LEAD MEMBER FOR EDUCATION AND INCLUSION, SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS AND DISABILITY
MONDAY 22 FEBRUARY 2016
10.00 AM CC2, COUNTY HALL, LEWES
DECISIONS to be made by the Lead Member for Education and Inclusion, Special Educational Needs and Disability, Councillor Nick Bennett.
A G E N D A
1 Decisions made by the Lead Cabinet Member on 21 December 2015 (Pages 3 - 4)
2 Disclosures of interests Disclosure by all Members present of personal interests in matters on the Agenda, the nature of any interest and whether the Member regards the interest as prejudicial under the terms of the Code of Conduct
3 Urgent items Notification of items which the Lead Member considers to be urgent and propose to take at the end of the appropriate part of the Agenda
4 Education, Health and Care Plans for 16-25 year olds (Pages 5 - 38) Report by Director of Children’s Services
5 Schools Forum – DSG position statement (Pages 39 - 52) Report by Director of Children’s Services
6 Admission arrangements for 2017/18 year (Pages 53 - 106) Report by Director of Children’s Services
7 Any urgent items previously notified under agenda item 3
PHILIP BAKER Assistant Chief Executive County Hall, St Anne’s Crescent LEWES BN7 1UE 12 February 2016
Contact: Hannah Matthews, 01273 335138,
Email: [email protected]
eastsussex.gov.uk This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 1
LEAD MEMBER FOR LEARNING AND SCHOOL EFFECTIVENESS
MINUTES of a meeting of the Lead Member for Learning and School Effectiveness held at County Hall, Lewes on 21 December 2015.
The following Members spoke on the items indicated:
Councillor Field - Item 4 (see minute 20) Councillor Pursglove - Item 4 (see minute 20) Councillor O’Keeffe - Item 4 (see minute 20) Councillor Shuttleworth - Items 4 and 5 (see minutes 20 and 21)
18 DECISIONS MADE BY THE LEAD CABINET MEMBER ON 12 NOVEMBER 2015
18.1 The Lead Member approved as a correct record the minutes of the meeting on 13 July 2015.
19 REPORTS
19.1 A copy of the reports referred to below are contained in the minute book.
20 EDUCATION COMMISSIONING PLAN 2015 - 2019
20.1 The Lead Member for Learning and School Effectiveness considered a report by the Director of Children’s Services which sought approval to publish the Education Commissioning Plan 2015-2019 and asked for permission to delegate authority to the Director of Children’s Services to amend the Plan prior to its publication if required.
20.2 RESOLVED to: (1) approve the publication of the Education Commissioning Plan 2015-2019; (2) delegate authority to the Director of Children’s Services to amend the plan prior to its publication if required; and (3) delegate authority to the Director of Children’s Services to update the School Organisation Policy in Appendix A of the Education Commissioning Plan 2015-2019 and the borough and district tables annually if appropriate.
Reasons
20.3 An ongoing commitment to the provision of education places in 2018/19 and beyond is essential if East Sussex County Council is to meet its ongoing statutory responsibilities. This is linked to the ongoing demand for primary school places and the predicted future pressure for secondary school provision.
21 EAST SUSSEX COUNTY COUNCIL'S (ESCC) CO-SPONSORSHIP ROLE IN THE EASTBOURNE ACADEMY TRUST
21.1 The Lead Member for Learning and School Effectiveness considered a report by the Director of Children’s Services which sought approval for East Sussex County Council (ESCC) to withdraw as co-sponsor for the Eastbourne Academy Trust.
Page 3
21.2 RESOLVED to approve ESCC’s withdrawal as co-sponsor for the Eastbourne Academy Trust and to agree to take the necessary steps to effect that withdrawal at the earliest opportunity on the appointment of a new sponsor.
Reasons
21.3 The policy context has changed significantly since ESCC took the decision to act as a co-sponsor. At the time The Eastbourne Academy (TEA) was established, acting as co-sponsor provided a mechanism to maintain close links with TEA. Now that the policy context has been clarified, acting as co-sponsor presents a number of challenges. For example, acting as co- sponsor for some academies and not for others creates an unequitable relationship between ESCC and its academy schools. This compromises ESCC’s responsibility to champion educational excellence across all schools.
(The meeting ended at 10.24 am)
Page 4 Agenda Item 4 Report to: Lead Member for Education and Inclusion, Special Educational Needs and Disability
Date: 22 February 2016
By: Director of Children’s Services
Title of report: Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCPs) for 16-25 year olds
Purpose of report: To set out the key issues which the Council faces arising from the extension of statutory Education Health and Care Plans up to age 25, including new guidance setting out when an EHCP may be appropriate for young people aged 16-25.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Lead Member is invited to approve the Guidance for Education Health and Care Plans for 16-25 year olds with Special Educational Needs and Disability (SEND) and endorse the overall approach.
1. Background 1.1 The report sets out the key issues which East Sussex County Council (ESCC) faces arising from the extension of statutory Education Health and Care Plans (‘EHCPs’) up to age 25 following the special educational needs and disability (SEND) reforms and outlines the work being undertaken to address demand for education provision.
2. Supporting Information
2.1 The Children and Families Act 2014 places new duties on the Council to support statutory E HCPs (which have replaced Statements of SEN) for young people potentially up to the age of 25. Previously many Statements ceased at the age of 16 and some young people were supported through Learning Difficulties Assessments (LDAs) to continue their education to 19 and exceptionally, beyond 19. The government does not envisage all young people will continue with an EHCP up to age 25, with the SEND Code of Practice linking the need for a continued EHCP, beyond the age of 19, to the need to secure educational outcomes and educational progress.
2.2 The new legislation places much emphasis on developing a more integrated approach in Preparing for Adulthood in respect of education, independent living, community inclusion and health, with the expectation of an integrated approach across care services, health and education for the most complex young people.
2.3 No additional funding has been identified by the government to support this extended age range for EHCPs.
3. Potential Impact
3.1 In August 2015 in East Sussex there were 559 young people identified in the 16-19 cohort with LDAs; a further 232 aged 19 plus known to the Special Educational Needs Personal Advisor (SEN PA) service in the Further Education (FE) system; and 245 not in education employment or training (NEET). There are 270 young people with Statements of SEN in Year 11. If all young people with statements were to have their statement converted to an EHCP this could lead to 710 EHCPs in the system for young people aged 16 to 19 by 2018/19 - an increase of 50%. Clear pathways and criteria for remaining in education are required to ensure the Council fairly and consistently carries out its duties.
3.2 For those young people with complex needs there might be pressure to continue with an EHCP given the current thresholds for receiving a service in Adult Social Care.
3.3 An Equalities Impact Assessment has been compiled and is attached as Appendix 2.
Page 5
4. Proposed approach
4.1 Three work streams have been set up:
(a) To develop guidance to support consistent decision making about the provision of services through an EHCP for young people aged over 16. The presumption for all young people is that they are capable of paid employment with the right preparation and support. Ensuring young people are employable is a central objective of any continuing education and training beyond 19. The Council expect to usually only maintain an EHCP post 19 where it is needed to support the young person to make progress towards education and training outcomes which are linked to employability or if more time is required to reach educational outcomes that have previously been agreed. Draft guidance was produced in September 2015 following a key stakeholders event and work with young people. The guidance has been circulated to Schools and Colleges for comment and has been the subject of public consultation on the Council’s website. Three responses were received, one from a school; one from a parent and one from a member of staff working in ISEND. They were in broad agreement with the proposed guidance, but raised the following points:
The need to develop a wider range of courses for young people with special educational needs and disability, which would be available locally. The need to take account of the challenges presented for some young people with mental health issues. Disappointment that the consultation had been restricted to a few questions.
Lead Member is asked to approve the guidance which is attached in Appendix 1. It is proposed to implement the guidance from February 2016, following member approval.
(b) To deliver the Preparing for Adulthood requirements through a pathway planning approach, with the Transition team and Assessment and Planning team working together with individual young people and their families. Consideration is being given to the most appropriate assessment tools in relation to EHCPs as young people move towards adulthood. This work is being led by ISEND.
(c) To ensure a range of services for 16-25 is developed through the SEN strategy focussed on local provision.
5. Timescales Activity By when Research and development of draft guidance for EHCPs for 16-25 Mid-September year olds Stakeholder event and young people engagement to inform draft 23 September guidance Consultation on draft guidance , including with schools 1-21 October
Finalise guidance and submission to SMT Early December
CMT meeting January 2016
Lead Member sign off 22 February 2016
Implementation of guidance March 2016
Development and implementation of new assessment tools and January 2016 approaches for 16-25 years olds with EHCPs Provision/services developed through the SEN strategy On-going
Page 6
6. Conclusion and reasons for recommendations
6.1 This work impacts on both the provision of education for young people with SEND aged 16- 25 and the transition services and support provided to young people, with the most complex needs, as they move into adulthood.
6.2 The Lead Member is recommended to approve the guidance and endorse the overall approach.
STUART GALLIMORE Director of Children’s Services
Contact officer: Alison Borland Tel: 01323 466030 [email protected]
Appendices
Appendix 1 – Guidance for Education, Health and Care Plans for 16-25 year olds with SEND. Appendix 2 – Equality Impact Assessment
Page 7 This page is intentionally left blank Appendix 1
Preparing for Adulthood framework
Guidance for Education, Health and Care Plans for 16-25 year olds with SEND
Introduction The Council is ambitious for children and young persons with special educational needs and disability. The Council recognises the importance of ensuring a smooth transition to adulthood for such children and young persons. For those with the most complex needs the Council is committed to providing an integrated approach across education, care and health to ensure a smooth transition into adult services.
As young people with special educational needs move into adulthood it will be important for their Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP) to support their aims for employment and training, for independent living, for good health and community involvement.
The expectation is that the EHCP will serve as the coordinating Plan for young people with the highest levels of SEN up to the age of 19, by which time planning for their adulthood in terms of employment, care, health and community involvement should be secure. Between the age 16 and 19 the SEN Assessment and Planning team will identify education and training outcomes that support employability. Some of these outcomes may need to continue after the young person reaches the age of 19. There will also be a focus on supporting independent living, maintaining good health in adult life, and participation in society.
The presumption for all young people is that they are capable of paid employment with the right preparation and support. Ensuring young people are employable is a central objective of any continuing education and training beyond 19. The Council expect to usually only maintain an EHCP post 19 where it is needed to support the young person to make progress towards education and training outcomes which are linked to employability, or if more time is required to reach educational outcomes that have been agreed previously.
It is expected that the majority of young people who have special educational needs or disability will be identified before they reach the age of 16, and that those assessed as having the highest levels of needs will have an Education Health and Care Plan in place. The EHCP will identify long term education and training outcomes for the young person to be achieved by the time they reach adulthood. The aim is to start identifying the most appropriate education and training, care and health pathways as part of the Preparation for Adulthood review process starting at age 14 taking account of the child or young person’s aspirations and abilities, and, for those with the most complex needs, to ensure planning is integrated across education, health and social care. It is anticipated that at 16, at the end of Key stage 4, many young people will be able to secure their education and training outcomes by progressing onto a College course where any necessary additional support can be provided through a College based Plan.
Page 9
The Preparing for Adulthood review process will be underpinned by the following values and principles
- A focus on the interests and aims of the young person for their future, which is forward looking and based around pathway planning - Open and transparent communication between professionals, the young person and their family - Clarity about the level of special needs of the young person and the type of arrangements and support required for their education beyond the age of 16 - A proportionate approach which recognises some young people may require more support than others to plan their future - A recognition that continued education may not be the most appropriate pathway for all young people with SEND ( especially at 19+)
After compulsory school age (the year in which the child turns 16), under statute the right to make requests and decisions applies to a child or young person directly rather than their parents. Parents or other family members can continue to support a young person provided that young person is happy for them to do so. In the vast majority of cases parents and family members remain central to planning, and the local authority seek to continue to involve them in the vast majority of decisions.
Post 16 SEND Education and training pathways The Council has identified four education and training pathways that will be followed for young persons aged 16+, save in the most exceptional circumstances. These pathways are not mutually exclusive, will be applied on an individual basis dependent on a range of factors, including need and aspiration. The identified pathways are:
Pathway 1: Moving onto a College study programme, with a College based Plan at 16+ with the aim of being able to access employment opportunities, progressing to employment/employment related training or education or Higher Education at 18/19 .This pathway does not require the yopung person to have an EHCP.
Pathway 2: Moving onto a more intensively resourced College study programme/remaining at school sixth form, with the aim being able to access employment opportunities/ progressing to employment/employment related training or education or Higher Education at 18/19;
Pathway 3: Moving onto an apprenticeship/traineeship/supported internship/other employment related provision;
Pathway 4: Remaining at a non-maintained special school or moving to a Independent Specialist provider with the aim of being able to access employment opportunities, progressing to employment/employment related training or education or Higher Education at 18/19, or moving into the adult social care system with the maximum degree of independence possible. For a few young people with the most complex needs the pathway may be to the continuing healthcare adult pathway. It is envisioned this pathway will be
Page 10
provided only to those with the most complex needs or those with low incidence/high cost special educational needs.
By the time the young person reaches 19 it is expected that many of them will have achieved their educational outcomes and will be able to access employment opportunities, higher education or will be moving into the adult social care system. Some young people with Education Heath and Care Plans will need longer to reach their educational and training outcomes and their education and training may continue beyond the age of 19. Regular Preparing for Adulthood reviews (at least once every 12 months) will continue to take place for students aged 16-19 with an EHCP with a particular focus on long term planning.
Criteria for an EHCP post 16 The following criteria will guide the Local Authority when considering whether or not a young person aged 16-25 requires their EHCP to continue to be in place in order to meet their education and training outcomes:
That they continue to have special educational needs requiring the additional resources only available through an EHCP
They are attending a study programme which (at minimum) addresses personal and social skills, vocational interests and literacy/numeracy skills
Preparing for Adulthood reviews have been undertaken and a long term progression plan with realistic outcomes is in place
The total level of education funding required for the student is beyond core SEN funding available to schools and Colleges
Additional criteria will be considered for young people aged 19-25 as follows
Whether or not the education and training outcomes in the Plan have been met
Whether the young person needs or would benefit from more education in order to achieve their agreed education and training outcomes
Whether the young person wants to remain in education and training so they can complete and consolidate their learning. This will in turn contribute to securing employability for the young person
The young person needs more time to reach their long term education and training outcomes but is making definable progress
The young person is able to demonstrate the ability to learn new things or apply learnt processes to new situations
If it is determined by the Council that a EHCP is no longer necessary it may cease the plan. In making a decision to cease a EHCP, the Council will have regard to whether the educational and training outcomes specified in the plan have been achieved.
Page 11
Progression through each pathway and specific criteria is set out below
Pathw Pathway Pathways specific criteria Pathway Pathway specific Long term ay criteria outcome/destination aged 16-19 aged 19-25
1 Moving onto local FE College Not applicable Either staying in an FE Not applicable Employment with College based support plan College with College based opportunities , support plan or, if criteria employment related are met, no further training/education or education and training Higher education provision and/or Page 12 Page
Support from Adult social care service – support at home; day service support/respite; accommodation based support through supported living; shared lives placements; residential care
2 Remaining at local school Analysis of the Transfer from school to local A new course will Employment provision or moving to local FE arrangements/support FE College/remaining at normally be a opportunities , College with an EHCP required. Local FE College course with progression from employment related Progress to be evidenced an EHCP previous courses training/education or
and differentiated. studied. Higher education
Analysis of the and/or arrangements/support required. Support from Adult social care service – support at Progress to be home; day service evidenced and support/respite; differentiated. accommodation based support through
supported living; shared lives placements; residential care Page 13 Page 3 Moving onto an There must be evidence of Moving onto, or progressing There must be Employment apprenticeship/traineeship/ educational progress at a in, evidence of opportunities , supported internship/other level which is sufficient to apprenticeship/traineeship/s educational progress employment related employment related provision lead to employability upported internship/other at a level which is training/education or employment related sufficient to lead to Higher education provision employability And/or
Support from Adult social care service – support at home; day service support/respite; accommodation based support through supported living; shared lives placements;
residential care
4 Remaining at a non-maintained A range of local Moving to an Independent Any new course must Employment special school or moving to a mainstream options to Specialist provider be a progression from opportunities , Independent Specialist provider meet the agreed previous courses employment related educational outcomes have studied. training/education or been fully considered and Higher education A range of local there is evidence they are not suitable and cannot mainstream options And/or meet the young persons to meet the agreed educational outcomes Support from Adult social agreed educational have been fully care service – support at outcomes home; day service considered and there support/respite; Evidence of educational is evidence they are Page 14 Page assessments undertaken by not suitable and accommodation based local providers which cannot meet the support through supported living; shared demonstrate why they are young persons agreed lives placements; unable to put in place the educational outcomes arrangements required to residential care Evidence of meet the young person’s educational Or continuing healthcare educational outcomes (This adult pathway should include assessments undertaken by local consideration of specialist support budgets to provide providers which additional resources for demonstrate why they are unable to put in medical or therapy needs ) place the arrangements required to meet the young person’s
educational outcomes (This should include consideration of specialist support budgets to provide additional resources for medical or therapy needs)
Page 15 Page
New entrants 16-25 It is expected that the number of young people requesting an EHCP for the first time aged 16-25 will be very small as the Council expect to identify and manage the SEND of children and young persons at a younger age than 16. Those young people aged 16-25 who will request an EHCP for the first time may include:
A young person with a disability who has recently moved to England from elsewhere; A young person who has developed or recently been assessed as having a special educational needs (for example a serious mental health condition/ brain injury) Where a young person’s disability is becoming more apparent as they reach adulthood and move to independence Where a young person was well supported through the Local Offer while at school, but moves to an FE college where the same level of support is not available
Young people aged 16-25 have the right to request an assessment for an EHCP; such requests can also be made by a person acting on behalf of the young person or from a College, other education provider or school. Requests will be considered individually, and the Council will make a decision and communicate it to the young person or young person’s parent within 6 weeks of receiving the request. Should a request be refused, the Council will provide reasons. Such a decision may be appealed to the Tribunal.
