Agenda item

The report was introduced by the Assistant Director Education and Resources and provided the Committee with an outline of the proposal for meeting the statutory requirement for school places in Peterborough.  The Committee were asked to comment on the Plan which had also gone out to schools for consultation.

Observations and questions were raised and discussed including:

·         Members referred to page 90 of the report and the mention of ‘land provision for a second phase at St Michaels which can extend the intake to 60 but only £400,000 funding’ and asked if the funding would be from the Diocese of Ely. The Assistant Director Education and Resources stated that the funding was the remnants of the Section 106 agreement the initial funding was £2M for the first phase which was generous and the £400,000 was legacy funding. No funding has been received from either phase from the Diocese of Ely.

·         Members asked if there was an implication that rural schools would be left behind in terms of investment in buildings. The Assistant Director Education and Resources stated that the document dealt with growth and the increase in pupils. There was a separate document that would deal with capital maintenance. Capital maintenance was based upon need not geography however there was growth in rural areas and there were asset management plans in place for all schools.

·         Councillor Lane referred to page 71 and asked about the £2.8M allocated for out of area school placements and asked for assurances that this would be reduced. The Assistant Director Education and Resources stated that the cost of out of area school provision was not borne by the tax payer and was not a local authority function.  It was part of the dedicated schools grant from government and two years ago it was £4 million but a lot of work had been done to reduce that figure over time. The challenge was that some of the needs were very specialist such as autism and physical disabilities. The focus was to try and keep children with  special needs local  and therefore investment was being made in schools locally to accommodate this and therefore reduce out of area spend.

·         Members commented that Academies were responsible for their own admission arrangements.  How did this work in terms of catchment areas?  Could they choose the area from which they draw their pupils from and how much discretion did they have to decide upon admissions arrangements. Members were advised that there were 23 admissions authorities within the City.  Church schools also had their own admissions authority as well as Academies.    If a school wanted to change their admissions process they would have to go out to consultation and the LA was a statutory consultee.  If the LA was not happy with a change in an admissions process they could appeal to the School Adjudicator.  Catchment areas for secondary schools no longer really applied.

·         Members asked regarding the Fair Banding admission criteria for Thomas Deacon Academy which had been in place for nearly seven years.  Would this be changing with the new Head Teacher in place?  Members were advised that the funding agreement for Thomas Deacon Academy was due to expire in September 2014 and the issue of admissions criteria could be reviewed.  The Local Authority would ensure this was taken up.

·         Members asked for reassurance that the revised formula for yield calculations was accurate. The Assistant Director Education and Resources stated that it was difficult to be completely accurate due to population fluidity however the projections were based upon evidence which was constantly updated.

·         Members referred to the mention on page 71 of the report of mobile classrooms at the Pheonix and Marshfields schools and asked if these were a temporary or a permanent measure.  Members were informed that mobile classrooms were used to manage immediate need for capacity and only as a temporary medium termmeasure.

·         Members noted that Hampton had the highest catchment pupil numbers and Ken Stimpson the lowest.  What was the reason for this?  The Assistant Director Education and Resources advised that there were various reasons but that his theory was that the age of the housing in Werrington meant that there were more older families there now. However this was a hypothesis rather than an evidence-based theory.  It was also about the socio-economic movement in those areas, age profile, popularity and demand for school places.

·         Members asked if Lawn Avenue School would become a single school primary school. The Assistant Director Education and Resources stated that there had been work undertaken to look at  the condition of the school, size of the land and where it sits geographically and it had therefore been decided that it would not be established as a primary school.

·         Members commented that there was still a grey area with regard to the catchment areas and local children sometimes being unable to attend their local school. The Assistant Director Education and Resources stated that the government priority was parental choice and that his priority was making sure local children could access schools in their area.

·         Members followed-up asking if there was anything in place to improve the safety of areas around local schools. The Assistant Director Education and Resources stated that parking outside schools would always be an issue and where there were unsafe features in schools, these would be picked up going forwards.

·         Members asked if the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) could be used to provide a bus service for schools. The Assistant Director Education and Resources stated that this would be a challenge as CIL money would be used for capital expenditure and a bus service was revenue. However CIL money might be used for road improvements in the community.

·         Members asked if there had been a survey of where vehicles were coming from that were causing congestion outside schools. The Assistant Director Education and Resources stated that there were statistics which schools obtained from travel surveys but it was difficult to enforce traffic restrictions. However the advice to schools was to discourage driving to schools and put travel plans in place.

·         Members asked how much was spent on taxis for children who cannot be accommodated at a school near their home. The Assistant Director Education and Resources stated that he did not have the exact figure but it was likely £400 to £500,000, but a full figure could be provided at a later date.

·         Members asked how taxi companies were chosen to take children to school. The Assistant Director Education and Resources stated that it was through a full procurement and tender process.

ACTIONS AGREED

The Committee noted the report and endorsed the Draft School Organisation Plan 2014/2015 – Delivering Local Places for Local Children.