Subject:

School Admission Arrangements 2022-23

Date of Meeting:

11 January 2021

Report of:

Executive Director for Families, Children & Learning 

Contact Officer:

Name:

Richard Barker,   

Tel: 01273 290732,

 

Email:

richard.barker@brighton-hove.gov.uk,

Ward(s) affected:

All

 

 

FOR GENERAL RELEASE    

 

 

1.         PURPOSE OF REPORT AND POLICY CONTEXT

 

1.1         This report details the proposed school admission arrangements for the city’s schools, for which the Council is the admission authority, for the academic year 2022-23.

 

1.2         The report provides an update on the outcome of the consultation on the proposed changes to the Published Admission Number of nine schools.

 

1.3         The committee will be asked to approve the recommendations in this report and determine the admission arrangements, including the scheme for co-ordinated admissions and the “relevant area” for the academic year 2022-23. 

 

2.         RECOMMENDATIONS:    

 

2.1         That the committee agree to make no changes to the council’s school admission arrangements or secondary school catchment areas, except for the changes listed in sub- paragraphs 2.2- 2.10 below, which will result in a reduction in the total of primary school places in the city by 240 places and a reduction of secondary school places by 120 places.

 

2.2         That the committee agree to a change to the Published Admission Number (PAN) for Balfour Primary School from 120 to 90 pupils.

 

2.3         That the committee agree to a change to the Published Admission Number (PAN) for Benfield Primary School from 60 to 30 pupils

 

2.4         That the committee agree to a change to the Published Admission Number (PAN) for Brunswick Primary School from 120 to 90 pupils

 

2.5         That the committee agree to a change to the Published Admission Number (PAN) for Downs Infant School from 120 to 90 pupils

 

2.6         That the committee agree to a change to the Published Admission Number (PAN) for Goldstone Primary School from 90 to 60 pupils

 

 

2.7         That the committee agree to a change to the Published Admission Number (PAN) for Moulsecoomb Primary School from 60 to 30 pupils

 

2.8         That the committee agree to a change to the Published Admission Number (PAN) for Stanford Infant School from 90 to 60 pupils

 

2.9         That the committee agree to a change to the Published Admission Number (PAN) for West Blatchington Primary School from 60 to 30 pupils

 

2.10      That the committee agree to a change to the Published Admission Number (PAN) for Hove Park School from 300 to 180 pupils

 

2.11      That the Committee agree to make no change to the co-ordinated scheme for admissions or to the “relevant area”.

 

 

3.            CONTEXT/ BACKGROUND INFORMATION

 

3.1         The School Admission Code determines the procedure by which the Published Admission Number of schools is set and amended. The council is required to abide by this statutory guidance to ensure the correct procedures are followed. Therefore, it is not possible to manage the situation more flexibly without following the process outlined in the School Admission Code requires the involvement of the Schools Adjudicator.

 

3.2         The Code also outlines who must be consulted in relation to school admission arrangements. This includes parents of children between the ages of two and eighteen; other persons in the relevant area who in the opinion of the admission authority have an interest in the proposed admissions; all other admission authorities within the relevant area and any adjoining neighbouring local authority areas, where the admission authority is the local authority.

 

3.3         Pupil numbers overall across the city have been falling and are forecast to continue to fall over the next few years. 

 

3.4         Schools are mostly funded on pupil numbers, if schools don’t have enough pupils attending they may not be able to operate in a financially efficient way and risk entering a budget deficit. The council holds the financial risk if community schools move into a deficit budget position.

 

3.5         If the number of surplus places in the city is not addressed some schools could face significant financial issues that will impact on their ability to sustain their school improvement journey and this could ultimately mean that schools are forced to close.  

 

3.6         The council is responsible for school place planning which includes both ensuring there are sufficient school places in the city when pupil numbers grow and to ensure there are not too many surplus places when pupil numbers fall as is the present situation. If the council is unable to manage this effectively the Secretary of State could intervene, and schools could be closed as a result.

 

3.7         The council is committed to keeping schools open and to try to avoid the risk of an increase in schools experiencing financial pressures.  The proposals aim to sustain all schools in the city by identifying a range of schools to play a part in reducing the surplus of school places.

 

3.8         By seeking to only reduce the PAN of some schools in the city, it will ensure that the physical accommodation is available when the city receives an upturn in pupil numbers without a new capital programme being required.

 

3.9         Where it is feasible, proposals include large schools where there are projected to be fewer children in future years (in the council defined planning area for that school), however the council is the admissions authority for community schools only and cannot set the admissions number for other schools.  The council has not proposed changes to schools which were oversubscribed with first preferences for September 2020 except where the planning areas would sustain the reduction in places.