In deciding whether an EHC assessment is necessary, the Council will decide whether there is evidence that despite the young person’s school or post-16 institution having taken relevant and purposeful action to identify, assess and meet the special educational needs of the young person, the young person has not made expected progress. The Council will take into account a wide range of evidence but will pay particular attention to:
evidence of the young person’s academic attainment and rate of progress; information about the nature, extent and context of the child or young person’s SEN; evidence that where progress has been made, it has only been as the result of much additional intervention and support over and above that which is usually provided; evidence of the child or young person’s physical, emotional and social development and health needs, drawing on relevant evidence from clinicians and other health professionals and what has been done to meet these by other agencies, and where a young person is aged over 18, the local authority must consider whether the young person requires additional time, in comparison to the majority of others of the same age who do not have special educational needs, to complete their education or training. Remaining in formal education or training should help young people to achieve education and training outcomes, building on what they have learned before and preparing them for adult life.
Page 16 Summer 2009
Appendix 2
Equality Impact Assessment
Strategy or Policy Template
Name of the strategy or policy
Education, Health and Care Plans for 16-25 year olds
File ref: Issue No:
Date of Issue: Review date:
Contents
Part 1 The Public Sector Equality Duty and Equality Impact Assessments (EIA) ..... 2
Part 2 – Aims and implementation of the proposal, strategy or policy ...... 5
Part 3 – Methodology, consultation, data and research used to determine impact on protected characteristics...... 7
Part 4 – Assessment of impact ...... 8
Part 5 – Conclusions and recommendations for decision makers ...... 18
Part 6 – Equality impact assessment action plan...... 20
(a) 6.1 Accepted Risk ...... 21
Page 17 Page 1 of 21 Equality Impact Assessment Revised Version 4 Nov 2011
Part 1 The Public Sector Equality Duty and Equality Impact Assessments (EIA)
1.1 The Council must have due regard to its Public Sector Equality Duty when making all decisions at member and officer level. An EIA is the best method by which the Council can determine the impact of a proposal on equalities, particularly for major decisions. However, the level of analysis should be proportionate to the relevance of the duty to the service or decision.
1.2 This is one of two forms that the County Council uses for Equality Impact Assessments, both of which are available on the intranet. This form is designed for any proposal, strategy or policy. The other form looks at services or projects.
1.3 The Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) The public sector duty is set out at Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. It requires the Council, when exercising its functions, to have “due regard‟ to the need to
Eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct that is prohibited under the Act.
Advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it;
Foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it. (see below for “protected characteristics”
These are sometimes called equality aims.
1.4 A “protected characteristic‟ is defined in the Act as: age; disability; gender reassignment; pregnancy and maternity; race (including ethnic or national origins, colour or nationality) religion or belief; sex; sexual orientation.
Marriage and civil partnership are also a protected characteristic for the purposes of the duty to eliminate discrimination.
The previous public sector equalities duties only covered race, disability and gender.
1.5 East Sussex County Council also considers the following additional groups/factors when carry out analysis: Carers – A carer spends a significant proportion of their life providing unpaid support to family or potentially friends. This could be caring for a relative, partner or friend who is ill, frail, disabled or has mental health or substance misuse problems. [Carers at the Heart of 21stCentury Families and Communities, 2008] Literacy/Numeracy Skills Page 18 Page 2 of 21 Equality Impact Assessment Revised Version 4 Nov 2011
Part time workers Rurality
1.6 Advancing equality (the second of the equality aims) involves:
Removing or minimising disadvantages suffered by people due to their protected characteristic
Taking steps to meet the needs of people from protected groups where these are different from the needs of other people including steps to take account of disabled people’s disabilities
Encouraging people from protected groups to participate in public life or in other activities where their participation in disproportionately low
NB Please note that, for disabled persons, the Council must have regard to the possible need for steps that amount to positive discrimination, to “level the playing field” with non-disabled persons, e.g. in accessing services through dedicated car parking spaces.
1.6 Guidance on Compliance with The Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) for officers and decision makers:
1.6.1 To comply with the duty, the Council must have “due regard” to the three equality aims set out above. This means the PSED must be considered as a factor to consider alongside other relevant factors such as budgetary, economic and practical factors.
1.6.2 What regard is “due” in any given case will depend on the circumstances. A proposal which, if implemented, would have particularly negative or widespread effects on (say) women, or the elderly, or people of a particular ethnic group would require officers and members to give considerable regard to the equalities aims. A proposal which had limited differential or discriminatory effect will probably require less regard.
1.6.3 Some key points to note :
The duty is regarded by the Courts as being very important. Officers and members must be aware of the duty and give it conscious consideration: e.g. by considering open-mindedly the EIA and its findings when making a decision. When members are taking a decision,this duty can’t be delegated by the members, e.g. to an officer. EIAs must be evidence based. There must be an assessment of the practical impact of decisions on equalities, measures to avoid or mitigate negative impact and their effectiveness. There must be compliance with the duty when proposals are being formulated by officers and by members in taking decisions: the Council can’t rely on an EIA produced after the decision is made. The duty is ongoing: EIA’s should be developed over time and there should be evidence of monitoring impact after the decision. The duty is not, however, to achieve the three equality aims but to consider them – the duty does not stop tough decisions sometimes being made.
Page 19 Page 3 of 21 Equality Impact Assessment Revised Version 4 Nov 2011
The decision maker may take into account other countervailing (i.e. opposing) factors that may objectively justify taking a decision which has negative impact on equalities (for instance, cost factors)
1.6.4 In addition to the Act, the Council is required to comply with any statutory Code of Practice issued by the Equality and Human Rights Commission. New Codes of Practice under the new Act have yet to be published. However, Codes of Practice issued under the previous legislation remain relevant and the Equality and Human Rights Commission has also published guidance on the new public sector equality duty.
Page 20 Page 4 of 21 Equality Impact Assessment Revised Version 4 Nov 2011
Part 2 – Aims and implementation of the proposal, strategy or policy
2.1 What is being assessed?
a) Proposal or name of the strategy or policy. New guidance to determine when an Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP) is appropriate for a young person with special educational needs and disability (SEND)
b) What is the main purpose or aims of proposal, strategy or policy? To provide clarity and transparency for families, education providers and professional staff about the issues which will be taken into account by Council staff in deciding when an Education, Health and Care Plan is required for a young person aged 16- 25 with special educational needs and disability
c) Manager(s) and section or service responsible for completing the assessment
Jane Barker, ISEND consultant
2.2 Who is affected by the proposal, strategy or policy? Who is it intended to benefit and how?
Young people with SEND and their families. Providers of education and other services to young people with SEND and their families. These groups will benefit from the guidance as it will offer clarity about the issues which will inform whether or not they will receive a statutory Education Health and Care Plan as they prepare for and move into adulthood
2.3 How is, or will, the proposal, strategy or policy be put into practice and who is, or will be, responsible for it?
The guidance will be used by staff working in the Assessment and Planning team to inform their conversations with young people, families, and service providers about Education Health and Care Plan reviews and new applications. The guidance will be used by professionals in education and other services working with young people with SEND and their families, to explain the Council’s approach to special needs and disability services for young people aged 16-25.
2.4 Are there any partners involved? E.g. NHS Trust, voluntary/community organisations, the private sector? If yes, how are partners involved?
The following partners have been involved in the formation of the guidance- Adults social care transition service, East Sussex Parent and Carer Council representatives, young people with SEND at Sussex Coast College, College representatives , professional education staff . Consultation with all key stakeholders, including schools, will inform the final version of the guidance.
2.5 Is this project or procedure affected by legislation, legislative change, service review or strategic planning activity?
The guidance is being produced following the introduction of the Children and Families Act in 2014 which extended the possibility of maintaining a statutory
Page 21 Page 5 of 21 Equality Impact Assessment Revised Version 4 Nov 2011
Education, Health and Care Plan up to the age of 25 (instead of 19 as under previous legislation). The Council needs to be clear how this is to be implemented.
Page 22 Page 6 of 21 Equality Impact Assessment Revised Version 4 Nov 2011
Part 3 – Methodology, consultation, data and research used to determine impact on protected characteristics.
3.1 List all examples of quantitative and qualitative data or any consultation information available that will enable the impact assessment to be undertaken.
Types of evidence identified as relevant have X marked against them Employee Monitoring Data Staff Surveys x Service User Data Contract/Supplier Monitoring Data x Recent Local Consultations Data from other agencies, e.g. Police, Health, Fire and Rescue Services, third sector Complaints Risk Assessments Service User Surveys x Research Findings Census Data x East Sussex Demographics Previous Equality Impact National Reports Assessments Other organisations Equality Any other evidence? Impact Assessments
3.2 Evidence of complaints against the strategy or policy on grounds of discrimination.
3.3 If you carried out any consultation or research on the strategy or policy explain what consultation has been carried out.
Stakeholder event with key partners invited to attend. Participation event with small group of young people with SEND at local College. Consultation exercise through Council web site and with school/College community
3.4 What does the consultation, research and/or data indicate about the positive or negative impact of the strategy or policy?
Stakeholder event recognised the value of developing guidance and the need to identify flexible education and training pathways for young people with SEND. Stakeholders emphasised the importance of communication, forward planning and integrated approaches across Council and other services. Young people emphasised the importance they attached to their education programme and the ability to have an individual programme to meet their needs
Page 23 Page 7 of 21 Equality Impact Assessment Revised Version 4 Nov 2011
Part 4 – Assessment of impact
4.1 Age: Testing of disproportionate, negative, neutral or positive impact.
a) How is this protected characteristic reflected in the County /District/Borough?
There are potentially 2430 young people with SEND aged between 16 and 25 across East Sussex.
How is this protected characteristic reflected in the population of those impacted by the proposal, strategy or policy?
This is the population group which will be impacted by the proposed guidance
b) Will people with the protected characteristic be more affected by the proposal, policy or strategy than those in the general population who do not share that protected characteristic?
Yes
c) What is the proposal, strategy or policy’s impact on different ages/age groups?
This proposal specifically relates to young people with SEND aged 16-25
d) What actions are to/ or will be taken to avoid any negative impact or to better advance equality?
The impact of the guidance on the education outcomes being achieved by young people with SEND will be monitored
e) Provide details of the mitigation.
The guidance relates to new rights acquired by young people with SEND, so mitigation is not relevant. The impact of the guidance on the number of young people receiving an Education, Health and Care Plan and the educational outcomes they achieve will be kept under review and compared with outcomes (as far as possible) which were being monitored prior to the change in legislation.
f) How will any mitigation measures be monitored?
See above
Page 24 Page 8 of 21 Equality Impact Assessment Revised Version 4 Nov 2011
4.2 Disability: Testing of disproportionate, negative, neutral or positive impact.
a) How is this protected characteristic reflected in the County/District/Borough?
All the young people affected by this proposal have special educational needs and/or disability. Not all young people will be registered disabled, and not all registered disabled are impacted by the guidance. It is estimated up to 2430 young people aged between 16 and 25 with special educational needs will be affected.
b) How is this protected characteristic reflected in the reflected in the population of those impacted by the proposal, strategy or policy?
All the young people affected by this proposal have special educational needs and/or disability. This is estimated to be up to 2430 young people aged between 16 and 25
c) Will people with the protected characteristic be more affected by the proposal, policy or strategy than those in the general population who do not share that protected characteristic?
Yes
d) What is the proposal, strategy or policy’s impact on people who have a disability?
To provide clarity about when a statutory Education Health and Care Plan is appropriate
e) What actions are to/ or will be taken to avoid any negative impact or to better advance equality?
The impact of the guidance on the education outcomes being achieved by young people with SEND will be monitored
f) Provide details of any mitigation.
The guidance relates to new rights acquired by young people with SEND, so mitigation is not relevant. The impact of the guidance on the number of young people receiving an Education, Health and Care Plan and the educational outcomes they achieve will be kept under review and compared with outcomes (as far as possible) which were being monitored prior to the change in legislation.
g) How will any mitigation measures be monitored?
See above
4.3 Ethnicity: Testing of disproportionate, negative, neutral or positive impact. Nationality e.g. being a British, Australian or Swiss citizen Ethnic or national origins e.g. being from a Roma background or of Chinese Heritage a) How is this protected characteristic reflected in the County/District/Borough?
Page 25 Page 9 of 21 Equality Impact Assessment Revised Version 4 Nov 2011
Figures from the 2011 census show that 4.7% of the population aged 15-29 in East Sussex is from an ethnic minority background compared with 6.2% of young people with Statements of Special Educational Need aged 15-19. No direct comparator statistics are available
b) How is this protected characteristic reflected in the population of those impacted by the proposal, strategy or policy?
There is likely to be a slightly higher proportion of children /young people from an ethnic minority background amongst the population aged 16-15 with special educational needs and disability, than in the general young person population.
c) Will people with the protected characteristic be more affected by the proposal, policy or strategy than those in the general population who do not share that protected characteristic?
Slightly
d) What is the proposal, strategy or policy’s impact on those who are from different ethnic backgrounds?
In its application the guidance should be applied consistently across the 16-25 population. The legislation requires a personalised approach which should take account of any specific needs arising from ethnicity
e) What actions are to/ or will be taken to avoid any negative impact or to better advance equality?
The impact of the guidance on the education outcomes being achieved by young people with SEND will be monitored, including a breakdown of outcomes by ethnic background
f) Provide details of any mitigation.
The guidance relates to new rights acquired by young people with SEND, so mitigation is not relevant. The impact of the guidance on the number of young people receiving an Education, Health and Care Plan and the educational outcomes they achieve will be kept under review and compared with outcomes (as far as possible) which were being monitored prior to the change in legislation.
g) How will any mitigation measures be monitored?
See above
4.4 Gender/Transgender: Testing of disproportionate, negative, neutral or positive impact
a) How is this protected characteristic target group reflected in the County/District/Borough?
b) How is this protected characteristic reflected in the population of those impacted by the proposal, strategy or policy?
Page 26 Page 10 of 21 Equality Impact Assessment Revised Version 4 Nov 2011
c) Will people with the protected characteristic be more affected by the proposal, policy or strategy than those in the general population who do not share that protected characteristic?
48.8% of the population aged 16-25 is female and 51.2% is male
d) What is the proposal, strategy or policy’s impact on different genders?
Boys and young men are more likely to be assessed as having special educational needs requiring a Statement or EHCP. 74.1% of the population aged 15-19 with a Statement of SEN is male
e) What actions are to/ or will be taken to avoid any negative impact or to better advance equality?
Understanding the reasons for the gender balance of young people with disability is complex. It is thought there is a greater prevalence of certain types of SEN, such as autism within the male population, which is re-elected in the figures. On the other hand there is some evidence that females with SEN may be under recognised because their presenting behaviours may be less concerning in a classroom environment. Understanding the impact of these issues form a part of professional practice within the Assessment and Planning service and the Educational psychology service. On-going awareness raising with schools, colleges and professionals re gender issues is provided.
f) Provide details of any mitigation.
The guidance relates to new rights acquired by young people with SEND, so mitigation is not relevant. The impact of the guidance on the number of young people receiving an Education, Health and Care Plan and the educational outcomes they achieve will be kept under review and compared with outcomes (as far as possible) which were being monitored prior to the change in legislation.
g) How will any mitigation measures be monitored?
See above
4.5 Marital Status/Civil Partnership: Testing of disproportionate, negative, neutral or positive impact.
a) How is this protected characteristic target group reflected in the County/District/Borough?
This is largely inapplicable as very few young people with SEND who are continuing education will be married or in a civil partnership. Individual cases would be considered on an individual basis as required by legislation.
b) How is this protected characteristic reflected in the population of those impacted by the proposal, strategy or policy? Page 27 Page 11 of 21 Equality Impact Assessment Revised Version 4 Nov 2011
c) Will people with the protected characteristic be more affected by the proposal, policy or strategy than those in the general population who do not share that protected characteristic?
d) What is the proposal, strategy or policy’s impact on people who are married or same sex couples who have celebrated a civil partnership?
e) What actions are to/ or will be taken to avoid any negative impact or to better advance equality?
f) Provide details of any mitigation.
g) How will any mitigation measures be monitored?
4.6 Pregnancy and maternity: Testing of disproportionate, negative, neutral or positive impact.
a) How is this protected characteristic target group reflected in the County/District/Borough?
This is largely inapplicable as very few young people with SEN aged 16-25 are affected by pregnancy or maternity services. Individual cases would be considered on an individual basis as required by legislation.
b) How is this protected characteristic reflected in the population of those impacted by the proposal, strategy or policy?
c) Will people with the protected characteristic be more affected by the proposal, policy or strategy than those in the general population who do not share that protected characteristic?
d) What is the proposal, strategy or policy’s impact on pregnant women and women within the first 26 weeks of maternity leave?
e) What actions are to/ or will be taken to avoid any negative impact or to better advance equality?
