Page 3 Agenda Item 2 Admissions Forum – 8 February 2011

Item 2

Minutes of Sutton Admission Forum Monday 18 October 2010, 10.00am, Civic Offices

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

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

Others Present

Pam Cooper Cheam Park Farm Infants’ School Jackie Saddington Cheam Park Farm Junior School Gordon Ironside John Hordley St Philomena’s School pp Philip Howard Paul Harding Carshalton High School for Girls Steve Hume Glenthorne High School Karin Rowsell Nonsuch High School for Girls Peter Smart Wallington County Grammar School Brenda Morley Sharman Lawson Executive Head, Parent, Pupil & Student Services Peter Gasparelli Interim Head of Admissions Meera Leavey LBS Legal Dept Bob Dixon LBS School Governance – Minuting Clerk

Also present was Cllr Wendy Mathys. Mr Qamar Khan attended briefly but left when it was explained that members of the public were not normally invited to address the Forum.

1 Agenda Item 2 Page 4 Admissions Forum – 8 February 2011

Item 2

1. INTRODUCTION & APOLOGIES

Cllr Jerome welcomed members to the meeting.

Apologies had been received from Cllr Moira Butt, Jane Pascoe (Stanley Park High School), Gemma Fitzpatrick, Martin Kearsey (Devonshire Primary), Ian Birnbaum and Philip Howard (The John Fisher School).

RESOLUTION noted

Clerk’s Note: Subsequent to the meeting an email apology was received from Gary Kirkwood, Foresters Primary School.

Cllr Jerome and Dr Satchell proposed a vote of appreciation and thanks to Claire Potier, who had worked in Sutton for the past 16 years. Members enthusiastically agreed. Cllr Jerome pointed out that that day was Dr Birnbaum’s last day as Strategic Director (although he would be staying in Sutton as Interim Chief Executive) and the Forum expressed their thanks to him for his 20 years of service to education in Sutton.

2. MINUTES & MATTERS ARISING

Minutes of the meeting held on 11 June 2010 had been circulated. There were no comments, and the minutes were agreed.

There were no matters arising not covered elsewhere on the agenda.

3. PARENT & LOCAL COMMUNITY REPRESENTATIVES

Sharman Lawson introduced Enclosure 1, which described the steps taken to recruit parent and local community representatives to membership of the Forum. Dr Satchell was concerned that the names of the applicants had been suppressed, since this was unlike any other situation where she was asked to choose between applicants. It was important that any information known to any member of the Forum about an applicant should be shared. Sharman Lawson replied that the object of the recruitment exercise was to obtain a balance of parents from a cross- section of schools, and that this school information had not been removed from the applications.

Members then considered why, with 18 expressions of interest, there had been only 5 definite applications. It was suggested that this might be due to the timing of the meetings. During discussion, there emerged a consensus that members were willing to accept changes in the timing of the Forum meetings, provided that they were not always evening or twilight sessions. Cllr Jerome suggested that the matter be deferred pending a reconsideration of the timing of Forum meetings and enquiry of those who did not apply as to whether the timing of meetings had been a factor in their not following up their initial interest.

4. ADMISSION ARRANGEMENTS 2011 – Update on Schools Adjudicator reports 2 Page 5 Agenda Item 2 Admissions Forum – 8 February 2011

Item 2

Sharman Lawson reported that three objections had been made to the Office of the Schools Adjudicator since the last meeting of the Forum. The objection by the local authority to the admission arrangements of Cheam Park Farm Junior School had been upheld, and the adjudicator had ruled that the school’s admission number should increase to 105 for the next three years. A parental objection to the arrangements of the John Fisher School had not been upheld. The determination in respect of a parental objection to the admission arrangements for the boys’ selective schools had not yet been received; it was expected in the following week.

The objection relating to the John Fisher School had been in respect of nominated feeder primary schools. A similar objection to arrangements at Richard Challoner School in Kingston had been partially upheld. Simon Parr said that the diocese was actively reviewing these arrangements involving feeder primary schools.

Cllr Jerome said that she felt the Cheam Park Farm Junior School situation had been very difficult. She was pleased that a definite decision had now been reached and thanked the Junior School for agreeing to the increased admission, so that everybody could move forward. Mrs Saddington said that the Governing Body had asked her to confirm to the Forum that they would not be seeking a judicial review of the determination. She had however, written to Dr Birnbaum expressing the Governor’s concern over breaches of procedure; she thought that that the draft adjudication which had been sent to the local authority for comment had been released to the public, since the school had received many phone calls prior to the formal publication of the adjudication seeking to take advantage of the extra places which would be made available. Mrs Saddington stressed that the Junior School was actively trying to work with the Infants’ School.