 

3.10      The council has remained in dialogue with both the Diocese of Chichester and Diocese of Arundel & Brighton in relation to the projection of surplus places. As the admission authority for 15 primary schools in the city both Dioceses have a role to play but it is recognised that 11 of those schools are already one form entry primary schools.

 

3.11      On 21 September 2020, all schools were advised via a Schools Bulletin article, of the agreement of the CYP&S committee on 14 September 2020 to undertake a consultation on the proposed reduction of PAN at 9 schools.

 

3.12      On 5 October 2020, all schools were notified of the consultation and requested to draw parents’ attention to the consultation. All documentations were supplied with the bulletin.   

 

3.13      The consultation started on 5 October 2020 and closed on 27 November 2020. It was open for 8 weeks and a total of 54 days.

 

3.14      The council has endeavoured to publicise the consultation by issuing press releases and advertising the consultation through various social media channels.  Nursery and childcare providers in the city have been directly contacted to encourage participation in the consultation.

 

3.15      A series of public meetings were arranged to facilitate discussion about the proposals and to collect views.  Two meetings were arranged with a focus on each school featuring in the proposals, one during the daytime and one in the early evening.  Due to the situation with Covid-19 the public meetings were held virtually through Microsoft Teams. Many of the meetings were well attended but there were IT difficulties reported for some families which made participation difficult.

 

3.16      An offer was made for parents to contact the council to discuss the proposals and provide verbal response to the consultation that could be recorded by officers, however this offer was not taken up by any respondents.

 

3.17      Endeavours were made to encourage responses to the consultation from groups in the city who might not usually participate with consultations on School admissions.  PACC and Amaze issued information to parents in their community about the proposals and consultation, the Trust for Developing Communities was asked to do the same.  EMAS (Ethnic Minority Achievement Service) provided information, advice and assistance to complete the consultation to families through their Home, School Liaison workers.

 

3.18      The council has been able to update its projection of future pupil numbers with information provided in November 2020 about the number of GP registrations in the city. In total the council anticipates that the following number of places are required:

 

September 2022 - 2,313

September 2023 - 2,194

September 2024 - 2,076

 

3.19      There are currently 2820 spaces in the reception year across the city. This means that there will be the following number of surplus places:

 

September 2022 - 507

September 2023 - 626

September 2024 - 744 

 

3.20      Whilst the projection of pupil numbers fluctuates each year there is a clear trend of increasing surplus places. For the purpose of planning school places the city’s primary schools are split into eight planning areas and the numbers of children requiring places within those areas is shown in Appendix 6.

 

3.21      It has been a long-standing convention that local authorities should plan to have between 5-10% surplus capacity to allow it to take account of parental preference, new arrivals in the city and small fluctuations in pupil numbers. The surplus capacity for September 2022 is currently 18% (507/2820), 22% (626/2820) in September 2023 and will rise to 26% (744/2820) in September 2024.

 

3.22      To maintain the recommended surplus capacity approximately 300 school places (207/2820= 7%) would need to be removed for September 2022.  8 Infant and Primary schools have been identified totalling 240 school places and if all of these proposals go ahead there will be 267/2580 = 10% surplus capacity in September 2022.

 

3.23      If the proposed reduction in PAN’s were all to take place, in September 2023 there would be (386/2580) 15% surplus capacity rising to (504/2580) 20% in September 2024 suggesting the need to identify further schools for a reduction of PAN in future years in order to maintain surplus capacity below 10%.

 

3.24      Based upon current projections for September 2022 and if all the proposed reduction in PAN’s were to take place, Central Hove would have 9 surplus places, Portslade would have 49 surplus places, Central City would have 60 surplus places and City North would have 11 surplus places.  West Blatchington & North Hangleton would have insufficient places for 3 pupils living in that area should all pupils express a preference to attend either school in the planning area.

 

3.25      School census data from January 2020 indicates that 23 reception pupils living outside the West Blatchington & North Hangleton planning area attend either West Blatchington Primary or Hangleton Primary school with 45 reception pupils living in this area attend schools elsewhere.  This demonstrates a net loss of 22 reception pupils.  Similarly, from the October 2020 census 34 reception pupils living outside the West Blatchington & North Hangleton planning area attend the two schools with 60 reception pupils living in this area attend schools elsewhere.  This gives a net loss of 26 reception pupils.   

 

3.26      There is evidence that more pupils living in the West Blatchington & North Hangleton planning area attend schools in other areas than live elsewhere and travel to attend schools in this area.  Taking account of this trend it is expected that with a reduced PAN for West Blatchington all pupils living in this planning area will still be able to secure a place at one of these schools if this is requested.

 

3.27      Housing developments in the city add to the number of pupils requiring a school place but this impact is small in comparison to changing birth rates.  It has been shows that different types of housing produce different numbers of additional pupils.  If all of the 11,122 units of accommodation identified in the City Plan to be delivered by 2030 are realised this would generate an additional 1,023 primary age pupils by 2030.  If these pupils were generated evenly over the next 10 years we would expect an additional 9 primary age pupils per year group each year across the whole city.