Page 28 Page 12 of 21 Equality Impact Assessment Revised Version 4 Nov 2011
f) Provide details of the mitigation
g) How will any mitigation measures be monitored?
Page 29 Page 13 of 21 Equality Impact Assessment Revised Version 4 Nov 2011
4.7 Religion, Belief: Testing of disproportionate, negative, neutral or positive impact.
a) How is this protected characteristic reflected in the County/District/Borough?
b) How is this protected characteristic reflected in the population of those impacted by the proposal, strategy or policy?
c) Will people with the protected characteristic be more affected by the proposal, policy or strategy than those in the general population who do not share that protected characteristic.
d) What is the proposal, strategy or policy’s impact on the people with different religions and beliefs?
e) What actions are to/ or will be taken to avoid any negative impact or to better advance equality?
f) Provide details of any mitigation.
g) How will any mitigation measures be monitored?
Page 30 Page 14 of 21 Equality Impact Assessment Revised Version 4 Nov 2011
4.8 Sexual Orientation - Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Heterosexual: Testing of disproportionate, negative, neutral or positive impact.
a) How is this protected characteristic reflected in the County/District/Borough?
b) How is this protected characteristic reflected in the population of those impacted by the proposal, strategy or policy?
As above
c) Will people with the protected characteristic be more affected by the proposal, policy or strategy than those in the general population who do not share that protected characteristic?
No
d) What is the proposal, strategy or policy’s impact on people with differing sexual orientation?
No specific impact
e) What actions are to/ or will be taken to avoid any negative impact or to better advance equality?
staff training
f) Provide details of the mitigation
not applicable
g) How will any mitigation measures be monitored?
not applicable
Page 31 Page 15 of 21 Equality Impact Assessment Revised Version 4 Nov 2011
4.9 Other: Additional groups/factors that may experience impacts - testing of disproportionate, negative, neutral or positive impact.
a) How are these groups/factors reflected in the County/District/ Borough?
Not applicable
b) How is this group/factor reflected in the population of those impacted by the proposal, strategy or policy?
c) Will people within these groups or affected by these factors be more affected by the proposal, policy or strategy than those in the general population who are not in those groups or affected by these factors?
d) What is the proposal, strategy or policy’s impact on the factor or identified group?
e) What actions are to/ or will be taken to avoid any negative impact or to better advance equality?
f) Provide details of the mitigation.
g) How will any mitigation measures be monitored?
Page 32 Page 16 of 21 Equality Impact Assessment Revised Version 4 Nov 2011
4.10 Human rights- Human rights place all public authorities – under an obligation to treat you with fairness, equality, dignity, respect and autonomy. Please look at the table below to consider if your proposal, policy or strategy may potentially interfere with a human right.
Articles
A2 Right to life (e.g. pain relief, suicide prevention)
A3 Prohibition of torture, inhuman or degrading treatment (service users unable to consent, dignity of living circumstances)
A4 Prohibition of slavery and forced labour (e.g. safeguarding vulnerable adults)
A5 Right to liberty and security (financial abuse)
A6 &7 Rights to a fair trial; and no punishment without law (e.g. staff tribunals)
A8 Right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence (e.g. confidentiality, access to family)
A9 Freedom of thought, conscience and religion (e.g. sacred space, culturally appropriate approaches)
A10 Freedom of expression (whistle-blowing policies)
A11 Freedom of assembly and association (e.g. recognition of trade unions)
A12 Right to marry and found a family (e.g. fertility, pregnancy)
Protocols
P1.A1 Protection of property (service users property/belongings)
P1.A2 Right to education (e.g. access to learning, accessible information)
P1.A3 Right to free elections (Elected Members)
Page 33 Page 17 of 21 Equality Impact Assessment Part 5 – Conclusions and recommendations for decision makers
5.1 Summarise how this proposal/policy/strategy will show due regard for the three aims of the general duty across all the protected characteristics and ESCC additional groups.
Eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation and other conduct prohibited by the Equality Act 2010;
Advance equality of opportunity between people from different groups
Foster good relations between people from different groups
5.2 Impact assessment outcome Based on the analysis of the impact in part four please mark below ('X') with a summary of your recommendation.
X Outcome of impact assessment Please explain your answer fully. x A No major change – Your analysis demonstrates that the policy/strategy is robust and the evidence shows no potential for discrimination and that you have taken all appropriate opportunities to advance equality and foster good relations between groups.
B Adjust the policy/strategy – This involves taking steps to remove barriers or to better advance equality. It can mean introducing measures to mitigate the potential effect.
C Continue the policy/strategy - This means adopting your proposals, despite any adverse effect or missed opportunities to advance equality, provided you have satisfied yourself that it does not unlawfully discriminate
D Stop and remove the policy/strategy – If there are adverse effects that are not justified and cannot be mitigated, you will want to consider stopping the policy/strategy altogether. If a policy/strategy shows unlawful discrimination it must be removed or changed.
5.3 What equality monitoring, evaluation, review systems have been set up to carry out regular checks on the effects of the proposal, strategy or policy?
(Give details)
5.6 When will the amended proposal, strategy or policy be reviewed? Page 34 Page 18 of 21 Equality Impact Assessment Date completed: Signed by (person completing)
Role of person completing
Date: Signed by (Manager)
Page 35 Page 19 of 21 Equality Impact Assessment
Part 6 – Equality impact assessment action plan
If this will be filled in at a later date when proposals have been decided please tick here and fill in the summary report.
The table below should be completed using the information from the equality impact assessment to produce an action plan for the implementation of the proposals to:
1. Lower the negative impact, and/or 2. Ensure that the negative impact is legal under anti-discriminatory law, and/or 3. Provide an opportunity to promote equality, equal opportunity and improve relations within equality target groups, i.e. increase the positive impact 4. If no actions fill in separate summary sheet.
Please ensure that you update your service/business plan within the equality objectives/targets and actions identified below:
Page 36 Page Where incorporated/flagged? Resource Area for improvement Changes proposed Lead Manager Timescale (e.g. business implications plan/strategic plan/steering group/DMT)
Page 20 of 21 Equality Impact Assessment
(a) 6.1 Accepted Risk
From your analysis please identify any risks not addressed giving reasons and how this has been highlighted within your Directorate:
Can this be addressed at Type of Risk? Where flagged? (e.g. a later date? (e.g. next Date resolved (if Area of Risk (Legal, Moral, business plan/strategic Lead Manager financial year/through a applicable) Financial) plan/steering group/DMT) business case)
Page 37 Page
Page 21 of 21 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 5
Lead Member for Education and Inclusion, Special Educational Committee: Needs and Disability Date: 22 February 2016
Title of Report: Dedicated Schools Grant – Inter block transfer
By: Director of Children’s Services
Purpose of Report: To seek approval for transfers between the blocks of the Dedicated Schools Grant
RECOMMENDATION: The Lead Member is recommended to approve the inter block transfer of funds within the Dedicated Schools Grant, as outlined in sections 2.2 and 2.4 of this report.
1. Background
1.1 As in 2015/16 the DSG for 2016/17 is allocated in three blocks, each of which is calculated differently and is subject to separate regulations as to eligible expenditure. The use of the three blocks is outlined below.
The Schools Block comprises the individual schools budget which must be delegated to schools and academies through a funding formula. Maintained schools can agree to de-delegate budgets and these are spent on their behalf by the authority. There are a limited number of exceptions which enable local authorities to hold funding centrally.
The High Needs Block funds provision in maintained schools, academies, alternative provision, FE colleges and independent providers for pupils with high needs and central spending on pupils with high needs.
The Early Years Block funds payments to early years providers in settings and schools, and supports central spending on early years pupils.
1.2 In addition to these three blocks East Sussex County Council (‘ESCC’) also receives funding for 2 year olds as an additional funding block allocation.
2. Supporting Information
2.1 Schools Block Funding
2.1.1 The Schools block for 2016/17, based on the ESCC October 2015 pupil census data, is £273.4m. This figure includes additional funding of £4.3m for pupil growth.
2.1.2 The DfE have again negotiated a national agreement with the Copyright Licensing Association in respect of a comprehensive range of copyright licences for written material and music for all schools and academies. The DfE have notified ESCC of the charge for 2016-17. The sum of £302k (compared to £300k in 2015/16) has been earmarked for this purpose.
2.1.3 Growth and Falling Rolls Funds totalling £1.7m have been agreed by Schools Forum to support maintained schools and academies for Key Stage 1 top up, additional classes, pre-opening costs and dis-economies of scale costs for new schools and falling rolls.
Page 39 2.2 High Needs Block
2.2.1 For 2016 to 2017 the High Needs Block is made up of each local authority’s total high needs block from 2015 to 2016, adjusted to show each local authority’s share of the national additional top-up funding of £92.5 million based on their proportion of the 2-19 aged population projections for 2016. For ESCC this figure is £847k.
2.2.2 For 2016/17, the funding for non-maintained special schools (NMSS) is no longer included within ESCC’s High Needs block. The DfE make deductions for this at source and our available balance is net of the £1.69m NMSS deduction.
2.2.3 To reflect the full financial year impact of the change from a residency to location funding basis for the 2015 to 2016 academic year post-16 places and NMSS places, the DfE have made a further deduction at source in 2016-17 of £325k.
2.2.4 The total High Needs Block funding received from DfE for 2016/17 is £43.5m (including the additional top up funding referred to in 2.2.1 and deductions referred to in 2.2.2 and 2.2.3). ESCC has added £314k to this funding from reserves as agreed at the September 14 Schools Forum meeting, bringing the High Needs total to £43.8m.
2.2.5 It should be noted that for 2016/17 ESCC is requesting an inter block transfer between the Schools Block and High Needs Block of £700k. The pressures in this block are significant and additional funding is required to support the following areas: £576,000 to support the increase in number and cost of agency placements £156,000 to support the tutoring costs of unplaced pupils £280,000 to support the increase in place funding The sum of these pressures equates to £1,012,000, however (as per paragraph 2.2.4) CSD has held reserves of £314k to support the High Needs budget for 2016/17 which means that the net sum required (rounded up) as an inter-block transfer is £700k. This transfer request was approved by Schools Forum at their meeting on January 15th 2016.
2.3 Early Years Block
2.3.1 The 2016/17 Early Years (EY) block funding (excluding funding for two year olds) is £15.6m, which has been based on the January 2015 census data and includes £348k indicative pupil premium funding.
2.3.2 The entitlement for 3 and 4 year olds will be revised in July 2016 to reflect the January 2016 census data and will be reviewed by the Early Years Team.
2.4 2 Year Old Funding
2.4.1 The basis of funding places for eligible two year olds is based on actual take up rather than estimated numbers. Initial funding allocations for 2016/17 for two year olds will be announced in July 2016. This will be based on the number of eligible children participating in early education as recorded in the January 2016 early years census and school census.
2.4.2 The DfE have published 2016/17 per child hourly rates for two-year-olds that are unchanged from 2015/16. The average national rate is £5.09 per hour. East Sussex is among those authorities with the lowest hourly rate of £4.85 per hour.
2.4.3 The current hourly rate paid by ESCC is £6.00 (for those children on a Safeguarding Plan or Social Care Child in Need or Health designated Child in Need) or £5.00 per hour for all other children. Under ESCC current rates there will therefore be a shortfall in funding in 2016/17.
Page 40 2.4.4 Based on the fact that the take up of two year olds accessing a funded place in East Sussex has risen from 72.24% to 86.24% and given the shortfall in funding between what we pay and what we are funded for, Schools Forum has approved the request to Lead Member for a £257k transfer from the schools block to the 2 year old funding allocation.
2.5 Other Information
2.5.1 It should be noted that although schools will face cost pressures from changes to National Insurance contributions, the introduction of the living wage, inflation, the full year impact of the increase to the Teachers’ Pension Scheme and pay awards, the Government assumes that increased costs will be met by efficiencies, therefore no specific additional funding has been added to the DSG settlement funding for such items.
2.5.2 The Government has announced the introduction of the National Funding Formula from 2017, so ESCC is awaiting further details of the expected consultation on this.
2.5.3 Schools Forum met on Friday 15th January 2016 and voted their agreement for the transfer of £700,000 from the Schools Block to the High Needs Block and £257,000 from the Schools Block to 2 year old funding for 2016/17.
3 Recommendation
3.1 Lead Member for Education and Inclusion, Special Educational Needs and Disability is requested to approve the DSG inter-block transfer of £257,000 to 2 year old funding and a further sum of £700,000 to the High Needs Block, making a total transfer of £957,000 from the Schools Block for 2016/17.
STUART GALLIMORE Director of Children’s Services
Contact Officers: Fiona Wright Assistant Director of Children’s Services - Education & ISEND [email protected] Tel: 01273 481231
Mark Whiffin, Head of Finance [email protected] Tel: 01273 337114
Appendices
The appendices below provide a summary breakdown on the DSG.