Mrs Saddington also said that her Governing Body was concerned about the way in which the adjudicator had given priority to children with special needs. By placing such children at the head of the list, in advance of other application criteria, there was the potential that not all children in the Infants’ School would automatically transfer to the Juniors. She was also concerned that the sibling link applied only in an upwards direction, giving priority where the applicant had an older sibling at the Junior School, but did not operate to give priority admission for a younger sibling to the Infants’ school where the Junior School was able to offer a place to the older sibling. She had discussed both these points with Clare Potier and thought that an agreement had been reached, but the adjudicator had rejected arrangements. Mrs Saddington asked, on behalf of the Governing Body, for the views of the Forum.

Sharman Lawson commented that the admission of children with special needs was something that could enable the school to go beyond its published admission number. However, she felt it necessary to defer the matter and consider the question of sibling links outside the meeting. Dr Satchell commented that the Admissions Code was not entirely clear; in one place it specified that siblings should be older, whereas in other 3 Agenda Item 2 Page 6 Admissions Forum – 8 February 2011

Item 2

places it made no such restriction. Mrs Saddington responded that a major intention of the Admissions Code was to accommodate family wishes by keeping children together so far as possible.

5. FAIR ACCESS PROTOCOL

Enclosure 3 was the draft of the Fair Access Protocol 2009/10 & 2010/11. The major change was the introduction of cross-border arrangements with Merton, which had already been agreed at the Secondary Headteachers meeting. Discussions were now being held with Croydon and Kingston to see whether similar arrangements could be put in place. The Protocol had been sent to secondary schools for consultation. Dr Satchell said that she was concerned about the time required to admit a child under the provisions of the protocol. Peter Gasparelli accepted this but said it was an inevitable consequence of the need to pass information between several different parties. Sharman Lawson agreed with this explanation but said that nevertheless she would like to see quicker admissions.

Steve Hume, on behalf of Glenthorne, said that his school was not inclined to sign the protocol in its present form. They had suggested a number of changes which he hoped would be discussed at the next meeting of secondary headteachers. He had already received some responses, had requested a reply by early November in order that the matter could be discussed at a meeting in the second week of November. His chief concerns was that schools were being asked to admit too many pupils, he suggested a maximum of four and that there should be a more even spread between schools.

In view of the discussion being undertaken by secondary headteachers, it was agreed to defer this item to the next meeting of the Forum.

6. MID-TERM ADMISSION PROCEDURES

Peter Gasparelli said that this was the first report about the functioning of the new mid-term co-ordinated admissions system. The new system was complex to operate, as it was London-wide, and teething difficulties, within some LAs and pressures following the summer holiday period meant that there had been some delays in processing applications.. However, there was a statutory requirement for such a system and, as it was a new process, procedures would be reviewed across London during the academic year. He asked whether the Forum would like to see any changes in the format of the report. Members concluded that it would be valuable if the table of applicants could be further broken down to show those with and without school places, or those new to the area to highlight any particular difficulties.

Mrs Saddington asked whether the LA was monitoring staffing levels in the Admissions Section, since she was aware that staff were working extremely long hours to keep up with the work and she was concerned that some might suffer burn-out. Peter Gasparelli said that the problem of high workload was one being experienced by all local authorities, the load 4 Page 7 Agenda Item 2 Admissions Forum – 8 February 2011

Item 2

should lessen as people became accustomed to the new procedures, and he added that the team had been re-organised to ensure staff dedicated to the work. Sharman Lawson added that the funding within the Dedicated Schools Grant was not sufficient to support an extra member of staff.

Mr Smith reminded the Forum that community schools only admit at the start of term, and wondered whether parents were unaware of this and therefore making calls that could not be resolved straightway.

Cllr Jerome asked whether the level of calls was decreasing and Peter Gasparelli said that this had happened; a lot of the September calls came from people catching up after the summer holidays, whereas the current demand was a mixture of people moving into the area and parents wanting a change of school for whatever reason.