 

3.28      The School Admission Code details that once admission arrangements have been determined for a particular school year, they cannot be revised by the admission authority unless the admission authority consider such changes to be necessary in view of a “major change in circumstances”.  Such proposals must be referred to the Schools Adjudicator for approval.

 

3.29      However, a variation to increase a school’s PAN is not required to be referred to the Schools Adjudicator and can be determined by the admission authority, this is the council for community schools.

 

3.30      In seeking committee approval at this stage to the reduction in the PAN at these schools the Council is aiming to avoid the uncertainty of a later application to the Schools Adjudicator, seeking a variation to admission arrangements that have been previously determined. Any such application would carry a risk that the Schools Adjudicator might not consider a low level of applications for a school to be a “major change in circumstances” when pupil projections are already indicating a rising number of surplus places across the city. A school could then be left with small class sizes which may present a financial pressure to the school.

 

3.31      If any subsequent increase to the PAN of a particular school is required, should the number of applications mean an additional class is required to ensure children have a place at a local school, the Council will be able to determine the increase without reference to the Schools Adjudicator and in dialogue with the governing body of the school.

 

3.32      No primary schools have indicated a willingness to support the need for a reduction in surplus school places in the city through a reduction in their PAN from September 2022.

 

3.33      All proposals have been put forward by the council as part of its strategic responsibilities and it is accepted that governing bodies tasked with ensuring the school’s clarity of vision, ethos and strategic direction may not proactively support a change in its PAN. 

 

Consultation

 

3.34      There were 802 responses to the consultation submitted through the council’s consultation portal. At the time of writing this report there were an additional 42 emails/letters providing comments and a petition against one of the proposals containing 100 signatories.  Tables 1 below shows the range of respondents made through the consultation portal:

 

Table 1

 

Option - How have you be responding to this consultation?

Total

Percent

Brighton & Hove resident

119

14.82%

Parent or guardian of a child(ren) directly affected by the proposed changes

416

51.81%

Parent or guardian of a child(ren) not directly affected by the proposed changes

153

19.05%

Teacher in one of Brighton & Hove schools

55

6.85%

Governor at one of Brighton & Hove schools, please give detail below

18

2.24%

Representative of a voluntary or community group, please give details below

0

0.00%

Other, please give details below

31

3.86%

Not Answered

11

1.37%

 

 

3.35      Responses to the general question about whether respondents agree or disagree that the council should reduce the overall number of surplus school places in the city was answered by 799 people and showed that 488 responses (61%) strongly disagree or tend to disagree compared to 231 responses (29%) who strongly agree or tend to agree.  Table 2 below shows the breakdown of responses to this question. 

 

3.36      Some comments to this question supported the reduction but responses were mostly in relation to the proposals for individual schools.  Comments included support from parents for smaller class sizes, autonomy for schools to decide their own PAN and that more spaces in the city gives parents greater choice. There was also concern that the proposals go too far and remove too many school places as there is perceived uncertainty about future demand.

 

Table 2

 

Option - that the council should reduce the OVERALL number of surplus school spaces in the city?

Total

Percent

Strongly agree

63

7.85%

Tend to agree

168

20.92%

Neither agree nor disagree

61

7.60%

Tend to disagree

107

13.33%

Strongly disagree

381

47.45%

Don’t know / not sure

19

2.37%

Not Answered

4

0.50%

 

3.37      A greater number of responses supported avoiding closing a school wherever possible with 797 responses to this question.  621 responses (78%) strongly agree or tend to agree compared to 101 responses (13%) who strongly disagree or tend to disagree.  Table 3 below shows the breakdown of responses to this question.

 

3.38      Comments to this question included the benefits that schools have to local communities and the need to have schools within walking distance for parents.  There were a small number of comments suggesting undersubscribe schools should be closed rather than reducing the size of popular and oversubscribed schools.

 

Table 3

 

Option - that the council should try to avoid closing a school wherever possible?

Total

Percent

Strongly agree

454

56.54%

Tend to agree

167

20.80%

Neither agree nor disagree

62

7.72%

Tend to disagree

58

7.22%

Strongly disagree

43

5.35%

Don’t know / not sure

13

1.62%

Not Answered

6

0.75%

 

Published admission numbers

 

3.39      The consultation responses raised various general comments including why the consultation was being conducted during a pandemic.  Accuracy of forecast numbers was questioned as some expect an increase in families moving to Brighton & Hove from London due to changing working patterns and a potential baby boom caused by Covid restrictions and lockdown.  The impact on parental preference, potential staff redundancies and the feeling that popular successful schools being proposed to protect less popular schools were regular themes.  Many respondents supported the council’s approach that larger schools should be reduced rather than smaller schools as the impact would be more manageable for larger schools. 