Appendix 1 – Overall DSG summary (all blocks) Appendix 2 – Schools Block Appendix 3 – High Needs Block Appendix 4 – Early Years Block Appendix 5 – 2 Year Old funding
Page 41 This page is intentionally left blank Appendix 1
Early years (3&4 Provisional 2 Year DSG SUMMARY 2016/2017 Schools High Needs Year Olds) Old funding Total £ £ £ £ £ Total DSG including Academies 273,365,000 43,544,000 15,296,500 4,609,800 336,815,300 plus NQT Induction as per 2015/16 89,000 89,000 plus early years indicative pupil premium 348,000 348,000 Total DSG Funding as notified by DfE 273,454,000 43,544,000 15,644,500 4,609,800 337,252,300
Page 43 Page Less National Copyright Licences -301,876 -301,876
273,152,124 43,544,000 15,644,500 4,609,800 336,950,424
Interblock Transfers -957,000 700,000 257,000 Contribution from 2015/16 DSG 412,900 313,800 726,700 Appendix 1 Total Funding Available 272,608,024 44,557,800 15,644,500 4,866,800 337,677,124
as per DfE notification on Gov.uk website 18/12/15 This page is intentionally left blank Appendix 2 FINANCIAL YEAR 2016/2017 For Information Only (2015/16)
SCHOOLS BLOCK 2016/2017 £ £ SCHOOLS BLOCK 2015/2016 £ £ Schools Block DfE notification 273,365,000 Schools Block DfE notification 269,013,000 less National Copyright Licences -301,876 less National Copyright Licences -300,617 add NQT Induction 89,000 add NQT Induction 91,000 Funds b/fwd from previous years 412,900 add adjustment for non-recoupment 1,860,000 academies Proposed Transfer to High Needs -700,000 Transfer to HNB 0 Proposed Transfer to Early Years (2 Yr Olds) -257,000 Transfer to 2 Year Old Funding -200,000
Adjusted Schools Block Total 2016/2017 272,608,024 Adjusted Schools Block Total 2015/2016 270,463,383
Growth Fund Growth Fund
Page 45 Page Key stage 1 top up 662,600 Key stage 1 top up 727,000 Additional classes 748,200 Additional classes 769,500 New schools - Dis economies of scale funding 336,000 New Schools/Extending Schools 572,800 less 2015/16 carry forward -14,500 1,732,300 less 2015/16 carry forward -194,000 1,875,300
Falling Rolls Fund 9,000 Falling Rolls Fund 7,000
LA Central Budgets LA Central Budgets
Admissions 486,500 Admissions 486,500 Appendix 2 Servicing Schools Forum 92,800 Servicing Schools Forum 92,800 Combined services 7,405,014 7,984,314 Combined services 7,405,014 7,984,314
Funding of non-recoupment academies 1,860,000 Allocated to Schools & Academies 262,882,410 Allocated to Schools & Academies 258,736,769
Total 272,608,024 Total 270,463,383 This page is intentionally left blank Appendix 3
FINANCIAL YEAR 2016/2017 For Information Only (2015/16)
£ £ HIGH NEEDS BLOCK 2016/2017 £ £ HIGH NEEDS BLOCK 2015/2016 Block total 43,544,000 Block total 43,326,000 High Needs funding held in reserves, agreed at Sept 14 Forum High Needs funding held in reserves to support HNB for 16/17 (One off 383,000 c/f money) 313,800 meeting to add to Top Up funding (one off c/f money) Proposed Transfer from Schools Block 700,000 Transfer from Schools Block 0 Adjusted High Needs Block Total 2016/2017 44,557,800 Adjusted High Needs Block Total 2015/2016 43,709,000
Place and top up funding Place and top up funding
Special Schools and Special Academy place funding (pre-16) 8,430,000 Special Academy place funding - Pre 16 5,130,000 Special Facilities and Academy Special facilities - place 1,680,000 Academy Special Facilities place funding - Pre 16 1,090,000 funding (pre-16) Special Schools 3,930,000 Page 47 Page Post 16 place funding 956,000 Post 16 place funding - this will be recouped by DfE 910,000 Alternative Provision 1,400,000 Alternative Provision (College central) - place funding 1,283,333 Service Level Agreements 1,506,400 Service Level Agreements 1,503,489 Top up funding 15,476,600 29,489,000 Top up funding 15,565,375 29,372,197
LA Central Budgets LA Central Budgets Fees for pupils at independent schools 8,618,000 Fees for pupils at independent schools 8,042,000 Education out of School 1,270,900 Education out of School 1,114,900 SEN support 4,393,200 SEN support 4,393,203
Support for inclusion 680,500 Support for inclusion 680,500 Appendix 3 Servicing Schools Forums 22,200 14,984,800 Servicing Schools Forums 22,200 14,252,803
LA spending for Special Schools/Academies LA spending for Special Schools/Academies Ethnic minority and bi-lingual 8,500 Ethnic minority and bi-lingual 8,500 Special Schools contingency 33,600 Special Schools contingency 33,600 Free meals eligibility 10,800 Free meals eligibility 10,800 Insurance 31,100 84,000 Insurance 31,100 84,000
Total 44,557,800 Total 43,709,000 This page is intentionally left blank Appendix 4
FINANCIAL YEAR 2016/2017 For Information Only (2015/16)
EARLY YEARS BLOCK 2016/2017 £ £ EARLY YEARS BLOCK 2015/2016 £ £ Early Years Block DfE notification 15,296,500 Early Years Block DfE notification 15,221,000 Pupil Premium funding 348,000 Pupil Premium funding 348,000 2 Year Old Funding (Provisional) 4,609,800 2 Year Old Funding 4,336,159
Proposed Transfer from Schools Block 257,000 Transfer from Schools Block 200,000
Adjusted Early Years Block Total 2016/2017 20,511,300 Adjusted Early Years Block Total 2015/2016 20,105,159 Page 49 Page LA Central Budgets LA Central Budgets Funding to support 3 & 4 year olds with learning Funding to support 3 & 4 year olds with 200,000 difficulties or disabilities 200,000 learning difficulties or disabilities Early Years foundation incl training for Early Years foundation incl training for 419,515 moderators moderators 395,800 Statutory duty to ensure sufficient sustainable Statutory duty to ensure sufficient 23,500 Childcare places 8,000 sustainable Childcare places Appendix 4 Early Years Improvement team 694,300 1,298,100 Early Years Improvement team 787,800 1,430,815
Early Years Formula Funding (payments to PVIs Early Years Formula Funding (payments to 18,674,344 and schools) 19,213,200 PVIs and schools)
Total 20,511,300 Total 20,105,159 This page is intentionally left blank Appendix 5
2 Year Old EYEE Payments 2015-16 and 2016-17 For Information Only (2015/16)
Average Average Average Total Total Variance Average Variance number number Total Funding Funding Hours Funding Funding (Inter-Block Hours funded by 2016-17 £/hr funded funded paid/ Received Accessed paid/ Expected Transfer Accessed Inter-Block Children Children Forecast from DfE per week Forecast from DfE Request) per week Transfer per Term per Term £ Hrs Hrs £ £ £ Hrs Hrs £ £ £
Band A 6 50 14.45 164,730 133,157 50 14.45 145,041 122,637 Band B 5 1735 14 4,615,100 4,476,647 1,636 14 4,303,797 4,213,522
Page 51 Page Sub-total 1,785 4,779,830 4,609,804 -170,026 1,686 4,448,837 4,336,159 -112,678
FNP Children (Funded 5 40 14 35,700 0 40 14 35,700 0 one period early)
FNP Children (not 5 19 14 50,540 0 19 14 50,540 0 economically eligible)
59 86,240 0 -86,240 86,240 0 -86,240
-256,266 -198,918 Appendix 5 Rounded -257,000
This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 6
Report to: Lead Member for Education and Inclusion, Special Educational Needs and Disability
Date of meeting: 22 February 2016
By: Director of Children’s Services
Title: Admission arrangements for the 2017/18 school year Purpose: To determine the final admission arrangements for the 2017/18 school year
RECOMMENDATIONS The Lead Member is recommended to: 1) agree the proposed admission arrangements for the 2017/18 school year, including the following changes to the existing arrangements:
To restrict the application of the sibling link so that children living within the community area for a given school are a higher priority than siblings living outside the community area but including the proposed clarification set out in paragraph 2.6; To change the measurement of the home to school distance tie-break from shortest walking route to straight line; To allow applications received after the closing date due to verified house move or other material change of circumstances to be treated as on time if received before a second deadline
2) agree the following: The admission priorities as set out in Appendix 1 The admission numbers as set out in Appendix 4 The co-ordinated schemes as set out in Appendix 5
1 Background 1.1 The School Admissions Code 2014 states that admission authorities must determine their admission arrangements annually. However, provided the relevant admission authority is not proposing any changes to their admission arrangements, there is a duty to consult every seven years. 1.2 Consultation on the proposed admission arrangements as outlined in Appendix 1 was carried out between 23 November 2015 and 31 January 2016. This satisfied the duty to consult for at least six weeks and end the consultation period by 31 January 2016. 80 responses were received during this period and the results are outlined in Appendix 6. 2 Supporting information 2.1 Appendix 1 shows the admission priorities for community and voluntary controlled schools which the Lead Member is recommended to agree. Appendix 2 shows the admission priorities previously in use in respect of these schools. Appendix 3 outlines the reasons for these proposed changes. 2.2 The Equalities Impact Assessment is Appendix 7. The findings of the assessment were that, although the changes were likely to have a positive impact on some families and a negative impact on others, they were not likely to have a disproportionate impact on families with protected characteristics. 2.3 The response to the consultation was mixed, with 44% of residents favouring the change to the sibling rule and 56% preferring to retain priority for all siblings over local residents without
Page 53
siblings (based on a total number of 80 responses). However, and despite the proposed arrangements being laid out at the top of the questionnaire, we believe many respondents may have misunderstood what was being proposed and assumed that the sibling link was being withdrawn entirely. For example one respondent commented that ‘Withdrawing sibling policy will mean that children from one family will end up at different schools which will be impossible for working parents to manage’. Several others may have not understood that the change is to be phased in, so that it will not impact on families with children already attending the school (possibly because this was not pointed out in the online survey, only in the proposed policy attached). 2.4 Concerns were largely around the difficulties of transporting two children to different schools at the same time of day, and the need for siblings to support one another in the same school, whereas those in favour of the proposal felt that it was fair to prioritise local residents ahead of out of area siblings. A high proportion of responses in respect of the sibling change appear to be from parents in the Uckfield area, where the local paper ran an article about this aspect of the consultation, but which is unlikely to feel a significant impact from the changes, as the schools in that area usually have space for children living outside the area. With hindsight, had the mitigation of phasing in the changes been pointed out in the online survey rather than just the supporting documentation, this may have addressed these concerns and responses may well have been more positive. 2.5 There were also concerns expressed that this proposal reduced choice. However, there will be no impact on choice as parents will still have the same right to express a preference for a school, and to be offered a place if there are sufficient places available. The only difference will be that, if a school is oversubscribed, local children will be prioritised ahead of children who live outside the area, but whose siblings already attend the school. 2.6 For the future, families will be able to keep their children together if they apply for places in their local community school. It is therefore proposed to add an additional statement to the policy to explain that ‘where a child has been unable to secure a place at a school in his/her community area and has been directed to attend a school outside the area as an alternative, any applications for younger siblings to attend the school will be treated as if the family were resident in the community area, as long as the sibling will still be attending the school when the younger child starts.’ 2.7 The other two changes were less open to misunderstanding and were broadly supported by respondents. The proposed change to the tie break distance measurement proved particularly popular with 71% in favour, with comments such as ‘the new distance measurement will hopefully make it easier to see whether you have any chance of getting into the school of your choice’. 2.8 The proposed change to the sibling priority and the proposal to allow late applications in respect of verified house moves should help ensure that children are able to attend their nearest school. This may result in a reduction to the Home to School Transport budget as a number of children are transported at the authority’s expense because there are no places at their nearest local school. It may also reduce the number of appeals as parents are more likely to accept an allocated school if it is local to them. 2.9 These proposed changes should also reduce the likelihood of rural schools needing to call on contingency funds because they are unable to accommodate children moving into the area from their existing resources, even once KS1 top up money and growth funds have been allocated. 2.10 The proposed change to the tie break (measuring by straight line distance rather than shortest walking route) will result in operational efficiencies that will help mitigate against planned savings. Currently walking routes need to be kept up to date and surveyed and some activity is spent each year in disputes with parents about whether a footpath exists and is relevant for admissions purposes. 2.11 Appendix 4 shows the admission numbers for community and voluntary controlled schools for the 2017/18 school year. The Lead Member is asked to note that there are now two schools for which there is a proposed increase to the admission number reflecting planned expansion, these are Cradle Hill Primary School from 60 to 90 and Wivelsfield Primary School from 20 to 30. The proposal to expand Meridian Primary School will not now go ahead until 2018-19.
Page 54
3. Conclusion and reasons for recommendations 3.1 East Sussex County Council (ESCC) is required by law to carry out consultation on admission arrangements every seven years, or sooner if there are any changes to those arrangements for the schools where the local authority is the admission authority. The Lead Member is recommended to determine the attached admission arrangements for 2017/18 including the following three changes to the existing policy. These are: To restrict the application of the sibling link so that children living within the community area for a given school are a higher priority than siblings living outside the community area; To change the measurement of the home to school distance tie-break from shortest walking route to straight line; To allow applications received after the closing date due to verified house move or other material change of circumstances to be treated as on time if received before a second deadline. 3.2 The determined admission arrangements for community and voluntary controlled schools will be published on the ESCC website by 15 March 2016 as required under current legislation. Any objections to these arrangements can then be made to the Office of the Schools Adjudicator until 15 May 2016. The final arrangements will be published in the composite prospectus both online and in hard copy by 12 September 2016 as required by the School Admissions Code 2014.
STUART GALLIMORE Director of Children’s Services Contact Officer: Jo Miles Tel. No. 01273 481911 Email: [email protected]
LOCAL MEMBERS All.
BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS School Standards and Framework Act 1998 The School Admissions (Co-ordination of Admission Arrangements) (England) Regulations 2012 The School Admissions (Admission Arrangements) (England) Regulations 2014 The School Information (England) Regulations 2012 School Admissions Code 2014
Appendices:
Appendix 1: Proposed admission priorities for community and voluntary controlled schools
Appendix 2: Previous admission priorities for community and voluntary controlled schools
Appendix 3: Rationale behind the changes
Appendix 4: Admission numbers
Appendix 5: Co-ordinated admission schemes- normal year of entry
Appendix 6: Summary of consultation responses (including a letter from the Principal of Uckfield Technology Community College and the ESCC’s response)
Page 55
Appendix 7: Equality Impact Assessment
Page 56 Appendix 1
Appendix 1
Proposed Admissions priorities for community and voluntary controlled schools in East Sussex 1. Looked after children and children who were looked after, but ceased to be so because they were adopted (or subject to residence orders or special guardianship orders) immediately following being looked after. 2. Children who will have a brother or sister at the school (or linked infant or junior school) at the time of admission and who live at the same address, within the pre-defined community area* The definitions of ‘sibling’ and community areas are as shown below in the previous priorities. 3. Children wishing to transfer between a linked infant and junior school (as per schools listed in the admission booklet).
4. Other children living within a pre-defined community area Each home address within the county falls within a community area although living within the community area does not guarantee a place. The admission booklet ‘applying for a school place 2016-2017’ shows details of the community areas for each school. 5. Children who will have a brother or sister at the school (or linked infant or junior school) at the time of admission who live at the same address, outside the pre- defined community area.* The definition of sibling is as shown below in the previous priorities. 6. Other children living outside the pre-defined community area. Tiebreaker In the event of oversubscription within any priority, place allocation will be decided by prioritising applications on the basis of home to school distance measured in a straight line (as the crow flies). For split site schools, we will measure to the site where the child will attend for the majority of lessons. In the event that applicants cannot be prioritised using the tie-breaker above because the distance measurements are the same, the Authority will use random allocation to decide which children will be offered the remaining places. This will be done electronically using the Authority’s admissions software. * Children who have a brother or sister who joined the school prior to 1 September 2017 (1 September 2012 for Frant CE Primary School) and who is still on roll will be admitted under the previous arrangement which gave priority to brothers and sisters regardless of whether they live in the pre-defined community area or not.
Twins and children from multiple births (all community and voluntary controlled schools). Where the admission of both twins or all siblings from a multiple birth would cause the school to rise above its Planned Admission Number, both twins or all of the siblings will be admitted. Where the admission of the additional child or children from multiple births to an infant class would result in the PAN rising above 30 (or multiples of 30), the additional
Page 57 child/children would be exceptions to the Infant Class Size legislation throughout the infant phase or until the number in the year group reduced to the PAN.
Page 58 Appendix 2
Appendix 2
Previous Admissions priorities used for community and voluntary controlled schools in East Sussex 1. Looked After Children and children who were looked after, but ceased to be so because they were adopted (or subject to residence orders or special guardianship orders) immediately following being looked after.
2. Children who will have a brother or sister at the school (or a linked infant or junior school) at the time of admission.
Children are ‘siblings’ if they are full, half, adoptive foster or step brother or sister living in the same household. This priority includes siblings attending school sixth forms.
3. Children wishing to transfer between a linked infant and junior school (as per schools listed in the admission booklet).
4. Children living within a pre-defined community area.
5. Children living outside the pre-defined area.
Tiebreaker
In the event of oversubscription within any priority, place allocation will be decided by prioritising applications on the basis of the shortest route from home to school using surfaced, passable routes. Using our Geographical Information System (GIS) distances are measured from the child’s home to the nearest gate used by pupils at the school. The routes taken for admissions purposes do not include unmade footpaths and there must be a public right of way. For split site schools, we will measure to the site where the child will attend for the majority of lessons.
In the event that applicants cannot be prioritised using the tie-breaker above because the distance measurements are the same, the Authority will use random allocation to decide which children will be offered the remaining places. This will be done electronically using the Authority’s admissions software.
Page 59 This page is intentionally left blank Appendix 3
Appendix 3
Proposal to restrict the application of the sibling link so that children living within the community area for a given school are a higher priority than siblings living outside the community area:
In recent years there has been pressure on places in rural schools in a number of parts of the county. This has at least partly been as a result of families in urban areas choosing to send their children to rural schools rather than making use of schools in the town where they live. This fills the rural schools in the initial allocation process, leaving it difficult for them to accommodate children moving into the community area at a later date.
For September 2015 the situation in the rural schools surrounding Hastings and Bexhill is that, including siblings of existing pupils, over 40% of children allocated places lived outside the community area for the school in question.
Clearly we cannot refuse children places at out of area schools if there are spaces available (the School Admissions Code does not allow this), and nor would we wish to do so (this would have a potentially serious impact on school budgets). However, we do recognise that rural schools in particular serve a local community and that the needs of the local community should be prioritised ahead of those living outside the community area who choose to use the school as a result of preference rather than need.
The first proposal to alleviate this problem is to prioritise children living in the community area ahead of children with a sibling link who live outside the area. This would not prevent out of area siblings from being offered a place, but they would only be offered a place if all children living in the area had been offered a place already. This model is already in use at Frant CE Primary School, where it has had some impact on the number of places available to local children. If we were to explain to parents that if their older child is offered a place at their preferred school, there is no guarantee that the younger one will be able to follow them, this could act as a disincentive for parents to send their child further afield, freeing up places for local children moving into the area.
The introduction of this measure would not necessarily prevent families from outside the area from applying for rural schools, or obtaining places at them, but it would enable those schools to serve their local community as a priority in years when they are oversubscribed.
This strategy is not without risk: parents of existing pupils living outside the area may feel aggrieved that the priorities have changed since their older child was offered a place and for this reason it is recommended that we phase the proposal in by limiting it to families whose older child was admitted after 1 September 2017 (although this would limit its effectiveness for seven years). Furthermore there are always families who will be insecurely housed and may find themselves obliged to move out of the rural area in question, thus compromising their younger child’s ability to attend the same school as the older one. However this needs to be set against the hardship faced by rural families who are unable to access their local school as there are no spaces available in the child’s year group.
Proposal to change the measurement of the home to school distance tie-break from shortest walking route to straight line
Page 61 Currently we use home to school distance as a tie breaker for our admission arrangements, and this is measured by shortest walking route via surfaced, passable routes. This does present some challenges, for example:
Parents dispute the distances as they cannot see how these are calculated, and there are websites available which will show different measurements
Parents find it difficult to estimate in advance their chances of securing a place at their preferred school, as they do not know their home to school distance measurement as measured by our system
As new building projects come on stream, the routing network needs to be kept up to date to ensure accurate measurements. This means numerous site visits which are time consuming and costly
The proposal therefore is to change the method of measurement to straight line ‘crow flies’, which would be easy for parents to understand (we could publish maps showing circles indicating previous years’ distances), and would not require maintenance of the routing network.
Clearly using this method of measuring would result in different decisions to the existing method. In some cases, where railway lines or rivers intervene, parents may find that they are denied a place at a school at the expense of children who have to walk past their home in order to get there, but these cases are likely to be few in number and limited to urban areas where there are alternative school places available, as the normal expectation is that rural schools will admit those children who live in their community area, and the county council negotiates with rural schools where necessary to try to ensure that this happens. Community areas (and in the case of Peacehaven Community School, the priority community area) would still apply, and the measurement is only used to differentiate between pupils within the same admission priority.
Modelling the impact of this change using this year’s reception cohort shows that very few children (less than 5%) received a different allocation using this method of measurement, split roughly equally between children receiving a higher preference and children receiving a lower preference.
