these will be dealt with under the Appeals Regulations 2012 and the School Admission Appeals Code.

7.4 The Codes and supporting regulations are available to download from http://www.education.gov.uk/schools/adminandfinance/schooladmissions/a00195/current -codes-and-regulations

7.5 Summary of Admissions Code

• The Code allows “good” schools to increase the number of school places available by making it easier for popular schools to take more pupils • It also requires an improvement (not deletion) of the current in-year applications scheme so fewer children face delays in finding a new school. (In-year applications happen when a child moves to a new area during the academic year) • It gives priority to children of school staff when a school is over-subscribed, if the school wishes, making it easier for schools to recruit teachers and other staff. This is currently unpopular amongst many Councils as this could disadvantage local children, especially in areas where the need for school places. • It strengthens the military covenant by allowing children of armed forces personnel to be admitted to infant classes even if it takes the class over the 30- pupil limit • It allows twins and other multiple-birth children to be admitted to infant classes even if it takes the class over the 30-child limit • It bans local authorities from using area-wide “lotteries” • It proposes to reduce bureaucracy by requiring admissions authorities to consult on admissions arrangements every seven years (rather than every three years) if no changes are proposed. (They would still need to consult when they wanted to change their admissions arrangements). • Anyone will be allowed to submit complaints about schools and LAs to the Office of School Adjudicators (OSA). The OSA will also, for the first time, manage complaints made about Academies, as opposed to the Secretary of State. 7.6 Summary of the Appeals Code • Parents will have at least 30 days to lodge an appeal against primary or secondary school decisions. The current 10-day limit forces parents to appeal too quickly, according to the Code. • The rule that currently bans appeals from being heard on school premises is overturned. • The regulation for admission authorities to advertise for lay appeal members every three years will be cut. • In future anyone will be able to object to the Adjudicator. The draft code is also clear that local authorities will retain the power to refer any admissions arrangements they believe are not complying with the code to the Schools Adjudicator. The Adjudicator is encouraging this by proposing to make this a part of the OSA Report.

7.7 Direct Offers by Schools (D.O.B.S) Process – Lambeth In-Year Admissions ONLY

Background:

5.3.2 This proposed D.O.B.S process governs in-year admissions (for primary schools) for 2011/12 admissions year only. This process will be re-adapted/changed/deleted pending on the forthcoming Admissions Code.

5.3.3 Current law requires the following:

• All applications made for a school place must be made through the child’s home LA. This must be done at all points through the admitting year. • Admissions authorities must still maintain the responsibility of considering applications in line with their admissions criteria, if they are oversubscribed. • All offers must be made through the child’s home LA, though the school can still correspond with the applicant afterwards.

5.3.4 Though the above process is highly simplified, in reality it is much more complicated as the LA and schools still have to deal with in-year transfers, sibling and medical/social applications, etc. The sheer volumes of these applications being submitted to one team on behalf of all Lambeth’s maintained schools can cause a negative impact on the timing of offers, resulting in children remaining out of school for long periods. This D.O.B.S arrangement hopes to address some of this.

How D.O.B.S process works

5.3.5 The main aim of D.O.B.S is:

To ensure that children who do not have a current school place can be made a direct offer by schools. However, for this system to work the following need to be understood:

5.3.6 Definitions: Children who do not have a current school are:

• Children who do not have a current school place (this MUST be confirmed by the LA and not based on the parents word only)

• Children who have not previously submitted an iCAF to Lambeth LA and are not due to be made an imminent offer at another school .

5.3.7 Direct offers can ONLY be made:

• If the school has no waiting list (or there is a short waiting list and none of the children on that list want the offer – this can be confirmed by Lambeth Admissions)

Process

1. Family attend school wanting a school place

2. If the school has a vacancy/number of vacancies in the child’s year group, the school should call School Admissions on 07949 042 905 and query whether the child is known to Admissions or not

3. If the child is known to Admissions and an imminent offer is due to be made by School Admissions, then the school cannot make a direct offer . The school should simply refer the family back to Lambeth Admissions or Customer Services at Olive Morris House, whilst waiting for the other offer.

4. If the child is not known to Lambeth Admissions and the school has a waiting list, where offers will be made from, then the school cannot make a direct offer .

5. However, if Lambeth Admissions confirm with the school that there are no children on the waiting list for that year group, the school confirm that they have a vacancy in that year group, then the Admissions Officer will confirm with the school that a direct offer can be made. This will be verbal in the initial instance.

6. The school will then have a responsibility to ensure that they get the parent to complete a CAF (retrospectively) on the same day and forward that CAF to Lambeth Admissions.

7. The CAF will not arrive Lambeth Admissions on the same day, so the school must inform Lambeth Admissions of this offer via ATOMWIDE (secure document exchange) informing us of the child’s name, address, DOB, and parent details . The Admissions Team will then forward the parents an offer letter.

8. The school will be responsible for requesting proof of address.

7. Finance Comments

7.1 There are no financial implications regarding this review and its outcomes

8. Comments from Director of Governance and Democracy

8.1 There are no specific legal implications arising from this report. Specific advice will be provided as required.

9. Results of consultation

9.1 All parties involved with the consultation of this document have approved the findings and information contained.

10. Organisational implications

10.1 Risk management: None identified

10.2 Equalities impact assessment: N/A

10.3 Community safety implications: N/A

10.4 Environmental implications: N/A

10.5 Staffing and accommodation implications: None

10.6 Any other implications: None

11. Timetable for implementation

With regards to the MEDSOC Review: b

Event Milestone

Review completed 11 February 2012

Inform CYPS Lead Cllr 11 February 2012

Inform CYPS DLT 11 February 2012

Implement ratified recommendations With immediate effect

Report title here in Arial 8pitch