Agenda and minutes

To note the attendance at this meeting of any duly appointed Reserve Members.

Reserve Members may attend meetings:-

(i)                 to take the place of an ordinary Member for whom they are a reserve;

(ii)               where the ordinary Member will be absent for the whole of the meeting; and

(iii)             the meeting notes at the start of the meeting at the item ‘Reserves’ that the Reserve Member is or will be attending as a reserve;

(iv)              if a Reserve Member whose intention to attend has been noted arrives after the commencement of the meeting, then that Reserve Member can only act as a Member from the start of the next item of business on the agenda after his/her arrival.

RESOLVED:  To note that there were no Reserve Members in attendance at this meeting.

To receive declarations of personal or prejudicial interests, arising from business to be transacted at this meeting, from:

(a)               all Members of the Committee, Sub Committee, Panel or Forum;

(b)               all other Members present in any part of the room or chamber.

RESOLVED:  To note that there were no declarations of interests made by Members of the Forum arising from the business to be transacted at this meeting.

To consider whether any of the items listed on the agenda should be considered with the press and public excluded on the grounds that it is thought likely, in view of the nature of the business to be transacted, that there would be disclosure of confidential information in breach of an obligation of confidence or of exempt information as defined in Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972.

RESOLVED:  That all items be considered with the press and public present.

That the minutes of the meeting held on 9 July 2008 be taken as read and signed as a correct record.

RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting held on 9 July 2008 be taken as read and signed as a correct record.

To consider any matters arising from the last meeting.

RESOLVED:  That there were no matters arising.

To receive questions (if any) from local residents or organisations under the provisions of Advisory Panel and Consultative Forum Procedure Rule 16 (Part 4E of the Constitution).

RESOLVED:  To note that no public questions were put, or petitions or deputations received at this meeting under the provisions of Advisory Panel and Consultative Forum Procedure Rules 16, 14 and 15 (Part 4E of the Constitution) respectively.

Report of the Director of Schools and Children’s Development.

The Forum received the report of the Director of Schools and Children’s Development which set out the feedback from the School Admissions Arrangements Working Group on the high school oversubscription criteria. The Service Manager for Place Planning and School Admissions reported that the aim was to develop a single model for high school admission arrangements which would be equitable and robust. 634 responses from an ‘early sounding’ exercise were received, although the replies did not reflect an equal response from all schools.  The outcome of this exercise was that only a small number of respondees (4.7%) supported linked school arrangements over distance.  Over 50% of respondees indicated they did not want any change to established links.  The Working Group received legal advice about whether using linked schools met the requirements of the School Admissions Code of Practice.  Problems were associated with trying to establish linked school arrangements that were seen to be fair and equitable.  It was questioned as to whether it was possible to establish clear, fair and objective criteria for developing a linked school model that would be acceptable, or whether an existing model could be adapted to achieve this.

A member commented that the agreed model must stand up to judicial scrutiny as, in his view, parental objections to admissions arrangements had increased.  A member of the forum stated, that some primary schools, although not directly feeder schools, had extended non-formal links with secondary schools which proved to be very successful.  The member added that, in her opinion, some cluster systems did work well and that the biggest challenge remaining was maintaining consistency with admissions arrangements.  Another member expressed her concern that, due to the amount of regulations, strictly adhering to one regulation could be detrimental to another, and questioned whether there was a London-wide consensus on which admission arrangement were most equitable.  The Service Manager for Place Planning and School Admissions replied that Harrow and Richmond were the only two boroughs in London that used link schools over distance and that Richmond extended its link school arrangements to schools outside of their borough.  A member responded that admissions arrangements were rarely a concern when schools were undersubscribed, but due to Harrow schools suffering from the pressures of over-subscription the arrangements were frequently called into question.

The Service Manager for Place Planning and School Admissions concluded that views would be welcomed on how to involve the community in consultation on admissions arrangements and that Harrow People Magazine had been approached with a view of carrying an article.

RESOLVED: That the report be noted.

Report of the Director of Schools and Children’s Development.

The Forum received the report of the Director of Schools and Children’s Development which set out the Office of the Schools Adjudicator’s Review of School Admissions Arrangements.  The Service Manager of Place Planning and School Admissions reported that the revision was a thorough exercise that scrutinised the admission arrangements of the schools in the country.  A number of admissions arrangements, including those for Harrow community schools were deemed to have breaches of a technical nature that needed to be addressed:

1.                   Children with a statement of special educational needs should not be part of the oversubscription criteria and Harrow should remove this criterion.  Children with a statement of special needs must be admitted to a school whether the school had places or not.

