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.