 

3.40      Many responses from parents at all schools praised the education provision, staff dedication and particularly the work of headteachers and questioned why the high quality of education was not taken into account at the schools proposed for a reduced PAN.

 

3.41      On many occasions the council has made it clear that these proposals are in no way a reflection of the quality of education or leadership at the schools recommended to have their PAN reduced.

 

3.42      Responses for a number of schools questioned the impact a reduced PAN would have on the ethnic diversity of pupils at the school.  This is considered as part of the Equalities Impact Assessment in Appendix 7 where analysis of existing pupil preferences shows this to have a minimal impact on diversity of most schools.

 

3.43      There is recognition of the view that reducing the published admission number for popular schools can have the implication of reducing the availability of places at these schools for parents in certain areas of the city.  However the aim of the council with these proposals is to maintain a constant percentage of surplus places in a range of schools across the city so as pupil numbers further decline children in all communities can continue to access a local school.

 

Balfour Primary School

 

3.44      There were 715 responses to this part of the proposal through the consultation portal and a summary of the responses are provided in Table 4 below.  In total 231 respondents (29%) tended to disagree or strongly disagreed with this proposal compared to 171 respondents (21%) who strongly agreed or tended to agree with this proposal.  401 respondents (50%) didn’t offer an opinion or didn’t answer the question.  There were very few comments provided on this proposal but those provided were in support of a reduction in PAN.

 

Table 4

 

Option - to reduce the PAN at Balfour

Total

Percent

Strongly agree

90

11.21%

Tend to agree

81

10.09%

Neither agree nor disagree

175

21.79%

Tend to disagree

70

8.72%

Strongly disagree

161

20.05%

Don’t know / not sure

138

17.19%

Not Answered

88

10.96%

 

 

Benfield Primary School

 

3.45      There were 711 responses to this part of the proposal through the consultation portal and a summary of the responses are provided in Table 5 below.  In total 237 respondents (30%) tended to disagree or strongly disagreed with this proposal compared to 93 respondents (12%) who strongly agreed or tended to agree with this proposal. 473 respondents (59%) didn’t offer an opinion or didn’t answer the question.

 

Table 5

 

Option - to reduce the PAN at Benfield

Total

Percent

Strongly agree

53

6.60%

Tend to agree

40

4.98%

Neither agree nor disagree

208

25.90%

Tend to disagree

70

8.72%

Strongly disagree

167

20.80%

Don’t know / not sure

173

21.54%

Not Answered

92

11.46%

 

3.46      Comments highlighted that the school does not have deficit budget due to being federated with Hangleton Primary School and the potential effect of the proposals on the teaching school status.  However, teaching schools nationally are being reviewed as is the way that they are funded. 

 

3.47      Comments indicated that larger schools can accommodate a reduction in PAN of 30 more easily as Benfield would be reducing size by 50%.  The school’s PAN would be reducing by 50% however with the current low preference numbers which will be exacerbated by falling numbers needing future school places, the actual number on roll would only reduce marginally.

 

3.48      Comments suggested that the proposal would reduce parental choice as this is the only two form of entry secular school in this area and concern that a reduction at Benfield has been proposed again after similar proposal were not take forward two years ago.  It should be noted that parents do not get a choice of school but can express a preference.   The aim of the proposals by reducing the PAN at a number of schools is to maintain a constant percentage of surplus spaces in the city year on year.  Consequently, as pupil numbers decrease this should allow parents a similar opportunity to secure a place at a school of preference.

 

3.49      Representations made on behalf of the governing body indicate that they strongly oppose any reduction in the school’s PAN and should the proposal goes ahead it is highly likely there will be an objection made to the Schools Adjudicator.

 

Brunswick Primary School

 

3.50      There were 713 responses to this part of the proposal through the consultation portal and a summary of the responses are provided in Table 6 below.  In total 249 respondents (31%) tended to disagree or strongly disagreed with this proposal compared to 116 respondents (14%) who strongly agreed or tended to agree with this proposal. 438 respondents (55%) didn’t offer an opinion or didn’t answer the question.

 

Table 6

 

Option- to reduce the PAN at Brunswick

Total

Percent

Strongly agree

68

8.47%

Tend to agree

48

5.98%

Neither agree nor disagree

197

24.53%

Tend to disagree

60

7.47%

Strongly disagree

189

23.54%

Don’t know / not sure

151

18.80%

Not Answered

90

11.21%

 

3.51      The comments questioned the rational for reducing PAN at popular schools when there are less popular schools in the same planning area, that the proposal will have impact on pupils already attending the school due to a reduced budget and that the school has been historically oversubscribed.