Proposal to allow applications received after the closing date due to verified house move or other material change of circumstances to be treated as on time if received before a second deadline
To secure more places for children moving into a given area it is proposed to allow late applications to be processed as on time where there is proof of a change of address. This would enable them to be considered as resident in the area, prioritising them ahead of other children who live further away than their new home address.
We would need to have a cut-off date for accepting these applications as on time as clearly there comes a point when decisions have to be made in order to meet the allocation date of 1 March or 16 April (for secondary and primary respectively). However we propose to allow these applications up until 1 February (secondary) and 15 March (primary) so as to allow as much time as possible for movers-in while at the same time being confident of being able to achieve the legal obligation to offer places on national offer day.
Page 62 Other authorities take this approach and have reported that it works well. For example, this approach is used in Brighton & Hove, who outline it in their admissions literature so that parents are aware of the situation and can act accordingly. In this way the authority is seen to be acting reasonably to respond to the needs of movers-in, as well as reducing the number of children placed long distances from home, which in turn has a positive impact on the number of appeals received and on the home to school transport budget.
Page 63 This page is intentionally left blank Appendix 4
Appendix 4 Admission numbers The tables below show the schools the proposed planned admission numbers (PANs) for secondary schools where the County Council is the admissions authority. (Proposed changes shown in bold) 1. Eastbourne area Admission number School 2017/18 The Causeway 189 Willingdon Community School 200
2. Hastings/St Leonards area Admission number School 2017/18 The Lead Member is advised that the County Council is no longer the admissions authority for any secondary schools in Hastings/St Leonards.
3. Other areas of the County Admission number School 2017/18 Chailey School 162 Claverham Community College 230 Heathfield Community College 240 Peacehaven Community School 180 Robertsbridge Community College 130 Uckfield Community Technology College 270 Uplands Community College 168
Page 65 Primary, Junior and Infant Schools - proposed admissions numbers for the 2017/18 school year. 1. Bexhill area Admission number School 2017/18 All Saints Church of England Primary School 30 Chantry Community Primary School 30 Little Common School 90
2. Crowborough area Admission number School 2017/18 Ashdown Primary School (formerly Whitehill Infant and Herne 60 Junior) Jarvis Brook School 30
3. Eastbourne area (including Polegate and Willingdon) Admission number School 2017/18 Bourne Primary School 60 Langney Primary School 60 Motcombe Community School 120 Ocklynge Junior School (for pupils aged 7-11) 210 Parkland Infant School (for pupils aged 4-7) 60 Parkland Junior School (for pupils aged 7-11) 60 Pashley Down Infant School (for pupils aged 4-7) 90 Polegate School 60 Roselands Infant School (for pupils aged 4-7) 90 Shinewater Primary School 60 St Andrews Church of England Infant School (4-7) 90 Stafford Junior School (for pupils aged 7-11) 90 Tollgate Community Junior School (for pupils aged 7-11) 90 West Rise Community Infant School (for pupils aged 4-7) 90 West Rise Community Junior School (for pupils aged 7-11) 90 Willingdon Primary School 60
4. Hailsham Admission number School 2017/18 Hawkes Farm Primary School 60 Hellingly Community Primary School 30
Page 66
5. Hastings/St Leonards area Admission number School 2017/18 Castledown Community Primary and Nursery School 60 St Paul’s Church of England Primary School 90 Sandown Primary School 60
6. Heathfield Admission number School 2017/18 Cross-In-Hand Church of England Primary School 60 Parkside Community Primary School 30
7. Lewes area Admission number School 2017/18 Pells Church of England Primary School 20 South Malling Church of England Primary School 30 Southover Church of England Primary School 60 Wallands Community Primary School 60
8. Newhaven area Admission number School 2017/18 Denton Community School 30 Harbour Primary and Nursery School 60 Meeching Valley Primary School 30
9. Peacehaven/Telscombe Cliffs area Admission number School 2017/18 Meridian Primary School 90 Peacehaven Heights Primary School 60 Telscombe Cliffs Community Primary School 90
10. Rye area Admission number School 2017/18 The Lead Member is advised that the County Council is no longer the admissions authority for Rye Primary School
Page 67 11. Seaford area Admission number School 2017/18 Chyngton School 60 Cradle Hill Community Primary School 90 Seaford Primary School 60
12. Uckfield area Admission number School 2017/18 Harlands Primary School 30 Manor Primary School 60 Rocks Park Primary School 30
13. Rural Primary Schools Admission number School 2017/18 Alfriston School 15 Barcombe Church of England Primary School 20 Battle and Langton Church of England Primary School 60 Beckley Church of England Primary School 15 Bodiam Church of England Primary School 15 Bonners Church of England Primary School 15 Brede Primary School 20 Broad Oak Community Primary School 20 Burwash Church of England Primary School 25 Buxted Church of England Primary School 25 Catsfield Church of England Primary School 15 Chiddingly Primary School 15 Crowhurst Church of England Primary School 15 Dallington Church of England Primary School 15 Danehill Church of England Primary School 12 Ditchling (St Margaret’s) Church of England Primary School 20 East Hoathly Church of England Primary School 15 Etchingham Church of England Primary School 15 Firle Church of England Primary School 15 Five Ashes Church of England Primary School 10 Fletching Church of England Primary School 15 Forest Row Church of England Primary School 45 Frant Church of England Primary School 15 Hamsey Primary School 15
Page 68 Hankham Primary School 20 Herstmonceux Church of England Primary School 30 High Hurstwood Church of England Primary School 15 Hurst Green Church of England Primary School 20 Icklesham Church of England Primary School 15 Iford and Kingston Church of England Primary School 30 Laughton Community Primary School 15 Mayfield Church of England Primary School 30 Maynards Green Community Primary School 30 Netherfield Church of England Primary School 20 Newick Church of England Primary School 30 Ninfield Church of England Primary School 20 Northiam Church of England Primary School 15 Nutley Church of England Primary School 15 Park Mead Primary School 15 Peasmarsh Church of England Primary School 15 Pevensey and Westham Church of England Primary School 60 Plumpton Primary School 20 Punnetts Town Community Primary School 15 Ringmer Primary School 45 Rotherfield Primary School 30 St Michaels Church of England Primary School (Playden) 15 St Michaels Primary School (Withyham) 15 St Peter’s Church of England Primary School 20 Salehurst Church of England Primary School 30 Sedlescombe Church of England Primary School 30 Staplecross Methodist Primary School 15 Stone Cross School 60 Stonegate Church of England Primary School 15 Ticehurst and Flimwell CE Primary School 30 Wadhurst Church of England Primary School 45 Westfield School 30 Wivelsfield Primary School 30 The Lead Member is asked to note that at the time of writing, discussions were still taking place on the possibility of these schools changing their admission numbers as indicated.
Page 69 This page is intentionally left blank Appendix 5
Appendix 5
Co-ordination Admission Schemes for the normal year of entry Attached are the proposed co-ordinated schemes for primary and secondary admissions at the normal point of entry. The changes to both schemes are minimal. Introduction Local Authorities (LAs) are required each year to draw up a scheme for co-ordinating the normal admissions round to primary and secondary schools. The aim of the scheme is to ensure that all parents receive a single offer of a school place on the national allocation date. If the prescribed date falls on a weekend or bank holiday, offers are sent on the next working day. The scheme proposed by the County Council will be the subject of consultation with all maintained schools in the county and neighbouring local authorities. Secondary scheme 2017/18 Key dates Admissions information made available September 2016 Closing date for applications 31 October 2016 Exchange of preference data between local authorities 28 November 2016 Admission authorities in East Sussex to advise LA of ranked order 6 January 2017 Finalise allocations 6 February 2017 Letters released to secondary schools 22 February 2017 Letters posted first class by secondary schools 1 March 2017 Closing date for appeals 14 April 2017 ‘On time’ appeals heard April - June 2017 Applications made in the main round 1. The co-ordinated scheme is based on all preferences expressed by parents being treated equally but where more than one school can be offered, the highest possible school named by the parent will be allocated. It will be for individual admission authorities to prioritise all preferences expressed for their schools against the published admissions criteria, which they have consulted on and determined. Individual academies can agree that the Authority ranks applicants on the academy’s behalf. This would be a traded service. The only valid preferences are those stated on the LA common application form which is available online or in hard copy. Other admission authorities in East Sussex must not use any other application form. A separate, supplementary information form can only be used where additional information is required to determine admission within their published criteria. This form will be obtainable from and returnable to that admissions authority (voluntary aided (VA) schools). A supplementary information form on its own is not a valid application. Applicants living outside East Sussex must use the common application form that is supplied by their home local authority. 2. The process will begin with the information on admission arrangements and methods of application being made available early in September 2016.
Page 71 3. The LA application form enables parents to name up to any three maintained schools stated in order of preference. The form should be completed and submitted to the LA by the closing date of 31 October 2016. 4. By 28 November 2016, East Sussex will exchange preference data with any local authority where an application has been received. 5. By 6 January 2017, East Sussex schools that are their own admissions authorities will consider their applications, apply their published admissions criteria and provide the LA with a list of those applicants ranked accordingly. 6. By 20 January 2017, other local authorities will advise East Sussex of decisions reached on applications for their schools from East Sussex residents. East Sussex will apply its published admissions criteria to those schools where it is the admissions authority and determine the outcome of each preference expressed. 7. By 6 February 2017, the LA will match the ranked lists against the parental preferences to ensure only one place is allocated per child. Qualifying late applications received up to 1 February will be included in this process. Where a child is – • Eligible for a place at only one school given on the application form, that school will be allocated • Eligible for two or three schools, a place will be allocated at the highest-ranking school • Not eligible for a place at any of the named schools and the child lives in East Sussex, a place will be allocated at the nearest school to the home with a space. 8. In the period 6 February to 17 February 2017, letters will be prepared. The LA where the child lives will be responsible for sending letters to parents. 9. In the week commencing 20 February 2017 letters for children being allocated places will be released to East Sussex secondary schools for the schools to post on the allocation date. Details of offers will also be made available to East Sussex primary schools. 10. Wednesday 1 March 2017 – allocation letters posted by first class mail by the allocated secondary school. Applicants who have applied online will receive email notification of the outcome of their applications. Where a preference is not being met, information will be enclosed with the letter explaining to parents how places have been allocated at their preferred school(s). The letter will also advise parents of the right of appeal. Applications received after 31 October 2016 but by 1 February 2017 1. If an application form is received after 31 October 2016, it will still be passed to the relevant admissions authority with a note that it has been received after the closing date. It will be for the admissions authority to decide how it wishes to respond to the application. This will continue up until 1 February 2017. 2. If an application is received after 31 October 2016 but before 1 February 2017, together with proof of a change of address* since the closing date, or proof of another good reason why it was not possible for the family to apply on time, it will be treated as on time in respect of community and voluntary controlled schools. If there is no proof, or the reason is not considered valid by the LA, the application will be treated as late.
Page 72 There is no right of appeal against the decision as to whether the application is treated as on time or late. 3. Applicants whose forms are received between these dates will be sent a letter on 1 March 2017. For applications received after 2 February 2017, we will aim to send a decision letter within 20 school days. Changes of preference 1. Parents may change their preferences at any stage up to the closing date of 31 October 2016. After 31 October 2016, we will not allow preferences to be changed without good reason. The LA will judge each case on its merits but will only usually accept a change of preference where there has been a significant change of circumstances (such as a house move*) thus making the original preferences no longer practical. Parents will be required to put their reasons for changing their preferences in writing, and in all cases, supporting evidence will be required. If the change of preference is agreed, a decision will be sent on 1 March 2017 provided the request was received by 1 February 2017. Such applicants will be advised that they have the right of appeal if the revised preference cannot be met. *In the case of house moves, proof of ownership or tenancy on an East Sussex property (such as exchange of contracts or signed tenancy agreement of one year) is required if an address is to be used for the purpose of allocating a school place. If an applicant cannot provide evidence, the application cannot be accepted. 2. There is no right of appeal where the LA does not accept the change of preference. No application form received by 1 February 2017 No secondary transfer places will be allocated unless a completed application form has been received. Applications received on or after 1 March 2017 1. Only preferences stated on the LA application will be valid. If the preference is for an ‘own authority’ school, the LA will pass details to the school for a decision. The school must then advise the LA within fourteen days as to whether a place can be allocated so the LA can formally advise the parent of the decision. Where the preference is for a community or voluntary controlled school, the LA will determine the outcome. If there are no places available at one of the preferred schools a place will be allocated at the nearest school with a place available (if the identified school is its own admissions authority the LA will ask the school whether a place can be allocated). We will aim to process late applications within twenty school days. Any refused preference will carry the right of appeal. 2. Where the preference is for a school in a neighbouring authority, details will be passed to that authority for a decision to be made. Any authority refusing an application should advise the LA of the decision so the LA can consider allocating an alternative school. 3. The Co-ordinated Scheme will end on 31st August each year. Applications received after this date will be processed by individual schools. Appeals 1. Parents must be allowed at least twenty school days from the date of notification that their application was unsuccessful to prepare and submit their written appeal. The appeal must be against any refused preference, thus if a parent puts on the appeal form
Page 73 a school which did not feature as a preference on the original application form an appeal will not be arranged. 2. Parents submitting an appeal will be entitled to at least ten school days notice of the date of the appeal. Papers relevant to the appeal will be sent seven working days before the hearing. Appeals must be heard within forty school days of the deadline for lodging appeals. Appeals for late applications will be included with those being heard for the same admission round wherever possible. If this is not possible, they must be heard within thirty school days of the appeal being lodged. 3. The LA must be advised of the outcome of all appeals. Waiting lists 1. The LA will operate waiting lists for community and voluntary controlled schools so that it is clear as to which child will be offered any place which becomes vacant. Such waiting lists will be operational after the closing date for appeals to be lodged. The waiting list must reflect the admissions criteria. The LA must be notified by admissions authorities of any places that are subsequently allocated from the waiting list. Until co- ordination ends, it remains for the LA to offer places to parents when places become available and are allocated from the waiting list whether the admissions authority is the LA or not. 2. Waiting lists will operate until the end of Term 2, 2017 for Year 7 admissions. Primary scheme 2017/18 Key dates Admissions information made available September 2016 Closing date for applications 15 January 2017 Preferences for each school established 27 January 2017 Exchange of preference data between local authorities 10 February 2017 Admission authorities in East Sussex advise LA of ranked order 17 March 2017 Finalise allocations 31 March 2017 Letters released to primary schools 10 April 2017 Letters posted first class by primary schools 17 April 2017 Closing date for appeals 19 May 2017 Appeals heard June/July Applications made in the main round 1. The co-ordinated scheme is based on all preferences expressed by parents being treated equally but where more than one school can be offered, the highest possible school named by the parent will be allocated. It will be for individual admission authorities to prioritise all preferences expressed for their schools against the published admissions criteria, which they have consulted on and determined. Individual academies can agree that the Authority ranks applicants on the academy’s behalf. This would be a traded service. The only valid preferences are those stated on the LA common application form which is available online or in hard copy. Other admission authorities in East Sussex must not use any other application form. A separate, supplementary
Page 74 information form can only be used where additional information is required to determine admission within their published criteria. This form will be obtainable from and returnable to that admissions authority (voluntary aided (VA) schools). A supplementary information form on its own is not a valid application. Applicants living outside East Sussex must use the common application form that is supplied by their home local authority. 2. The process will begin with the information on admission arrangements and methods of application being made available early in September 2016. 3. The LA application form enables parents to name up to any three maintained schools stated in order of preference. It should be completed and submitted to the LA by the closing date of 15 January 2017. 4. By 27 January 2017 East Sussex will exchange preference data with any local authority where an application has been received. 5. By 10 February 2017 East Sussex schools that are their own admission authorities will consider all applications for their school, apply their published admissions criteria and provide the LA with a list of those applicants ranked accordingly. 6. By 17 March 2017 other local authorities will advise East Sussex of decisions reached on applications for their schools from East Sussex residents. East Sussex will apply its published admissions criteria to those schools where it is the admissions authority and determine the outcome of each preference expressed. 7. By 31 March 2017, the LA will match the ranked lists against the parental preferences to ensure only one place is allocated per child. Qualifying late applications received before 17 March will be included in this process. Where a child is – • Eligible for a place at only one school given on the application form that school will be allocated • Eligible for two or three schools, a place will be allocated at the highest-ranking school • Not eligible for a place at any of the named schools and the child lives in East Sussex, a place will be allocated at the nearest school to the home with a space. 8. In the period 1 April 2017 to 10 April 2017 letters will be prepared. The LA where the child lives will be responsible for sending letters to parents. 9. On 10 April 2017 letters for children being allocated places will be released to East Sussex primary schools for the schools to post on the allocation date. 10. 17 April 2017 – allocation letters posted by first class mail by the allocated primary school. Applicants who applied on line will receive email notification of the outcome of their applications. Where a preference is not being met, information will be enclosed with the letter explaining how places have been allocated at their preferred school(s). The letter will also advise parents of the right of appeal. Applications received after 15 January 2017 but by 31 March 2017 1. If an application form is received after 15 January 2017, it will still be passed to the relevant admissions authority with a note that it has been received after that date. It will be for the admissions authority to decide how it wishes to respond to the application. This will continue up until 31 March 2017.