7. FAIRNESS OF ADMISSION ARRANGEMENTS

Dr Satchell introduced Enclosure 5, which was a report of a meeting of Secondary Heads and Chairs of Governors. The meeting had considered the implication for education across the Borough if the selective schools were to be required to change to a proximity basis for admission rather than the present rank order. The starting point had been that the comprehensive schools do well for their more-able pupils, as evidenced by the exam results they deliver, and this helps raise standards across the school. Use of a proximity criterion for the selective schools would, by admitting more local children to these schools, narrow the ability range admitted to the comprehensive schools; this would be unfair to these schools, which educate the majority of Sutton children.

Dr Satchell then said that 78 children had not received their first preference selective school, 700 children had not received their first preference comprehensive school whilst, of these 700, 200 had not been offered a place at any of their first 3 preferences. There was, therefore, a case for permitting schools to allocate some of their places for children from particular geographic areas, in the way that Cheam High had 30 places giving priority to children from . Worcester Park and the Clock House area were two places from where children found it very difficult to get a place in a Sutton school.

Cllr Jerome expressed her thanks for the report and welcomed the report’s recognition that children of selective ability receive high-quality provision both in the selective schools and within the comprehensive system. The Schools Adjudicator would shortly be reporting on the admission criteria utilised by the boys’ selective schools, which would provide an independent view.

Mrs Greatorex observed that the girls’ selective schools operate a slightly different system which is a combination of rank order and distance. Cllr Jerome replied that this system gave more of a balance by trying to offer places to local children but that this was not always possible. She pointed

5 Agenda Item 2 Page 8 Admissions Forum – 8 February 2011

Item 2

out that the role of the Forum was to consider how admission arrangements served those living in the area of the local authority.

Mrs Greatorex wondered whether parents always appreciated the high standards achieved in the comprehensive schools. Mrs Cooper said that as a parent she was delighted by what she saw, children appreciated the high standards achieved at Cheam High (her local school) and she would be opposed to anything that might dilute these standards. Mrs Rhodes added that the whole purpose of grammar schools was to select according to ability and she pointed out that all headteachers had agreed this was the best system.

Cllr Jerome said that the final bullet point in the report from the September meeting had correctly identified the crucial issue, that Sutton residents in certain areas did not have fair access to local comprehensive schools. This point had also been picked up by the Schools Adjudicator in para 19 of the determination related to John Fisher School. No fewer than 50 Sutton children had been allocated places at Bishopsford School in Merton last year.

Mrs Morley said that an analysis of admissions to Overton Grange, where she was Chair of Governors, showed that the radial distance from within which children were admitted had varied very little since 2003, certainly it was not decreasing. She was also concerned about the effects of any publicity over admission problems before schools held their open evenings.

Cllr Jerome said that she personally could not accept the conclusion of the first part of the report. However, she welcomed the second part of the report, pointing out that Cheam High had set the example through their provision of 30 extra places for Worcester Park children following a Section 106 agreement in respect of the Hamptons development. She wondered whether any other schools would be interested in following suit.

Mr Hume said that Glenthorne was interested and had already been in discussion with the LA, only to be told that there was not a particular need to give special treatment to the Worcester Park area. Sharman Lawson said that an analysis over the last 2 years of children who couldn’t easily access a Sutton place had shown that the problem was more acute in Wallington than in Worcester Park; the response to Glenthorne had been based upon this analysis. Cllr Jerome said that from her experience as Councillor for Nonsuch ward she was aware that many Worcester Park residents were aggrieved by their inability to obtain places at , they were forced to accept places at Epsom & Ewell High School which was difficult to reach by public transport and which, until recently, had been in special measures. She felt that there needed to be a fresh analysis of areas of concern, quoting the area surrounding Sutton Bus Garage as one from where children had difficulty in obtaining a school place but which did not normally figure in discussions of the problem.

Mr Smith said that Greenshaw was also interested and would wish to work with the LA to identify districts of concern and how the school could assist with the problem. 6 Page 9 Agenda Item 2 Admissions Forum – 8 February 2011

Item 2

Mr Hume said that he hoped the Admissions Forum would not object to any proposals schools might put forward along these lines and that, before she left Sutton, Claire Potier had been asking Glenthorne to provide additional places. The school was prepared to do this, but would need additional funding for accommodation. Cllr Jerome replied that the Admission Forum would need to evaluate the appropriateness of the proposals, and that any funding considerations would have to wait the outcome of the Government’s spending review and the Local Government Grant Settlement. There were a lot of pressures on education funding, notably the increasing number of primary children entering the system, although the secondary sector might have a slight drop in entry in 2012/3 if not too many out-Borough pupils sought admission.