 

3.52      Brunswick is a popular school that has been oversubscribed in previous years drawing pupils from a large area beyond the planning area.  Pupil forecasts indicate a need to reduce the number of places in this planning area but options are limited.  West Hove infant school is already reducing PAN in September 2021 and Goldstone Primary is included in the proposals to reduce PAN in 2022.  The remaining schools in this planning area are own admission authority schools where the council cannot set the PAN.

 

3.53      Forecast numbers indicate 9 surplus places in September 2022 for this planning area if both proposals go ahead, 33 surplus places in September 2023 and 66 surplus places in September 2024.  Analysis of past parental preference indicates that an average loss of 33 pupils who live in this planning area but attend schools in other areas each year which would suggest the potential number of surplus places in September 2022 to be closer to 42 places.

 

3.54      The governing body are opposed to the proposed outcome that Brunswick Primary is reclassified as a three form entry school from September 2022.

 

Downs Infant School

 

3.55      There were 730 responses to this part of the proposal through the consultation portal and a summary of the responses are provided in Table 7 below.  In total 388 respondents (48%) tended to disagree or strongly disagreed with this proposal compared to 102 respondents (13%) who strongly agreed or tended to agree with this proposal. 313 respondents (39%) didn’t offer an opinion or didn’t answer the question.

 

Table 7

 

Option- to reduce the PAN at Downs

Total

Percent

Strongly agree

63

7.85%

Tend to agree

39

4.86%

Neither agree nor disagree

131

16.31%

Tend to disagree

52

6.48%

Strongly disagree

336

41.84%

Don’t know / not sure

109

13.57%

Not Answered

73

9.09%

 

3.56      Comments indicated that Downs Infant is a popular school that is currently oversubscribed and the future impact on the linked Junior school in 3 years’ time needs to be considered.  They identify the benefits of current school size which enables the delivery of a high level of education was raised and that reducing the intake would deprive 30 pupils of the high quality education provided at Downs Infant School and that reducing PAN will consequently narrow the cut off distance and as a result the ethnic diversity of the school. 

 

3.57      Comments suggest that sibling make up large number of applications each year so reducing PAN will mean fewer places available for children living in the surrounding area.  While siblings make a high proportion of applications for a number of schools, as a reduced PAN works its way through the school, the number of pupils with a sibling link applying will naturally reduce.

 

3.58      Responses to the consultation were provided on behalf of both the infant and linked junior school governing bodies raising concerns that the proposal could deprive pupils a place at the school who want to attend and would have an impact on the diversity of pupils able to attend.  They highlight the financial implications of the proposals and potential impact on SEN provision.  Some respondents accepted that action needs to be taken by the council to reduce the number of surplus places in the city but not at Downs Infant school.  

 

3.59      Pupil forecasts indicate a significant number of surplus places in this planning area and all three and four form entry schools in this area have been identified to reduce PAN which includes Stanford Infant and Balfour Primary.  If the proposals for all three of these schools go ahead there will still be 60 surplus places in this planning area in September 2022, 102 surplus place in September 2023 and 110 surplus places in September 2024.

 

3.60      Downs Infant is a popular school that has been oversubscribed in previous years drawing pupils from a large area beyond the planning area.  As pupil numbers in the planning area reduce it will be possible for parents to secure a place at this school from further and further afield.  It is recognised that reducing the PAN at Downs Infant will potentially deprive some parents living further from the school the opportunity to send their children to this school.  This must be balanced against the need to support local schools in other communities from being forced to close due to falling numbers on roll.

 

Goldstone Primary School

 

3.61      There were 710 responses to this part of the proposal through the consultation portal and a summary of the responses are provided in Table 8 below.  In total 359 respondents (45%) tended to disagree or strongly disagreed with this proposal compared to 97 respondents (12%) who strongly agreed or tended to agree with this proposal.  455 respondents (57%) didn’t offer an opinion or didn’t answer the question.

 

Table 8

 

Option- to reduce the PAN at Goldstone

Total

Percent

Strongly agree

58

7.22%

Tend to agree

39

4.86%

Neither agree nor disagree

192

23.91%

Tend to disagree

62

7.72%

Strongly disagree

189

23.54%

Don’t know / not sure

170

21.17%

Not Answered

93

11.58%

 

3.62      Comments questioned the amount of surplus capacity for parental preference and in-year movement if all proposals take place which is why the proposals aim to maintain between 5-10% surplus capacity in the city.  

 

3.63      Comments identified that the pupil forecast is based upon specific planning areas but the school draws pupils from outside this area and is skewed by the geographical location of the school at the edge of the planning area.  While pupil places are planned using specific planning areas it is recognised and accounted for that due to parental preference and location of schools there is movement of pupils across planning area boundaries.