Page 75 2. If an application is received after 15 January 2017 but before 17 March 2017, together with proof of a change of address* since the closing date, or proof of another good reason why it was not possible for the family to apply on time, it will be treated as on time in respect of community and voluntary controlled schools. If there is no proof, or the reason is not considered valid by the LA, the application will be treated as late. There is no right of appeal against the decision as to whether the application is treated as on time or late. 3. Applicants whose forms are received between these dates will be sent a letter on 17 April 2017. For applications received after 31 March 2017, we will aim to send a decision letter within 20 school days. Changes of preference 1. Parents may change their preferences at any stage up to the closing date of 15 January 2017. After 15 January 2017, we will not allow preferences to be changed without an exceptional reason. The LA will judge each case on its merits but will only usually accept a change of preference where there has been a significant change of circumstances (such as a house move*) thus making the original preferences no longer practical. Parents will be required to put their reasons for changing their preferences in writing, and in all cases, supporting evidence will be required. . If the change of preference is agreed, a decision will be sent on 17 April 2017 provided the request was received by 31 March 2017. Such applicants will be advised that they have the right of appeal if the revised preference cannot be met. *In the case of house moves, proof of ownership or tenancy on an East Sussex property (such as exchange of contracts or signed tenancy agreement of one year) is required if an address is to be used for the purpose of allocating a school place. If an applicant cannot provide evidence, the application cannot be accepted. 2. There is no right of appeal where the LA does not accept the change of preference. No application form received 1. No Reception or junior transfer places will be allocated unless a completed application form has been received. Applications received on or after 31 March 2017 1. Only preferences stated on the LA application will be valid. If the preference is for an ‘own authority’ school, the LA will pass details to the school for a decision. The school must then advise the LA within fourteen days as to whether a place can be allocated so the LA can formally advise the parent of the decision. Where the preference is for a community or voluntary controlled school, the LA will determine the outcome. If there are no places available at one of the preferred schools a place will be allocated at the nearest school with a place available (if the identified school is its own admission authority the LA will ask the school whether a place can be allocated). We will aim to process late applications within twenty school days. Any refused preference will carry the right of appeal. 2. Where the preference is for a school in a neighbouring authority, the details will be passed to that authority for a decision to be made. Any authority refusing an application should advise the LA of the decision so the LA can consider allocating an alternative school.
Page 76 3. The Co-ordinated Scheme will end on 31 August each year. Applications received after this date will be processed by individual schools. Appeals 1. Parents must be allowed at least twenty school days from the date of notification that their application was unsuccessful to prepare and submit their written appeal. The appeal must be against any refused preference, thus if a parent puts on the appeal form a school which did not feature as a preference on the original application form an appeal hearing will not be arranged. 2. Parents submitting an appeal will be entitled to at least ten school days notice of the date of the appeal. Papers relevant to the appeal will be sent seven working days before the hearing. Appeals must be heard within forty school days of the deadline for lodging appeals. Appeals for late applications will be included with those being heard for the same admission round wherever possible. If this is not possible, they must be heard within thirty school days of the appeal being lodged. 3. The LA must be advised of the outcome of all appeals to other admission authorities. Waiting lists 1. The LA will operate waiting lists for all community and voluntary controlled primary, infant and junior schools so that it is clear which child will be offered any place which becomes vacant. Such waiting lists will be operational after the closing date for appeals to be lodged. The waiting list must reflect the admissions criteria. The LA must be notified by admissions authorities of any places that are subsequently allocated from the waiting list. Until co-ordination ends, it remains for the LA to offer places to parents when places become available and are allocated from the waiting list whether the admissions authority is the LA or not. Waiting lists will operate until the end of Term 2, 2017.
Admission of summer born children to Reception classes. Parents of summer born children who are due to start in reception can request that their child starts on a part-time basis or joins Reception later during the school year. However, parents can also request that their child starts in Reception in the September following their fifth birthday (i.e. when they would normally be starting Year 1). Parents making such a request should do so during the normal admission round. The Authority will consider these requests on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration the child’s academic, social and emotional development together with the Headteacher and parent’s views. If the request is refused but the child is offered a place in the school (but not the preferred year group) the parent would not have the right of appeal. If the request is agreed, parents will need to be clear that this does not mean the child will remain in the year below their chronological age group for all of their school career, particularly on transfer to secondary school.
Page 77 This page is intentionally left blank Appendix 6
Appendix 6 Responses to consultation on East Sussex County Council’s proposed admission arrangements for 2017/18
We asked for views on the following:-
1. Proposed changes to the admissions criteria
a. Sibling rule
b. Distance measurement
2. Proposed Admission numbers
3. Proposed Co-ordinated schemes
4. Any other comments
78 people completed the survey online and the headteacher from UCTC wrote in. The results are as follows:
1. a) Is the proposed change to the admissions criteria acceptable?
Yes – 34 (44%)
No – 44 (56%)
1. b) Is the proposed change to the way we measure distances acceptable?
Yes – 55 (71%)
No – 23 (29%)
Comments received 1) Distance always will be a challenge but it is important to consider the existing transport infrastructure to be realistic about the ability of students to get to school. 2) I think it would be very hard for parents to manage siblings at different schools and siblings should always be a higher priority regardless of where they live. 3) From what I can tell (informal conversations with parents on Open Days) this would be a popular change with parents 4) Whilst I understand that the change of criteria for siblings is necessary to prevent rural schools from becoming oversubscribed with families from outside the area, I would like to know that there might be some human sensibility taken if, for example, a family needs to move from one village to another, but wishes for children to remain in their school and for siblings to join them there. 5) Further in this section you say; 1) "Children who have a brother or sister who joined the school prior to 1 September 2017 (1 September 2012 for Frant CE Primary School) and who is still on roll will be admitted under the previous criteria which gave priority to brothers and sisters regardless of whether they live in the pre-defined community area or not. " Does this change mostly affect children who will be applying for entry 2018/19? Also; 2) "If an application is received after 31 October 2016 but before 1 February 2017, together with proof of a change of address* since the closing date, or proof of another good reason why it was not possible for the family to apply on time, it will be treated as on time in respect of community and voluntary controlled schools. If
Page 79 there is no proof, or the reason is not considered valid by the LA, the application will be treated as late. There is no right of appeal against the decision as to whether the application is treated as on time or late. " Can an Appeal Panel review such a decision? The next paragraph in the Draft seems to suggest that an Appeal is possible. Although the next paragraph says No! 3) Why do Waiting lists stop at the end of Term 2? Can a new one start at the beginning of Term 3? 4) "There is no right of appeal against the decision as to whether the application is treated as on time or late. " Really? 6) The idea of using a community area is inspired this will stop parents feeling trapped and a much better way of doing things than the ridiculously damaging idea of scrapping the sibling rule altogether... A triumph for logic! 7) I don't think it should change I feel we should have the right to choose where are children go to school 8) We are on the East Sussex board and our children go to an East Sussex primary. The linked Secondary, where all of their friends will go, is likely to leave us outside of the 'pre-defined community area' and so our children are at risk of being split permanently from a peer group they will have been with for 6 years. This seems unnecessarily punitive. 9) At primary level it is impossible to manage siblings at different schools. 10) I would also like to have parents provide proof of residence as they do in other areas within England. On acceptance of a place a parent/carer must provide a proof of address with at least 3 month residency on it. 11) It would have been helpful to see the 'before and after' criteria - as oppose to just highlighting changes as this is not clear what it was before! We are not crows - so it is irrelevant how far it is from home to school in a straight line. It is much more relevant how far it is to walk on foot safely. Regarding those with siblings in the school and they live outside of the community area - this seems fair to move them down the priority list (apart from if the child already in the school was allocated their place because there was not a place available in the school in their community area. You cannot penalise a family twice by making it more likely that a sibling will not then get in the school. 12) If a sibling is already in the school and then a younger sibling is not accepted meaning the sibling is sent to another school this could make it impossible for parents to get one or both children to school on time. If the parent is also working this would be incredibly unfair especially in today's climate of pushing mums back into work. Location of main carers employment should be a consideration along with ability to get child to the location of school ie driving. Thankfully, i am not affected by the changes, so my opinion is completely impartial. 13) Dont' thinks children living out of the area whom have siblings at a school should be automatically given place. Consideration of the needs of the second child should be discussed with the school as often it is not appropriate provision for the second child. 14) I think it utterly unreasonable to expect siblings to attend different schools. The added pressure on the parent and the stress of the school run would not be manageable. I feel it would also negatively impact on the children if they attend different schools; two different ethos, curriculum, separate and possibly competing events, separate friend networks, etc. Even handing down school uniform becomes impossible. The emotional and financial strain is not justified. I appreciate the pressure on rural schools but the solution cannot be to disadvantage siblings, and their families, by sending them to different schools in the event of place shortages. There are other reasons why families who do not live in the community area choose rural schools, in our situation my daughter had speech and language delay and would not have coped in a larger school, indeed it could have made her condition worse. I do not feel that we should face the prospect of our other children being sent to a different school as the detriment to us outweighs the advantage to rural families, who may have just moved in to the
Page 80 area. What is not taken into consideration is the fact that we may live just outside the community area, but we are very much part of the community. We attend the local rural church and this should also be taken into consideration. Because we can't afford a house in the rural area, or to move house at all, our children should not be disadvantaged, we are still a valued part of the rural community. The proposed changes do not take into consideration all the relevant information and the result would be devastating to families who ARE part of the community. 15) For most parents and carers, and particularly for those living in rural areas, to have siblings at different schools is impractical and will inevitably involved higher lateness rates for one pupil as well as extensive round trips for working parents. It may be totally impossible to get two children to two different school for the allocated start times. It is unfair to move the goal posts of accepting outside the community area when you need to fill the places at a school but not honour that placement with regards to siblings later on. It will lead to more appeals and probably having to stretch class sizes. Many rural residents are discriminated against anyway because they do not live near to a school so this proposed change would be adding insult to injury. Measuring distances as the crow flys is better as it benefits rural residents. 16) I we think first of the child's well being, then I think having a sibling at the same school is a very important factor. It is likely that the child will feel more secure with a sibling at the same school. If the family is to move house outside the community area but within reach of a school to which a child has already secured a place, then it wouldn't be fair on younger siblings to be excluded from the same school as the older sibling. This adversely affects the child's well being. From an environmental perspective it is worth considering how to minimise travelling distances to school. Why change the calculation to "as the crow flies" when children clearly do not generally fly to school? This also relates to the former change in criteria. It does not make sense for parents to travel extra distances to accommodate multiple schools. It is disruptive to family life and has an extra environmental cost in terms of fuel use (and therefore pollution as well as contribution to C02 emissions) and congestion. 17) By changing the sibling rule, this proposal will have a very negative effect on families who have a child at a school. Having two or more children at different schools will be highly inconvenient for transport to / from school but also there will be no co-ordination between the two schools for school events that parents are expected to attend. If public transport is being used, then older siblings look after younger siblings which improves student welfare and safety. Furthermore, the proposal's stated aim is to get children to go to their nearest school. This reduces parental choice and parents do not get much choice as it is. The whole schools admission process should have at its core, the aim of giving parents and students as much choice as possible. 18) Our child started at South Malling (our first choice) as it was the nearest school and also good reports. Subsequently moved house and not room or suitable after school arrangements at the local school. If criteria are changed, likely that youngest child will be offered place at different school, logistics would be impossible with both parents needing to work. I'm sure we are not the only people that could be in this situation. 19) The new distance measure will hopefully make it easier to see whether you have any chance of getting into the school of your choice. 20) As the crow flies is not practical in real terms. Should be according to actual routes - including pedestrian short-cuts. For split site schools does your criteria mean that in the case of an infant & junior site the relevant distance would be to the junior site (4 out of 7 years = majority of lessons), even though the child would not attend that site for 3 years? Or should it not be relevant if either site is the closest school? 21) Siblings need to be kept together if this is desired by parents. They look after and support one another and travel together. Parents who have to transport children to more than one school would increase traffic congestion and add to global warming, undesirable. Many schools have different term dates, inset dates and events - making
Page 81 working arrangement disruptive for parents and the UK business that employ them. BAD IDEA 22) Children need to be with their siblings, to allow siblings to support during transition and allow for the most effective transport (whether provided by county or the family) 23) By changing the sibling rule, this proposal will have a very negative effect on families who have a child at a school. Having two or more children at different schools will be highly inconvenient for transport to / from school. Furthermore, there will be no co- ordination between the two schools for school events that parents are expected to attend thus inconveniencing parents even more. If public transport is being used, then older siblings look after younger siblings which improves student welfare and safety. Furthermore, the proposal's stated aim is to get children to go to their nearest school. This reduces parental choice and parents do not get much choice as it is. The whole schools' admission process should have at its core, the aim of giving parents and students as much choice as possible. 24) Children with an older sibling who live outside the designated area should remain a priority. Many parents will find it impossible to co-ordinate 2 or more children at different rural schools. Moving a child as they near GCSE to accommodate this change will harm that child's education. Siblings using public transport together improves the safety of both students particularly the younger one. Overall this a terrible proposal. Using a straight line measure is absurd since children are not Crows and have to walk or be transported on roads and designated footpaths 25) By changing the sibling rule we may end up having children at different schools. This will cause many complications including school events clashing, different rules of school being confused, older siblings unable to help younger ones. Relationships between school and parent will be weaker if it is "diluted". I believe all of these things would have a major impact on my children's learning. 26) If my children were not both at the same schools -the logistics of this - especially when there are functions on is crazy. It is bad enough when you have one at Primary and one at Secondary. Why implement something unnecessarily? My youngest child would also be unhappy that he was not at the same school as his brother. He would wonder why he couldn't go to the same school (and rightly so). My children can walk to school at the moment - any other school would involve school transport and getting the child to the appropriate place to pick it up! (this could also cause parents problems getting to work on time. We are supposed to be getting our kids moving for exercise where possible! 27) This would impact on families who already have a child at the school. How would parents manage the balance. I think the change would be negative in every way and would not benefit children at all, what is the point in a change that would not benefit the child. 28) Siblings should always be admitted to the same school as an older child as to expect parents to take children to different schools is wrong for a number of reasons. Firstly it would place a burden on parents having to go different schools. Secondly by requiring journeys to different schools it would increase car traffic and be bad for the environment. Thirdly it would reduce parental choice. 29) Changing the sibling rule will make it very difficult for families who may end up with the logistical problems of getting children to different schools at different times, with the ensuing transport problems. There will also be no co-ordination between different schools for school events that parents are expected to attend which will make it more likely that parents will not be able to attend all the events they need to so as to support their children. It is also more problematic if schools close for any reason. Different polices and support from different schools, who may also use different examination boards and offer different extra-curricular opportunities, will also make it more complex to juggle family dynamics.
Page 82 30) Re siblings and 6th form pupils living outside the area. Not felt necessary as a 6th form child doesn't keep the same school hours as say a year 7-11. Therefore these should not be take. As a 'sibling' just because a sibling is in 6th form. If the family lives outside the area . 31) I have a child at Pevensey and Westham. This is classed as a rural school. I live 1.1 miles away from it but believe I'm not in its direct catchment area. With the new change I am concerned that my second daughter may now not get a space at the school if a high birth rate in village. 32) The change in the sibling rule: It should be noted that there are many benefits for a child to go to the same school as their sibling. 1. An older sibling can help to make the journey to school safer for the younger sibling. 2. Sending children to the same school can be less expensive and will avoid children having to travel earlier than necessary and having to hang about for the school to open. 3. Parents are able to attend one school for school events rather than having to choose which child to support when events clash. "Every child matters". 4. To follow in the footsteps of an older sibling can help improve the community of the school and will give the younger sibling a sense of belonging. People who can afford to send their children to private schools frequently send their children to a school where many generations of that family have attended; it should be encouraged within the state sector. Sadly if the changes are adopted parental / student choice will be further eroded. 33) If the proposed changes take place I would end up with 4 children at 3 different schools. 3 of which are unable to use public transport due to health reasons. This would cause my children to be late for school every day and be left unsupervised at the end of the day whilst I travel between the schools. It's is not a reasonable change to the current system and would cause a lot of families difficulties, would cost each family a huge amount extra with travel costs and childcare and would put children at potential avoidable risks! 34) Change to sibling priority: reduces the options for preferences. Would like as wide as possible option preferences to be available. We, for example, live rurally, but have been able to have our children in the secondary school in the town where we work. We are, door to door, only a few metres closer to the rural secondary school whose community area we come into, but it is far more convenient to us to have our children in the town where we work, even though we have to make our own transport arrangements for them. Having the option to express, and achieve this preference, was very important to us, so I would not like future families to be denied the options we have had. Having all one's children in the same school is important. It is tricky enough when one has some at primary and others at secondary, to manage all the school visits for parents' evenings etc, but to have them spread over even more schools is liable to cause problems of clashes of dates. It is vital for a child's success at school to have as much parental support as possible. The LA needs to make this as easy as possible for parents, not more difficult. Distance as the crow flies: seems nonsensical to me. Who flies to school? Why can you not use actual distance as this is easy enough to ascertain these days with, for example, Google maps? 35) I feel it's unfair not to prioritise siblings due to not being in the area, I was in the area when my son attended the school that my daughter attends (he's moved to juniors now) my daughter got in despite us moving a little out the radius, due to the fact her brother was still attending the school! (In the last year) I have a 5 year age gap between my daughter and my youngest 2 who would be starting school in sept 2019 and 20, but my older daughter would have left that school and be at the linked junior by then, so your saying my youngest 2 children may not get in? May not be able to go to the fantastic school their brother and sister attended? And would have to go to a "not so great school" that's a couple of mins closer? I feel this is extremely unfair they would have to miss out! Plus how would I get 2 to one school and 2 to another at the same time?! I think the proposition is unfair!!!