2.                   The rules for First to Middle School transfer placed children attending a link school before those children in public care.  This was not permissible as Children Looked After must be given top priority in admission arrangements.

There were also a number of comments on the admission arrangements for Harrow voluntary aided schools.  In cases where there was no definition of admissions arrangements submitted, the authority offered a default version which satisfied the Office of the Schools Adjudicators criteria.

A member questioned whether distance from home to school was measured accurately as many schools had more than one entrance.  The Service Manager of Place Planning and School Admissions confirmed that where schools had more than one entrance, these were mapped onto the admission database.  The home to school measurement was done from the address point for the home address to the closest school entrance.

Once the Governors of voluntary aided schools had ratified of the revised admission arrangement, parents who had applied to these schools would be advised of the revised rules.

In conclusion, a Member of the Forum extended his congratulations to the Admissions Service for following the admissions code with great diligence.

RESOLVED: That the report be noted.

Report of the Director of Schools and Children’s Development.

The Forum received the report of the Director of Schools and Children’s Development which set out a review of the information requested as part of the application process for an In-Year Primary / Secondary School place.  The Service Manager of Place Planning and School Admissions reported that the review had come about from a request from the Portfolio Holder for Schools and Children’s Development.  The review concerned the requesting of information that was not used as part of the application process but was deemed to assist schools in admitting children after the application process had been completed.  The Portfolio Holder was concerned that the collection of the information could be seen to be discriminatory.  The information requested in question was:

·                     How long the child had lived in the UK?

·                     Which Languages are spoken in the (your) home?

·                     Does the (your) child speak English? If yes, say how well.

A member responded that their school used the information in a wholly positive manner.  She added that it aided placing the child in the most suitable class and that this would lower the pressures associated with starting a new school.  Another member added that the information would help the school make appropriate use of resources and aid with communication.  The member concluded that the inclusion of the questions ensured a level of consistency across the borough and it should not be viewed in a negative light.  A Member, in agreement, suggested the inclusion of the questions on a separate sheet to the main application form, so that it was apparent that they would not be used for allocating school places.  The Service Manager of Place Planning and School Admissions replied that, in her experience, supplementary forms were often ignored or discarded.

A Member of the Forum commented that, with reference to the agenda item concerning the Office of the Schools Adjudicators scrutiny of admissions arrangements where they had suggested the removal of information unrelated to any oversubscription criteria, the In-Year application form might be subject to the same ruling.  The Service Manager of Place Planning and School Admissions replied that the OSA had not reviewed the in-year application.

A member commented that by having such questions on the form, those parents who were better educated or ‘knew how to potentially play the system’ could use the issue of the question’s inclusion to launch an appeal, should their child not be accepted at a school of their choice.  Another member suggested requesting the information on the acceptance form, once the place had been allocated.  The Service Manager of Place Planning and School Admissions replied that the Admissions Service rarely receive the acceptance forms back.

After a discussion on whether the Forum should remove the questions from the In-Year application form or whether to feedback information on the discussion of the Forum, it was decided that legal advice should be sought before a decision was made.

RESOLVED: That (1) the report be noted;

(2)  Legal advice be sought regarding the inclusion or removal of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 92.

Report of the Director of Schools and Children’s Development.

The Forum received the report of the Director for Schools and Children’s Development which set out a response to a question from a member of the Forum about a child not allocated a place at a school local to their residence.  The member outlined the particulars of the case and queried whether an arrangement could be put in place to stop this happening to applicants in an area close to a number of schools but not one school they would be guaranteed to be allocated a place or who find themselves at the top of the waiting list, yet find themselves passed over for admission by higher priority cases.  A  Member replied that three of his constituents had faced the same situation, only because they had not applied for the four schools nearest to their residence.  He added, that although he was sympathetic to the cases, applicants are advised to apply to their nearest school, and make use of all the opportunity to apply for four schools.  He concluded that if applicants do not give four preferences on the application form then they risk not being offered a school close to their residence.  He confirmed that very clear advice is given about this in the Guide to Primary Schools.  The Chairman added that when using the on-line application process, a warning is issued to the user if they do not fill in all four options.

In response to a member’s question about whether the waiting list could remain static, a member replied that such a practice would not meet the requirements for maintaining waiting lists as set out in the School Admissions Code of Practice.

The Chairman concluded it was not the principle that was being called into question but rather that the Forum was acknowledging that the system could not guarantee a place in a particular school or schools.  The Forum also acknowledged that applicants were given the right to express a preference, rather than make a definitive choice.

RESOLVED: That the report be noted.

Panel Members agreed that personal contact details could be circulated amongst members of the Forum.

The next meeting of the Harrow Admissions Forum was provisionally agreed as 24 November 2008 at 6.00 pm.