 

3.64      Concern was raised by respondents about the impact on nursery class and ability for school to raise additional income for holiday schemes, school clubs and breakfast club if the proposal went ahead.  Concerns were also raised about the potential impact on school’s culture, the ethnic and socio-economic diversity of pupils able to attend as is a popular school which is historically oversubscribed.

 

Moulsecoomb Primary School

 

3.65      There were 706 responses to this part of the proposal through the consultation portal and a summary of the responses are provided in Table 9 below.  In total 216 respondents (27%) tended to disagree or strongly disagreed with this proposal compared to 94 respondents (12%) who strongly agreed or tended to agree with this proposal.  493 respondents (61%) didn’t offer an opinion or didn’t answer the question.

 

Table 9

 

Option- to reduce the PAN at Moulsecoomb

Total

Percent

Strongly agree

49

6.10%

Tend to agree

45

5.60%

Neither agree nor disagree

218

27.15%

Tend to disagree

72

8.97%

Strongly disagree

144

17.93%

Don’t know / not sure

178

22.17%

Not Answered

97

12.08%

 

3.66      There were very few comments provided on this proposal but those given were in support of a reduction in PAN due to the positive effect on other local school that are not currently oversubscribed. The school continues to be subject to an Academy Order and its future status remains unclear. However, at this time it remains a community school and its admission authority is the council. 

 

Stanford Infant School

 

3.67      There were 733 responses to this part of the proposal through the consultation portal and a summary of the responses are provided in Table 10 below.  In total 390 respondents (49%) tended to disagree or strongly disagreed with this proposal compared to 86 respondents (11%) who strongly agreed or tended to agree with this proposal.  327 respondents (41%) didn’t offer an opinion or didn’t answer the question.

 

Table 10

 

Option- to reduce the PAN at Stanford

Total

Percent

Strongly agree

49

6.10%

Tend to agree

37

4.61%

Neither agree nor disagree

149

18.56%

Tend to disagree

58

7.22%

Strongly disagree

332

41.34%

Don’t know / not sure

108

13.45%

Not Answered

70

8.72%

 

3.68      Comments suggested that there are currently areas in the city where access to a local primary school is difficult and the proposals will make this worse, schools need to be within walking distance of pupils’ homes.  While these comments were intended to show support the schools existing PAN they also add weight to the general aim of the proposals to keep schools open so that families living in all communities will have access to a local school.

 

3.69      Other comments indicated that a high number of siblings apply each year so reducing PAN will mean only a small number of pupils from the local area are able to secure a place.  While siblings make a high proportion of applications for a number of schools, as a reduced PAN works its way through the school, the number of pupils with a sibling link applying will naturally reduce.

 

3.70      Responses also identified that Stanford Infant school is smaller than Downs Infants therefore a reduction in PAN would have a greater effect on this school.  That it is a popular school historically oversubscribed and by removing 30 places from this school would deprive 30 children of its Ofsted rated, outstanding education.   Comments were made about the future impact on linked junior school and that there is a lack of secular school places within walking distance if both changes to Stanford and Brunswick Primary school go ahead. 

 

3.71      It was suggested by a number of respondents that schools with older buildings will have larger running costs so a reduced budget resulting from a lower PAN will affect these schools more.  The council recognises that any school with a reduced PAN would have excess accommodation needing to be maintained but this could also be utilised by schools in different ways.  Approximately 80% of a schools funding is spend on staffing and all schools maintaining excess accommodation would be expected to set budgets accordingly.

 

3.72      A representation was provided by the headteacher on behalf of the staff at the school highlighting what they feel would be far reaching consequences of reducing the PAN such as the financial impact on the school and existing pupils, the impact of reorganisation on staff and that the school has not been significantly undersubscribed in previous years.

 

West Blatchington Primary School

 

3.73      There were 724 responses to this part of the proposal through the consultation portal and a summary of the responses are provided in Table 11 below.  In total 301 respondents (37%) tended to disagree or strongly disagreed with this proposal compared to 80 respondents (10%) who strongly agreed or tended to agree with this proposal.  422 respondents (53%) didn’t offer an opinion or didn’t answer the question.

 

Table 11

 

Option - to reduce the PAN at West Blatchington

Total

Percent

Strongly agree

49

6.10%

Tend to agree

31

3.86%

Neither agree nor disagree

191

23.79%

Tend to disagree

59

7.35%

Strongly disagree

242

30.14%

Don’t know / not sure

152

18.93%

Not Answered

79

9.84%

 

3.74      Comments on this proposal highlighted that the school has the only primary Autistic Spectrum Condition (ASC) unit in the city.  Reducing PAN will be disadvantaging pupils in this unit by reducing the opportunity for these pupils to successfully integrate into mainstream classes.  The school is a new, purpose built, 2 form entry school with great facilities and it would be better to reduce the PAN at schools with older buildings and less facilities.