Page 83 36) I am a parent of a child at UCTC. We live out of catchment in a very rural area in Chiddingly, the local school is Ringmer which I feel is less suitable for all my children. This has been proven as my oldest son obtained a place at UCTC on appeal and started in September 2015. I have twins who will be affected by the change in the sibling ruling as they will be making the transition to secondary school in September 2017. The comments regarding this change helping those in rural areas is ridiculous, it will make travel arrangements very complicated and could split my family into different schools. Travel is difficult enough when the closest secondary school is more than 5 miles away, it would prove even worse if my children were in schools miles away from each other in different directions from home and my work. The appeal process works but I found it hugely stressful, I really do not want to have to repeat it for my twins due to a change in the sibling admission criteria. 37) For those with children already at a school and are out of catchment, how would mums be able to be in two different places at once for two different schools. Impossible. There needs to be something in place for those parents who were unaware that this was to come. 38) I think this is a good idea, the roads in East sussex are so congested and I think people should therefore go to there nearest school. This hopefully will make people walk to school where possible too. We need to cut down on polution and this is a way to do this too, children should walk to school the teachers have also said in the past the children who walk to school are better behaved in school. It benefits everyone. Children will go to school where they live so therefore will be near friends at the weekends too. 39) I already have 2 children in Polegate school I'm little girl will start in a couple of years this would effect our lives so much if she didn't get in to the same school i think this isn't acceptable and I hope more people tell you the same.you don't like it when people take there kids out of school for holidays but you be fine to mess up the kids schooling by making them have to move schools if there siblings can't get in to the same school . 40) I have concerns about the impact on some village schools regarding the change to the sibling criteria. I agree in principle that priority should be given to local children. However, some village schools such as Rotherfield (Where I was previously the SBM) rely on pupils from outside the pre-defined community area for the school to be viable. If parents have no guarantee of their younger children getting a place at that school in the future this may prevent them from applying in the first place. If they are then allocated that school (eg as 2nd/3rd choice) based on the admissions criteria and their second/third/fourth child is then allocated a closer or different school based on admissions criteria in that year how does the parent get two or more children to two or more locations at the same time? The same would apply at the end of the school day. Rotherfield school has recently undergone an expensive expansion programme increasing the school from five to seven classes. If their numbers reduce as a result of this change in policy, what additional financial support will be available from ESCC to Rotherfield and to other schools in a similar position to ensure that the school still remains viable? As a School Admissions Appeal Clerk I am aware of the difficulties some parents have already in getting one child to their allocated school. A good example would be in the Eastbourne area where some parents are reliant on public transport, sometimes having to take two buses to get to school. How would this be practical if they had to get children to different schools? 41) Withdrawing sibling policy will mean that children from one family will end up at differnt schools which will be impossible for working parents to manage. Better for individual schools to have some flexibility to make their own admission decisions rather than conforming to rigid policy as different schools and areas face different challenges. One size does not fit all 42) My grandson started school in September 15. He does not live within the pre-defined community area but we chose the school we felt would be best for him. As a family, it
Page 84 is important for our grandchildren to stay together, and the school was chosen on the assumption that, under the sibling rule, his sister would attend alongside him, allowing them both to benefit from the ethos of a family school. The proposed change could put this vital family bond in jeopardy. If his sister does not get a place at the same school, the logistics of the journey to school will prove almost impossible, imposing hardship on the family. If a change of this nature is proposed, there must be a longer lead time between proposal and implementation, allowing parents to make an informed decision based on future prospects. 43) Parents should have choice and we should be proud that through that choice good schools prosper. The stated aim of this proposal is to get children to go to their nearest school. This reduces parental choice and parents do not get much choice as it is. The whole schools' admission process should have at its core, the aim of giving parents and students as much choice as possible. Changing the sibling rule is equally ludicrous. This proposal will have a very negative effect on families who have a child at a school. Having two or more children at different schools will be highly inconvenient for transport to / from school, parents evenings on the same days etc. It's hard enough as it it, with my wife and i both working shifts for one of us to get to school events. Please look at the real reasons why this is being proposed and be honest with us about it. 44) I have a child at Uckfield school and we currently live slightly out of the catchment area. He has two siblings, one due to start when the ruling comes into place. The have no mother due to being deceased and so this will be virtually impossible to support the children in their activities and hold a job down if this affects us as lm sure it will many others. If I am not allow to have siblings at Uckfield school, then I may have to pull a very promising student out to make it work logistically. You have to look at each case individually from the start and measure the impact rather than a distance. We live in a modern world where a blend of children from different areas makes the school a richer place. 45) Sibling priority is extremely important for Primary School age children. Not only is it impossible for parents to be at more than one primary school at the same time, the age of the children means that they can't be left outside the school gates while you take other children to different schools (the schools themselves don't allow it either). In my town, it would take about 40 minutes to walk between each school, possibly longer with other children in tow. If you drive between the schools, not only are you adding traffic across town, but you have stressed parents rushing to get from one school to the other, risking the lives of the school children crossing the roads on their way to school. There is the added problem of people being priced out of the area. My situation is that after 5 years of renting the same house, we have to move out so that the landlord can sell the house. Buying is not possible for us, and the rental market is rising all the time with lots of competition for each house. Our options are to risk being made homeless, or rent a house out of the catchment area of the school, and risk my youngest child not getting into her older sister's school. Parent's should not be penalised if they have no choice but to move home. 46) My eldest son attends Uckfield Community College and my youngest son attends Bonner Primary School in Maresfield. We used to live in Maresfield and due to unforeseen circumstances we now live in Crowborough. Unfortunately due to finances we are unable to move back to Uckfield, but we continue as a family, to have links within the Uckfield area. I work in Buxted and my husband works in the locality also. To have two children at different schools will impose a HUGE inconvenience to us as a family. The eldest child is dyslexic and received quality education and support from UCTC. As you can imagine the youngest child has visited UCTC on many occasion throughout his brother's time there and is confident and excited about going to the school in 2017. All of his friends will be going from Bonners Primary School and it will have a huge blow to his confidence if he has to go to Beacon College. He currently suffers from anxiety as it is and should the time come that we have to tell him that he
Page 85 will have to go to a different school to his friends and brother it simply doesn't bear thinking about. I can understand the reasoning's behind your proposals for Primary School admissions as some schools appear to be more popular than others, but for Secondary school education I feel that you will be restricting parents and children. The current financial climate has huge implications to working families who are just simply trying to do their best for their children's future. Imposing these restriction to us will devastate siblings and parents alike. If you go ahead with the proposal you will be putting further strain on families when trying to co-ordinate between two secondary school.
2. If the admission numbers are not acceptable, please tell us what you think the admission numbers should be and why? (Individual schools can propose a higher for their school than those shown in the 'Proposed admission numbers' documents) 1) Our Admission numbers are acceptable 2) Accross rural schools in a relatively small atea, there is quite a large discrepancy in numbers taken in reception. One village takes 15 and the next 25. I know that this can play a large part in parents finding a specific school more desirable and can also mean that there is more pressure on places at some schools. Where there are a large number of schools in reasonable proximity in a rural area, could this number not be evened out somewhat, so, for example, all schools have an intake of 20 - the average between 15 and 25? 3) It doesn't seem to tell us the numbers for the schools in the Lewes/Ringmer area 4) It should not be automatic that siblings outside the catchment attend 5) I could not find admission numbers for some schools in Crowborough (as only two are listed)!?! What about Sir Henry fermor, St John's, St Mary's? In my opinion, class sizes should not increase, nor should school size overall through multiple class entry. More school places should instead be made available through new schools. 6) Admission numbers appear acceptable and I am guessing right for the size of each school and what is can cope with. 7) I don't know specifics of any imbalance between required numbers and the places proposed, but I believe we should aim to serve local communities by ensuring that all schools are good enough and can provide enough places for all the children in the locality. The choice of where wouldn't be so important if all schools were well run and well resourced. Children shouldn't need to travel any great distances to get to school. If a local school is oversubscribed we should ensure it has the facilities to expand to accommodate all those within the community area and those who meet the other essential criteria previously given. 8) To our knowledge the numbers accurately reflect the ability of the school to manage the capacity of the facilities available. If there is a need to increase numbers then there would be a need to increase facilities first. 9) if one school is over-subscribed and has space to expand I think they should be allowed to do so even if it means reducing the number of classes in a year at an unpopular school - e.g. where 2 schools have a 2-form intake and one is very oversubscribed why not make changes to allow 3 classes at one school and only 1 at another in the town - surely this is preferable to turning many children away from a good school? 10) Admission numbers and pupil staff ratios are best advised by teachers and the facilities available at each establishment 11) The sibling criteria need to be after the looked after children
Page 86 12) Admission numbers obviously need to be based on the number of classes, class size and teachers available so I cannot comment on each school and what is acceptable, but intake from outside the area should be limited until all local applications have been dealt with. 13) Schools are over subscribed already 14) I have no problem with admission numbers just the change to Admission policy 15) Siblings should take priority, then distance. Schools should be allowed to propose their own numbers. 16) Although Uctc has room for expansion I do t feel the numbers should be increase due to traffic in the neighbourhood. Which is a residential area. With the proposal of 1,000 new homes for uckfield this should be taken In to consideration. 17) I believe numbers are acceptible 18) There should be no more than 25 to a class. In ocklynge the proposed number is 35. It is at this age where a child needs the most help that schools have the largest numbers. 19) I think the admission numbers shoud be strict and are aceptable to obtain a good level of education 20) Number is unchanged 21) There does not appear to be a problem with local children accessing their nearest rural school if they so wish. Most of the rural schools e.g. Beacon, Uplands, Chailey, Ringmer, Heathfield etc. all have vacancies. In the case of Uckfield, which is over- subscribed, all the local children get their places with the sibling rule as it is. 22) I feel strongly that the council have neglected the school. The admission number for this year I believe is approximately 270. This is the same figure as it was ten years ago. The town has expanded greatly since then both naturally over time and due to several large housing developments taking place bringing in greater numbers to an already popular town. Shouldn't we be looking to service the needs of the town with better conditions at the school including allowing for more pupils comfortablely, rather than punishing them?
3. Comments on the co-ordinated schemes 1) I am delighted that there is some room for late changes of address and/or other reasons but I am disappointed that the Draft gives no right of appeal. Is this not able to be reviewed by an Appeal Panel? 2) I agree with proposals for processing late applications, this will particularly support parents moving house .later in the process 3) Late applications should be treated last unless there is proof of change of address or good reason, it should not be up to the admissions authority to decide how to handle it. It is unfair on everybody who has followed the "rules" what is the point of having a deadline if it can be overrides especially if it means your child doesn't get a place at a school because of it. It seems a bit unfair. I think this is what is done at the moment why does it need to change? 4) Please let's not discriminate against families, for whatever reasons, find it hard to follow such bureaucracy and may miss deadlines. Letters lost in the post, bereavements, or just chaotic lives. I haven't time to read such a long document about procedures. Let's do the best by the child regardless. Strict procedures seem over the top. 5) Seems fair to deal with late applications in this way. What about people moving into the area between February and September?
Page 87 6) At present this seems a grey area where a family moving to the area cannot apply until they are here. Whilst I understand a house sale may fall through. Consideration should be for those who have exchanged prior to the closing admissions date ? 7) If you don't want your second child to be placed at another d book but have to make 3 choices in order of preference, what should you do? No comment re late applications. 8) Late applications should be given the choice of the most local school - late applications could be for a number of reasons and the child should not be penalised.
4. Comments on any other aspect of the proposed admission arrangements for the 2017-18 school year
1) I would like some attention given to SEND. At present, we have a very high number of children with needs - yet other local school have much fewer (or none). I am aware that this is down to parental preference. However, I did note that SEND was not noted as the admission category for all of the children who were given a place (perhaps in preference to others). I would like to see fair admissions for SEND - as ALL schools should be skilled at meeting needs (if parents are not choosing a school, then the County should find out why...and, in my opinion, take urgent action to improve practice) 2) The phasing of the de-prioritisation of 'out of area' children should be different for primary and secondary schools so that 'out of area' children who are currently at primary schools are not split from their peer groups when they go up to secondary schools. i.e. primary in 2017, secondary when primary 'out of area' children have washed through into secondary schools...or some compromise period of grace, say 2 years to give parents a chance to decide how to manage the secondary school step. 3) Would have been useful to have a link to ‘applying for a school place 2016-2017' to be informed about catchement areas 4) Unclear as to why children who wish to delay entry until the Sept after their child has turned 5 cannot stay in that year group? What is the impact supposed to be regarding transition to secondary? 5) The change to the admissions policy meaning local children will have a better chance at gaining a place in their local school is much needed and strongly supported by myself and others I've spoken to. This view is both my personal one as a parent and my professional one as a keyworker who has supported many families who have struggled due to the current policy leading to their children being excluded from an education at their local school. 6) Makes the tie breaker distance much clearer to parents and easier to understand. 7) Many parents of children entering school up to September 2016 entry will have made the choice of school based on siblings as well (i.e. not just looking at the schools with one child in mind) and based on the current admissions criteria that siblings will have a higher priority, to change the criteria when people have made a decision based on the information available at the time seems dubious. I understand there has to be a cut off point if you do decide to change things but there may need to be some overlap time to take this into consideration, after all this kind of change can effect family well- bing as well as parental involvement in a child's school. Can you imagine having to be involved in 2 or 3 schools in terms of support, events and just generally being part of a school community, it would in my opinion have the potential to be very stressful and unrewarding. 8) What about special needs provisions? What flexibility can there be if one school is clearly better suited to the child compared to another? This would seem to be an overriding factor.
Page 88 9) I realise academies and free schools can set their own admission criteria but it would make the process so much easier if there was some way that all schools applied the same admission arrangements. 10) I think it needs to be made cleared what the 'predefined community area' for a school is. Living in Eastbourne when looking around schools you are told that you are able to apply for any school in the Eastbourne area regardless of if they are close to your home or not. I believe that by each school being able to issue a map with a coloured area showing the general admissions area if would make things much simpler. It will also be very hard for parents with siblings at a school already to then potentially not get a second or third child into that school. The logistics of it would be impossible. 11) Community area children should take priority 12) Church schools should no longer be allowed to carry-out their narrow-minded selective criteria where they judge children & parents they do not even know 13) I hope these changes are not implemented 14) It's important Siblings attend the same school 15) I think thought should be for the 1,000 new proposed homes in uckfield and the effect it may have on future admissions to Uctc. I feel these children should have priority being in the area. Although not over those that have a sibling already in yr 7-11 only. This I feel will have a knock on effect for say children from crowborough and surrounding areas who have their nearer secondary school but this In Turn could have an effect on the Kent system , children who may well come to crowborough etc if they don't get into grammar. I feel strongly Uctc should not be extended further due to reasons already stated and their admission process will need to be changed In The near future. 16) In time if this takes place children will go to the same school as siblings as they will all go to the nearest school it just takes a few years to be set in place I think the parents with children already in a different school will be upset initially, but this will not be the case in years to come, as once this is set in place it will become the norm. People just dont like change. but there are benefits to these changes. 17) For many years the Conservative mantra has been to give parents more choice. Is this now changing? 18) No although can I ask what are the next steps after this consultation stage and how can we help to be more actively involved to find a workable solution?
Page 89 This page is intentionally left blank Appendix 7
Page 91 This page is intentionally left blank
Children’s Services PO Box 4 Appendix 8 County Hall St Anne’s Crescent Stuart Gallimore Lewes Director of East Sussex Children’s Services BN7 1SG Tel: 0300 33 09 472 Fax: 01273 481261 www.eastsussex.gov.uk [email protected]
Hugh Hennebry Principal- Uckfield Community Technology College 12 February 2016
when responding please contact Jo Miles 0300 330 9472
Dear Mr Hennebry,
Thank you for your letter of 17 December 2015 regarding our consultation in respect of the admission arrangements for 2017.
I will ensure that your letter is considered by the elected members as part of the decision making process.
Please be aware that the proposal is not to abolish sibling priority, but to distinguish between those siblings living in the community area (who will continue to be prioritised ahead of other children living in the area), and those who live outside the community area and thus have a local alternative for which they receive priority already.
As you say, the proposal will make very little difference at secondary level, where there is more flexibility for schools to be able to accommodate children living in the community area, but it should have a positive impact on small rural primary schools, which sometimes struggle to accommodate local children because of the numbers of siblings travelling to the school from neighbouring towns.
Yours sincerely,
Jo Miles Admissions & Transport Manager
The East Sussex Children’s Services Department has a policyPage of open 93 access to records, subject to safeguards to protect confidentiality, if you do not wish your reply to be seen outside the Department, please mark it “confidential” and indicate briefly your reasons for doing so.
