2.40
To receive a verbal update from the Head of Access to Learning on fair access and referrals to the Secretary of State.
Minutes:
The Education Scrutiny Committee had requested to receive a verbal update from the Head of Access to Learning on fair access and referrals to the Secretary of State. Accordingly, Allyson Milward attended the Committee to update it on progress of the fair access processes.
Mrs Milward gave an update of the fair access processes and how they were working currently since the last time the Committee had looked at the issue last Autumn. She reported that since last autumn, the team had been introducing rigorous procedures in referring youngsters in the in-year application system who had not been placed within 15 school days within logging an application for a place. They were now (if they could not be placed) being referred straight to the panels. The business was going to the in-year fair access panels alongside those who had been excluded and were looking for an alternative school place.
Youngsters were being identified if they were not moving into the school system quickly enough, which had meant that there had been a huge increase of business going to the panels, so they were looking at how that was being administered. At the moment that was being administered well, North/West Central panels were working co-operatively together to place the youngsters, (there were always cases that needed more investigation than others) but mostly they had got numbers coming through in the Oxford and Bicester areas which was just sheer volume in trying to place youngsters where they hadn’t got the on published numbers the number of places to offer them.
Work had been carried out to identify those trends and they had not had to make any referrals of the SFA this term, but it did take longer to place a youngsters that had been excluded than ones that was coming through with an application for a place because they had not here for the main rounds. They were now getting ready to do the annual consultation on the in-year fair access protocol which would look at some administrative changes to help those panels deal with the volume of work coming their way, so they could get even better at shifting the business.
They were also setting themselves up to deal with the anticipated changes to the school admissions code in the next academic year. The Secretary of State had consulted on some changes this Autumn though the outcome was not yet known. In this area, the main change was that was a requirement that youngsters would have to be placed within ten days of applying for a place in-year and that requirement would fall upon the co-ordinating authority which was usually this Council, but also on the admission authorities and it was going to be a challenge to meet that target. She believed they should be achieving it, but this could require a further look at the fair access protocol next Autumn.
The Chairman commented that those who were members on the school’s stakeholder were aware of the proposals that were currently out. He questioned that given that the proposals were there, and schools were aware of them whether they were seeing any positive change in attitudes from academies that had not been very co-operative so far with their partner schools.
Ms Milward answered that there were still definite trends, but that she was hopeful that the very recent changes at leadership level might make a difference to some areas. There were still differences on how panels dealt with their business, which was how it was designed to be flexible to local needs, but some were more coaligent in their approach than others. This was becoming better logged over time and allowed for discussions on what the role of the panel was.
Councillor Gill Sanders commented that she aware of certain schools who were reluctant to take on students who had been excluded and that there were other schools who took on more than their fair share. Ofsted had undertaken to investigate it at their last meeting with the Council.
Carole Thomson queried how the situation in Primary schools was going. Ms Milward reported that the primary situation was working well and that it did not have the quantity that secondary had, they were dealt with separately and that was working well currently.
Donald McEwan commented that colleagues in schools would aspire to make a placement within ten days. With children returning to a new school following exclusion, the delay was often caused by having to get a risk assessment in place or support staff employed or redeployed to ensure that when a formally excluded pupil is brought into a new school that the new placement is a success. If staff knew a particular cohort had a large number of SEN, it could account for the disparity of accepting formally excluded pupils.
Councillor Gill Sanders commented that she knew that one of the issues was that some school preferred to exclude pupils rather than put the correct infrastructure in to deal with the pupil.
Deborah Bell reported that the key was successful transition planning. Therefore, by starting early when the child is still at alternative provision following an exclusion to understand the exact issues at the receiving second school was, they key to preventing anxiety and disruption to the school leaders and to ensuring a successful transition for the youngsters. The Chairman queried whether schools were getting better at that? Deborah Bell reported that in the main, there were some that were brilliant and some that were still working on it. They were being supported and prompted in terms of that careful transition planning by the County.
The Chairman queried how they were able to encourage schools. Deborah Bell explained that they were tracking the children until they were back into the second school and if there was any delay, they were asking the difficult questions.
The Committee thanked Mrs Milward for her update and welcomed the rigorous process introduced to reduce the length of time for placing a child.