 

3.75      Responses highlighted that the school has had an increase in applications this year and that ASC pupils attend from across the city and often have siblings also wanting to attend so these proposal could result in local pupils not being able to attend.  However, consideration of the forecast numbers and past parental preferences supports the view that with a reduced PAN the school will still be able to accommodate all pupils living in the local area who require a place at this school.

 

3.76      Concerns were raised that a large percentage of pupils with EHCP and a reduced budget would disproportionately affect the SEND support offer however the ASC provision and funding would be unaffected by these proposals.

 

3.77      The potential impact on the nursery if the proposal goes forward was also raised.  Although no priority is given to pupils attending nursery provision, uptake of these places could be affected if parents felt it was unlikely to secure a reception place.

 

3.78      Representations made on behalf of the governing body indicate that they strongly oppose any reduction in the schools’ PAN and should the proposal goes ahead it is highly likely that there will be an objection made to the Schools Adjudicator.

 

Hove Park School

 

3.79      There were 702 responses to this part of the proposal through the consultation portal and a summary of the responses are provided in Table 12 below.  In total 237 respondents (30%) tended to disagree or strongly disagreed with this proposal compared to 94 respondents (12%) who strongly agreed or tended to agree with this proposal.  472 respondents (59%) didn’t offer an opinion or didn’t answer the question.

 

Table 12

 

Option- to reduce the PAN at Hove Park

Total

Percent

Strongly agree

53

6.60%

Tend to agree

41

5.11%

Neither agree nor disagree

203

25.28%

Tend to disagree

68

8.47%

Strongly disagree

169

21.05%

Don’t know / not sure

168

20.92%

Not Answered

101

12.58%

 

3.80      There were few comments provided in relation to this proposal but they include concern that reducing PAN will reduce parental choice, affect the proportion of SEND children attending and that the number of places being removed is too high given the unknown effect of new housing developments in Hove.

 

3.81      The final consultation question asked respondents if there are other schools where a reduction in PAN should be considered, 308 respondents answered this question.  Many responses identified particular schools for further consideration and themes were identified such as only reducing larger schools, suggestions that no schools should have their PAN changed or that all schools in the city reduce PAN equally.  Other responses suggested that only unpopular undersubscribed school should be considered, and that church aided schools should be considered as well as community schools.    

 

Secondary school admission arrangements

 

3.82      66 responses were provided to this part of the consultation with the majority supporting no change to the current arrangements.  A small number of individual points were made regarding possible changes to the oversubscription criteria and tie break however these do not indicate a need to amend the proposals and therefore it is recommended that no change is made to the secondary school admission arrangements.

 

3.83      In previous years both Brighton Aldridge Community Academy and Portslade Aldridge Community Academy have shared the council’s admission arrangements however the Aldridge Education Multi-Academy Trust are consulting on amending the admission arrangements for these schools in 2022-23.

 

Infant & Primary school admission arrangements

 

3.84      60 responses were provided to this part of the consultation with the majority supporting no change to the current arrangements.  A small number of individual points were made regarding possible changes to the oversubscription criteria such as introducing a distance limit for sibling priority and a new priority for pupil premium children.  These responses do not indicate a need to amend the proposals and therefore it is recommended that no change is made to the Infant & Primary school admission arrangements.

 

The co-ordinated admission schemes for 2022/23

 

3.85      Only 20 responses were received regarding this matter. The majority of responses were not specifically relevant to the schemes and where individual points were made regarding the co-ordinated scheme these do not indicate a need to amend the proposals and therefore it is recommended that no change is made to these schemes.

 

The ‘relevant area’ for consultation

 

3.86      53 responses were received regarding this element of the consultation. The majority of the responses were not specifically related to the ‘relevant area’ which is the area which the Local Authority uses when consulting on admissions arrangements. It is currently defined as the area within the Brighton and Hove city boundaries and no change was proposed to the relevant area for September 2022. It is recommended that no change is made to the ‘relevant area as currently stated.

 

4.            ANALYSIS & CONSIDERATION OF ANY ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS

 

4.1         The Council only consulted upon the proposal to reduce the PAN of nine schools. Any additional changes in this report would not have been considered as part of a public consultation and therefore the views of the community on those alterations would not be known. Under the School Admission Code this must be undertaken following a consultation with the governing body. All admission authorities must consult where they propose a decrease to the PAN. Community schools have the right to object to the Schools Adjudicator if the PAN set for them is lower than they would wish. There is a strong presumption in favour of an increase to the PAN to which the Schools Adjudicator must have regard when considering any such objection.

 

4.2         The Council could seek to make no change to the PAN of any primary school. Whilst this may ensure the council can meet a high level of parental preferences it places more schools at risk of financial difficulty.

 

4.3         Once admission arrangements have been determined by the Council it is possible to seek agreement from the Schools Adjudicator for a variation to the PAN of schools with effect from September 2022 after notifying all other admission authorities within the relevant area. This needs to follow a major change in circumstances.