Dr Satchell asked whether the computer program which made the allocations could be tweaked to model the effects if additional defined catchment areas were to be introduced. It was pointed out that a lot of work on possible allocation patterns had been carried out as part of the Building Schools for the Future submission. Mr Stevens suggested that the discussions should also include Surrey, pointing out that Rosebery School had modified its admission criteria in an attempt to give preference for Stoneleigh residents; he did not know whether this had achieved the desired results. Mr Gorley added that the effects should be checked over the last few years, since last year’s pattern of many children going outside the Borough might be an anomaly.

Mrs Morley apologised and left the meeting at this point.

8. PERSONS HAVING INTEREST IN ADMISSIONS ARRANGEMENTS

Enclosure 6 described the statutory duty of the Admission Forum to identify those bodies or persons which it considered to have an interest in proposed admission arrangements for schools within the Borough. Members noted the requirements and considered that there were no changes required to the present consultation pattern.

9. DRAFT CO-ORDINATED SCHEME FOR MID-TERM ADMISSIONS 2012

The Forum was told that the draft was essentially the same as had applied in the current year, the first year in which co-ordinated arrangements had been introduced. The Forum was being asked for its views before the scheme went for wider consultation. Members considered the draft, in the light of comments made earlier in the meeting when considering the report of this year’s exercise, and agreed to accept the draft.

10. DRAFT CO-ORDINATED SCHEMES FOR PRIMARY & SECONDARY ADMISSIONS 2012

7 Agenda Item 2 Page 10 Admissions Forum – 8 February 2011

Item 2

The draft had been carried forward from last year. It was possible that revision would be required, since the dates given for the pan-London features of the draft had not yet been finalised. Subject to this, the draft was agreed .

11. DRAFT PRIMARY ADMISSION ARRANGEMENTS FOR COMMUNITY SCHOOLS 2012

The Forum was being given sight of the draft, prior to a public consultation exercise which would start in early spring, to be completed by 1 March 2011. It was pointed out that the proposed admission number of 90 for Barrow Hedges Primary School was tentative, being subject to the outcome of an application for planning permission and the provision of appropriate accommodation. The draft was agreed .

8 Page 11 Agenda Item 2 Admissions Forum – 8 February 2011

Item 2

12. DRAFT SECONDARY ADMISSION ARRANGEMENTS FOR COMMUNITY SCHOOLS 2012

As for primary schools, this scheme would be the subject of consultation early next year. The Forum was told that the arrangements for entry to 6 th form were under review; any changes would be incorporated in the final consultation document. The draft was agreed .

13. UPDATE ON PRIMARY EXPANSION

Nigel Simms outlined the plans for primary expansion to accommodate the increased number of pupils now expected. An additional 6 forms of entry were being provided for September 2011; there was slight concern over the proposed increase at Barrow Hedges since the original planning application had been rejected because of insufficient strength in that part which dealt with the school travel plan. The application would next come to Committee on 3 November.

Latest data on live births had indicated the need for a total of 13 further forms of entry, 6 in 2011, 4 in 2012 and 3 in 2013. Discussions were taking place to identify schools which could accommodate 1 or 2 additional FE and which were geographically positioned to serve the areas of chief demand – central Sutton, Worcester Park and the east end of the Borough.

The need for 3 additional FE in 2013 would be reviewed in the light of new statistical data from Office for National Statistics, expected in October. Decisions would be needed on whether permanent building expansion was required, or whether temporary accommodation which could move with the ‘bulge’ would suffice.

Cllr Jerome queried whether any data was available about growth in neighbouring authorities. Nigel Simms said that Lewisham, Lambeth and N. Croydon were already experiencing massive increases, whilst Surrey and Kingston had projected increases somewhat larger than was actually happening.

14. ANY OTHER BUSINESS

None.

15. DATES OF NEXT MEETINGS

Meetings had been provisionally arranged for 8 February 2011, 10 am and 14 June 2011, 10 a.m. It was agreed to leave these arrangements as they stand, pending the outcome of the review of timings discussed under Minute 3 above.

The meeting closed at 11.35am

9 Page 12

This page is intentionally left blank