Cabinet Member for Education and Schools ES34 (12.13) March 2013 Key Decision: Yes Admission Arrangements for Community and Part I Voluntary Controlled Schools 2014/2015 Report by Head of Learning Electoral Division(s): All Executive Summary There is a statutory requirement to consult on admission arrangements each year. The proposals have proved to be largely uncontroversial for September 2014. Recommendation That the Cabinet Member for Education and Schools approves the admission arrangements for the academic year 2014/2015 as detailed in Appendix A of this report. 1. Background 1.1 The County Council is the admission authority for community and voluntary controlled schools in West Sussex. The admission authority for a voluntary aided or foundation school or an Academy (including a free school) is the governing body. 1.2 All Local Authorities must consult those parties prescribed by the Secretary of State for Education on their admission arrangements for September 2014 by 1st March 2013. Arrangements must then be determined by 15th April 2013. Any objections must be lodged with the Schools Adjudicator by 30th June 2013. 2. Discussion 2.1 Admission arrangements in West Sussex work well, as all children receive an offer of a school place on time; the overwhelming majority (91.3% in September 2012) at the school requested first by their parents. 2.2 In April 2012, the Cabinet Member for Education and Schools approved the current admission arrangements. There are some proposed changes to these arrangements, most of which are of a minor nature or result from the pre- consultation survey that was undertaken. Full details of these proposed changes are set out in Appendix A, together with a summary of the responses received to the consultation. 2.3 The proposed process for the starting school and transfer admission arrangements for 2014/2015 are set out in Appendix B. 2.4 Representatives of the West Sussex Admission Forum, a non-statutory body which advises on admissions issues, considered these proposals on 11th March 2013 and supported them. 3. Consultation 3.1 Regulations set out who should be consulted. Consultees include all schools, neighbouring Local Authorities, the Dioceses and parents. Consultation took place between 4th January 2013 and 1st March 2013 to comply with the requirement that the consultation be a minimum of 8 weeks. It was held later than usual due to awaiting the results of a non-statutory pre-consultation survey aimed at taking parents views on sibling priority. This survey received 655 responses, the majority of which were from parents. 3.2 A “banner” notice was posted on the WSCC website and advertisements placed in local papers. Schools were also asked to remind parents of the consultation in their newsletters. Responses to the consultation are summarised in Appendix A. 4. Equality - Customer Focus Appraisal 4.1 The Customer Focus Appraisal is attached to this report at Appendix D. 5. Resource Implications and Value for Money 5.1 The County Council’s admission arrangements are a statutory duty managed by the Pupil Admissions Team. The proposed admission arrangements will be implemented within the existing budget provision for this team. 6. Risk Management Implications 6.1 All Local Authorities must consult those parties prescribed by the Secretary of State for Education on their admission arrangements for September 2014 by 1st March 2013. Arrangements must then be determined by 15th April 2013 and published by 1st May 2013. Providing the admission arrangements are approved and are in accordance with the law and the School Admissions Code, there are no risk management implications for the County Council, parents/carers and their children. 7. Crime and Disorder Act Implications 7.1 There are no implications for the County Council’s duty to avoid or to reduce crime or anti-social behaviour associated with this report. 8. Human Rights Act Implications 8.1 The obligation to promote and to avoid interference with the human rights of any individual or group is not affected by this report. David Sword Susan Hawker Head of Learning Director Communities Commissioning Contact: Sue Garner, Pupil Admissions Manager, Admissions ext. 29102 Appendix A: Details of proposed changes and summary of responses Appendix B: Proposed process for the starting school and transfer admission arrangements for 2014/2015 Appendix C: Proposed Admission Numbers Appendix D: Customer Focus Appraisal Background Papers – None. Appendix A Notes on Proposed Changes to the Admission Arrangements for Community and Voluntary Controlled Schools in West Sussex for the Academic Year 2014/2015 and Summary of Responses Who Responded? The following responses were received: Primary Schools including Junior / Middle 32 Intermediate / Secondary Schools 4 Parents 5 Other (includes school staff or unspecified) 1 Neighbouring Local Authorities 1 Total 43 1. Coordinated scheme for September 2014 admissions The coordinated scheme covering the normal admission round is attached at Appendix B. The County Council is required to consult on the scheme and to confirm to the Secretary of State that the scheme has been determined. The timelines have been amended slightly as a result of experience in the 2013 round, but otherwise for secondary/intermediate transfer remain the same. For starting school and junior/middle transfer, the date for offering places is the Government’s national offer date for primary school places of 16th April which has been introduced from September 2014 admissions. Response: All the schools that offered comment agreed the proposed coordinated scheme. The Coordinated Scheme should be determined as in Appendix B. 2. Proposed change to introduce a sibling link between infant/first and junior/middle schools In the pre-consultation survey on oversubscription criteria, there was overwhelming support for an option to introduce a sibling link at an infant or first school where an older sibling attends the corresponding junior or middle school. This would mean that siblings links between these schools operated in a similar way to those within primary schools. We proposed to include a note in the oversubscription criteria that for infant/first schools there would be a sibling link with the named junior/middle school and to add a list of such schools as an annex to the oversubscription criteria. Response: The responses from schools to this question were overwhelmingly positive, with the exception of the response from one junior school, which was concerned that the change would lead to more children from outside the school’s catchment area being admitted to the school. However, the proposal was to affect admission to infant/first schools only, not junior/middle schools. One parent also disagreed, concerned that this might lead to siblings from outside a catchment area having priority above children living in the catchment area, which is not the case. Two infant schools requested to be added to the list with their “link” junior schools and this has been agreed. One may become an all-through primary school, subject to statutory consultation. The change to the oversubscription criteria should be agreed, with the list of linked infant/first and junior/middle schools approved as amended. 3. Proposed change to give “in catchment” sibling priority for families who were unable to be offered places at their catchment school We proposed that where parents had requested a place for their child at their catchment school and been unsuccessful in being offered a place, either because there were insufficient places at the normal round or they moved to an area after places were allocated, they should be treated as if they lived in the catchment area of the school the elder child was offered, while the elder child remained at that school. This would allow families the opportunity of getting their younger children in to the same school. Response: There were 33 responses to this proposal – 28 schools supported the proposal and none opposed it. Five parents responded – one opposed it as they thought this would disadvantage children from the catchment area, three stated they thought all siblings should have priority above catchment area children and one supported the proposal, explaining that they had been unable to gain a place at their catchment school and were concerned they would be unable to get places at the same school for their younger children. The change to the “in catchment” sibling priority in the oversubscription criteria should be approved as proposed. 4. Proposed change to the oversubscription criteria for Lindfield Primary School We proposed to introduce a second “priority area”, after the catchment area, for children living in the catchment area of Blackthorns Primary School in the oversubscription criteria for Lindfield Primary School. Response: There were 9 responses to this proposal from schools and all were in support, including the response from the governing body of Lindfield Primary School. The governing body of Blackthorns Primary School chose not to comment, as this did not directly affect the arrangements for their school. The oversubscription criteria for Lindfield Primary School should be changed as proposed. 5. Proposed change to the oversubscription criteria for Ifield Community College and Oriel High School The oversubscription criteria for the two remaining secondary community schools in Crawley currently include criteria giving higher priority to children living within the Borough of Crawley over other children who may live nearer to