This page is intentionally left blank Summer 2009
Appendix 9
Appendix 7
Equality Impact Assessment Strategy or Policy Template
Name of the strategy or policy
Admissions arrangements for the 2017/18 school year
File ref: Issue No:
Date of Issue: November 2015 Review date:
Contents
Part 1 The Public Sector Equality Duty and Equality Impact Assessments (EIA) ..... 2
Part 2 – Aims and implementation of the proposal, strategy or policy ...... 4
Part 3 – Methodology, consultation, data and research used to determine impact on protected characteristics...... 5
Part 4 – Assessment of impact ...... 6
Part 5 – Conclusions and recommendations for decision makers ...... 9
Part 6 – Equality impact assessment action plan ...... 40
(a) 6.1 Accepted Risk ...... 41
Page 95
Part 1 The Public Sector Equality Duty and Equality Impact Assessments (EIA)
1.1 The Council must have due regard to its Public Sector Equality Duty when making all decisions at member and officer level. An EIA is the best method by which the Council can determine the impact of a proposal on equalities, particularly for major decisions. However, the level of analysis should be proportionate to the relevance of the duty to the service or decision.
1.2 This is one of two forms that the County Council uses for Equality Impact Assessments, both of which are available on the intranet. This form is designed for any proposal, strategy or policy. The other form looks at services or projects.
1.3 The Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) The public sector duty is set out at Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. It requires the Council, when exercising its functions, to have “due regard‟ to the need to
Eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct that is prohibited under the Act.
Advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it;
Foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it. (see below for “protected characteristics”
These are sometimes called equality aims.
1.4 A “protected characteristic‟ is defined in the Act as: age; disability; gender reassignment; pregnancy and maternity; race (including ethnic or national origins, colour or nationality) religion or belief; sex; sexual orientation.
Marriage and civil partnership are also a protected characteristic for the purposes of the duty to eliminate discrimination.
The previous public sector equalities duties only covered race, disability and gender.
1.5 East Sussex County Council also considers the following additional groups/factors when carry out analysis: Carers – A carer spends a significant proportion of their life providing unpaid support to family or potentially friends. This could be caring for a relative, partner or friend who is ill, frail, disabled or has mental health or substance misuse problems. [Carers at the Heart of 21stCentury Families and Communities, 2008] Literacy/Numeracy Skills Part time workers Rurality
Page 96
1.6 Advancing equality (the second of the equality aims) involves:
Removing or minimising disadvantages suffered by people due to their protected characteristic
Taking steps to meet the needs of people from protected groups where these are different from the needs of other people including steps to take account of disabled people’s disabilities
Encouraging people from protected groups to participate in public life or in other activities where their participation in disproportionately low
NB Please note that, for disabled persons, the Council must have regard to the possible need for steps that amount to positive discrimination, to “level the playing field” with non-disabled persons, e.g. in accessing services through dedicated car parking spaces.
1.6 Guidance on Compliance with The Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) for officers and decision makers:
1.6.1 To comply with the duty, the Council must have “due regard” to the three equality aims set out above. This means the PSED must be considered as a factor to consider alongside other relevant factors such as budgetary, economic and practical factors.
1.6.2 What regard is “due” in any given case will depend on the circumstances. A proposal which, if implemented, would have particularly negative or widespread effects on (say) women, or the elderly, or people of a particular ethnic group would require officers and members to give considerable regard to the equalities aims. A proposal which had limited differential or discriminatory effect will probably require less regard.
1.6.3 Some key points to note :
The duty is regarded by the Courts as being very important. Officers and members must be aware of the duty and give it conscious consideration: e.g. by considering open-mindedly the EIA and its findings when making a decision. When members are taking a decision,this duty can’t be delegated by the members, e.g. to an officer. EIAs must be evidence based. There must be an assessment of the practical impact of decisions on equalities, measures to avoid or mitigate negative impact and their effectiveness. There must be compliance with the duty when proposals are being formulated by officers and by members in taking decisions: the Council can’t rely on an EIA produced after the decision is made. The duty is ongoing: EIA’s should be developed over time and there should be evidence of monitoring impact after the decision. The duty is not, however, to achieve the three equality aims but to consider them – the duty does not stop tough decisions sometimes being made. The decision maker may take into account other countervailing (i.e. opposing) factors that may objectively justify taking a decision which has negative impact on equalities (for instance, cost factors)
1.6.4 In addition to the Act, the Council is required to comply with any statutory Code of Practice issued by the Equality and Human Rights Commission. New Codes of Practice under the new Act have yet to be published. However, Codes of Practice issued under the previous legislation remain Page 97
relevant and the Equality and Human Rights Commission has also published guidance on the new public sector equality duty.
Part 2 – Aims and implementation of the proposal, strategy or policy 2.1 What is being assessed?
a) Proposal or name of the strategy or policy.
Admission arrangements for community and voluntary controlled schools in East Susses for admissions in September 2017.
b) What is the main purpose or aims of proposal, strategy or policy?
The proposal is to make the three following separate changes to the admission arrangements for community and voluntary controlled schools for entry in September 2017: limit the application of the ‘sibling link’ which affords priority for children whose older brother(s)/sister(s) attend the school already to those families who live within the community area served by the school in question. alter the method of measuring home to school distance from measuring by walking route to measuring in a straight line (‘as the crow flies’). treat those families whose application is received late (but before a second cut-off date (1 February for secondary and 17 March) for primary) as on-time applicants provided they are able to supply proof of a house move or similar change of circumstances that would have prevented them from applying before the closing date.
c) Manager(s) and section or service responsible for completing the assessment
Jo Miles, Admissions and Transport Manager, Admissions and Transport Team, Communication, Planning and Performance
2.2 Who is affected by the proposal, strategy or policy? Who is it intended to benefit and how?
Any parent/carer/child applying for a community or voluntary controlled school place in East Sussex for entry in September 2017.
The changes to admissions arrangements should help ensure that children are able to attend their nearest local school.
Home to School transport expenditure may decrease as potentially less children will have to be transported at the authority’s expense due to lack of places at local schools. The number of appeals may reduce as parents are more likely to accept an allocated school if it is local to them. The number of disputes over routes and walking distances is likely to be reduced which may lead to operational savings.
Rural schools are less likely to have to use contingency funds to accommodate children moving into the area.
2.3 How is, or will, the proposal, strategy or policy be put into practice and who is, or will be, responsible for it?
The admissions policy for community and voluntary controlled schools for entry in September 2017 will change as set out in 2.1b. Following the adoption of the new policy the Admission team will implement it as partPage of the 98 schools admissions process.
Lou Carter, Assistant Director, Communication, Planning and Performance (Children’s Services)
2.4 Are there any partners involved? E.g. NHS Trust, voluntary/community organisations, the private sector? If yes, how are partners involved?
Community and voluntary controlled schools, voluntary aided schools and academies.
2.5 Is this project or procedure affected by legislation, legislative change, service review or strategic planning activity?
School Admissions Code 2014.
The School Admissions (Infant Class size) regulations 2012.
Part 3 – Methodology, consultation, data and research used to determine impact on protected characteristics. 3.1 List all examples of quantitative and qualitative data or any consultation information available that will enable the impact assessment to be undertaken.
Types of evidence identified as relevant have marked against them Employee Monitoring Data Staff Surveys
Service User Data Contract/Supplier Monitoring Data
X Recent Local Consultations Data from other agencies, e.g. Police, Health, Fire and Rescue Services, third sector X Complaints Risk Assessments Service User Surveys X Research Findings X Census Data X East Sussex Demographics Previous Equality Impact National Reports Assessments Other organisations Equality Any other evidence? Impact Assessments
3.1.1 Evidence of complaints against the strategy or policy on grounds of discrimination.
None.
3.3 If you carried out any consultation or research on the strategy or policy explain what consultation has been carried out.
Stakeholder consultations will involve parents, schools and neighbouring authorities.
3.4 What does the consultation, research and/or data indicate about the positive or negative impact of the strategy or policy?
The proposal to restrict the sibling link has been in operation in Frant CE Primary School since 2012 and the neighbouring authorities of West Sussex and Brighton & Hove also operate a similar policy. While this does adversely affect a few families who send their older children to more distant schools, and are then unable to secure places there for younger siblings, this is balanced out by a positive impact of places being freed up for more local residents. Page 99
The impact of extending the closing date for families moving into the area is more difficult to assess as (although this system is also operated in neighbouring authorities) house moves are unpredictable and the very existence of this policy may generate demand which would not otherwise have existed. However, experience tells us that without such a policy, families moving into the area just after the closing date are disadvantaged in terms of attending their local school.
The proposal to move to straight line distance instead of walking route will impact positively on some parents and negatively on others, depending on location and preferred school in equal proportion. The modelling which has been conducted indicates (based on 2015 data) that families with protected characteristics are not disproportionately affected either way.
Part 4 – Assessment of impact 4.1 Age: Testing of disproportionate, negative, neutral or positive impact.
a) How is this protected characteristic reflected in the County /District/Borough?
The mid-2014 population estimates of statutory school age published by the ONS in July 2015 show that 13.5% (70559) of the East Sussex population are aged 5-16.
b) How is this protected characteristic reflected in the population of those impacted by the proposal, strategy or policy?
All school aged children and their families are could potentially be affected by this policy change. Please see appendix 1 which shows an analysis of the likely impact of the change to straight line distance, based on 2015 data.
c) Will people with the protected characteristic be more affected by the proposal, policy or strategy than those in the general population who do not share that protected characteristic?
Yes, only school aged children and their families will be affected.
d) What is the proposal, strategy or policy’s impact on different ages/age groups?
The policy will affect only school aged children and their families, and the impact will not be universal as the expectation is that similar numbers of families will still be offered their first preference school. There will be a few families who will be offered a place at a school that was a lower preference than the school they would have been offered had the existing policy still been in force, but this will be balanced out by other families who will receive a better offer than they would otherwise have had.
e) What actions are to/ or will be taken to avoid any negative impact or to better advance equality?
Robust communications with families and schools. The intention is to ensure that the change to the policy is widely publicised so that parents are able to make informed decisions when applying for a school place for their children. The use of straight line distance instead of the more complicated walking route measurement should make it easier for parents to estimate their chances of being offered a place at a given school, using previous years’ data, as it will be possible to provide a visual representation of the radius round a school within which a family needed to live in order to secure a place there.
Page 100
f) Provide details of the mitigation.
The proposal to alter the sibling link will need to be phased in to protect those families who secured places for their elder children before the policy was altered. For this reason it will need to be made clear in the policy that siblings living outside the community area will still be prioritised if their older sibling was admitted to the school before 1 September 2017.
g) How will any mitigation measures be monitored?
The agreed action plan will be monitored by the Equality and Participation team.
4.2 Disability: Testing of disproportionate, negative, neutral or positive impact.
a) How is this protected characteristic reflected in the County/District/Borough?
No evidence of disproportionate, negative, neutral or positive impact.
4.3 Ethnicity: Testing of disproportionate, negative, neutral or positive impact.
a) How is this protected characteristic reflected in the County/District/Borough?
No evidence of disproportionate, negative, neutral or positive impact.
4.4 Gender/Transgender: Testing of disproportionate, negative, neutral or positive impact
a) How is this protected characteristic target group reflected in the County/District/Borough?
No evidence of disproportionate, negative, neutral or positive impact.
4.5 Marital Status/Civil Partnership: Testing of disproportionate, negative, neutral or positive impact.
a) How is this protected characteristic target group reflected in the County/District/Borough?
Not applicable.
4.6 Pregnancy and maternity: Testing of disproportionate, negative, neutral or positive impact.
a) How is this protected characteristic target group reflected in the County/District/Borough?
Not applicable.
4.7 Religion, Belief: Testing of disproportionate, negative, neutral or positive impact.
a) How is this protected characteristic reflected in the County/District/Borough? Page 101
No evidence of disproportionate, negative, neutral or positive impact.
4.8 Sexual Orientation - Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Heterosexual: Testing of disproportionate, negative, neutral or positive impact. a) How is this protected characteristic reflected in the County/District/Borough?
No evidence of disproportionate, negative, neutral or positive impact.
4.9 Other: Additional groups/factors that may experience impacts - testing of disproportionate, negative, neutral or positive impact.
Rurality a) How are these groups/factors reflected in the County/District/ Borough?
Children, families and school in rural communities are likely to benefit positively from the policy change. b) How is this group/factor reflected in the population of those impacted by the proposal, strategy or policy?
Children living in rural areas should find it easier to obtain places in their local schools because they will be prioritised for places ahead of children who live further away but already have a brother or sister at the school. Children moving into rural areas after the closing date will also be more likely to be able to secure a place at their local school. There may also be a positive impact on class sizes in rural areas. c) Will people within these groups or affected by these factors be more affected by the proposal, policy or strategy than those in the general population who are not in those groups or affected by these factors?
Families living in rural areas are more likely to be positively affected by these changes. d) What is the proposal, strategy or policy’s impact on the factor or identified group?
Families living in rural areas are more likely to be positively affected by these changes. e) What actions are to/ or will be taken to avoid any negative impact or to better advance equality?
Not applicable f) Provide details of the mitigation.
Not applicable g) How will any mitigation measures be monitored?
Not applicable
4.10 Human rights- Human rights place all public authorities – under an obligation to treat you with fairness, equality, dignity, respect and autonomy. Please look at the table below to consider if your proposal, policy or strategy may potentially interfere with a human right. Page 102
Articles
A2 Right to life (e.g. pain relief, suicide prevention)
A3 Prohibition of torture, inhuman or degrading treatment (service users unable to consent, dignity of living circumstances)
A4 Prohibition of slavery and forced labour (e.g. safeguarding vulnerable adults)
A5 Right to liberty and security (financial abuse)
A6 &7 Rights to a fair trial; and no punishment without law (e.g. staff tribunals)
A8 Right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence (e.g. confidentiality, access to family)
A9 Freedom of thought, conscience and religion (e.g. sacred space, culturally appropriate approaches)
A10 Freedom of expression (whistle-blowing policies)
A11 Freedom of assembly and association (e.g. recognition of trade unions)
A12 Right to marry and found a family (e.g. fertility, pregnancy)
Protocols
P1.A1 Protection of property (service users property/belongings)
P1.A2 Right to education (e.g. access to learning, accessible information)
P1.A3 Right to free elections (Elected Members)
Part 5 – Conclusions and recommendations for decision makers 5.1 Summarise how this proposal/policy/strategy will show due regard for the three aims of the general duty across all the protected characteristics and ESCC additional groups.
Eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation and other conduct prohibited by the Equality Act 2010;
Advance equality of opportunity between people from different groups
Foster good relations between people from different groups
5.2 Impact assessment outcome Based on the analysis of the impact in part four please mark below ('X') with a summary of your recommendation.
X Outcome of impact assessment Please explain your answer fully.
X A No major change – Your analysis demonstrates The changes to admissions that the policy/strategy is robust and the evidence arrangements should help ensure that shows no potential for discrimination and that you all children are able to attend their have taken all appropriate opportunities to advance nearest local school. There are also Page 103
equality and foster good relations between groups. potential savings identified for East Sussex County Council and some rural B Adjust the policy/strategy – This involves taking schools as set out above. steps to remove barriers or to better advance equality. It can mean introducing measures to A thorough communication campaign mitigate the potential effect. with all stakeholders will ensure that all families and schools are aware of the C Continue the policy/strategy - This means changes in time to allow for effective adopting your proposals, despite any adverse effect planning. or missed opportunities to advance equality, provided you have satisfied yourself that it does not unlawfully discriminate
D Stop and remove the policy/strategy – If there are adverse effects that are not justified and cannot be mitigated, you will want to consider stopping the policy/strategy altogether. If a policy/strategy shows unlawful discrimination it must be removed or changed.
5.3 What equality monitoring, evaluation, review systems have been set up to carry out regular checks on the effects of the proposal, strategy or policy?
An action plan will be developed with the Schools Admissions team so monitoring is carried out.
5.4 When will the amended proposal, strategy or policy be reviewed? The admissions policy is reviewed annually in accordance with the statutory process. If agreed for 2017, the policy will be implemented in time for admissions to schools in 2017. A further consultation process will then be carried out in Autumn 2016 for admissions to schools in 2018, and each year thereafter, but the full impact of the policy will not be known until it has been in effect for several years.
Date completed: Signed by (person completing)
Role of person completing
Date: Signed by (Manager)
Page 104
Part 6 – Equality impact assessment action plan
If this will be filled in at a later date when proposals have been decided please tick here and fill in the summary report.
The table below should be completed using the information from the equality impact assessment to produce an action plan for the implementation of the proposals to:
1. Lower the negative impact, and/or 2. Ensure that the negative impact is legal under anti-discriminatory law, and/or 3. Provide an opportunity to promote equality, equal opportunity and improve relations within equality target groups, i.e. increase the positive impact 4. If no actions fill in separate summary sheet.
Please ensure that you update your service/business plan within the equality objectives/targets and actions identified below:
Page 105 Page Where incorporated/flagged? (e.g. Area for Resource Changes proposed Lead Manager Timescale business plan/strategic improvement implications plan/steering group/DMT)
Communication plan Produce a clear plan to Jo Miles ensure all stakeholders are aware of the changes
Communication Attend key stakeholder Jo Miles methods events and ensure all digital routes of communication are used
6.1 Accepted Risk
From your analysis please identify any risks not addressed giving reasons and how this has been highlighted within your Directorate:
Can this be addressed at Type of Risk? Where flagged? (e.g. a later date? (e.g. next Date resolved (if Area of Risk (Legal, Moral, business plan/strategic Lead Manager financial year/through a applicable) Financial) plan/steering group/DMT) business case)
Page 106 Page