 

5.            COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT & CONSULTATION

 

5.1         The Council scrutinised the Voluntary Aided (VA) Schools and Free Schools’ proposed admission arrangements for 2022/23. VA schools are required to consult their religious authority (in this case the Diocesan Authority) before consulting others.  The Council will review the final document published by the Governing Bodies before deciding whether it should comment or act further.

 

5.2         The Council has previously requested that Headteachers and Chairs of Governors inform it if a future reduction in PAN was a proposal that they would wish to undertake. No schools have indicated a willingness to undertake such a reduction.

 

5.3         Two virtual public meetings, one during the day and one in the early evening were facilitated for each school where there is a proposed reduction in PAN.  These were conducted through Microsoft Teams.  There was a range of attendance from no parents at some events up to 50 participants at others. 

 

5.4         The consultation started on 5 October 2020 and closed on 27 November 2020. Information about the consultation and links to the virtual public meetings was available on the council’s website www.brighton-hove.gov.uk/SchoolAdmissionsConsultation.  Background information and frequently asked questions were provided and updated throughout the consultation period.

 

5.5         Responses could be provided to the consultation through the council’s consultation portal https://consultations.brighton-hove.gov.uk or by email to the school admission team.  Notes of any themes raised at the public meetings were recorded and there was the opportunity for parents to provide a verbal response to the consultation by telephone.

 

5.6         During the consultation period an update of the GP registration data was received and revised forecasts provided (appendix 6) including the first indication of places needed for September 2024.

 

5.7         Additional information was published on the council’s website during the consultation such as analysis of the accuracy of the pupil forecast.  This shows that for pupils starting school in the last two years the forecast is 99% accurate when looking one year in advance, greater than 98% accurate two years in advance and around 97% accurate three years in advance.

 

5.8         An Equalities Impact Assessment was conducted to ensure that the consultation was conducted to ensure that groups with protected characteristics were included.  Responses from the consultation portal show that only just over a hundred respondents (approx. 13%) completed the equalities monitoring questions from which it is difficult to draw any conclusions.  Feedback from the Ethnic Minority Achievement Service (EMAS) indicated that many parents from ethnic minorities or with English as an additional language found the consultation confusing even with assistance.  There was a reluctance to participate from some groups as they felt that it didn’t affect them partly due to the uncertainty of the housing situations so children may have to move schools anyway and a trust that whatever school parents get it will be a good school.  The difficulty of not being able to attend a local school was however identified as a potential problem.   

 

6.         CONCLUSION

 

6.1         The projected number of children requiring a school place in Brighton & Hove is falling in the coming years, which is leading to an increase in surplus school places across the city. If a school’s PAN is significantly higher than the number of places allocated, then it could generate a financial pressure on the school. This would lead to staffing changes and a need to review the diversity and opportunities of curriculum delivery together with less funding to maintain the school’s accommodation.

 

6.2         After admission arrangements are determined a variation can only be revised by detailing the “major change in circumstances” to the Schools Adjudicator and obtaining their approval.

 

6.3         Updated pupil forecast based upon November 2020 GP data confirm the expected trend of reducing pupil numbers over the next 4 years however the numbers expected have changed for some planning areas for September 2022. 

 

6.4         The council is required to manage the availability of school places in the city and with pupil numbers falling there is a demonstrable need to reduce the number of surplus places in the city.  The aim of these proposals is to support the whole family of schools with the commitment to avoid closing schools and preserving the physical accommodation for future need which has to be balanced against the impact on individual schools some of which may not yet have been directly affected by a significant drop in pupils on roll.

 

6.5         After consultation on proposals to reduce the Published Admission Number it is recommended that the committee agree to a change to the Published Admission Number (PAN) for the following 9 schools:

 

•           Balfour Primary School from 120 to 90 pupils

•           Benfield Primary School from 60 to 30 pupils

•           Brunswick Primary School from 120 to 90 pupils

•           Downs Infant School from 120 to 90 pupils

•           Goldstone Primary School from 90 to 60 pupils

•           Moulsecoomb Primary School from 60 to 30 pupils

•           Stanford Infant School from 90 to 60 pupils

•           West Blatchington Primary School from 60 to 30 pupils

•           Hove Park School from 300 to 180 pupils

 

 

7.         FINANCIAL & OTHER IMPLICATIONS:

 

Financial Implications:

 

7.1       Pupil numbers are the most significant component in determining individual schools’ budgets. The proposal to decrease the PAN for a number of schools is intended to reduce the number of surplus school places to safeguard and indirectly benefit the wider provision across the city. Without this proposal there is a possibility that some schools become financially unviable due to low pupil numbers.

 

7.2       For the schools where reductions in PANs are proposed there will be direct implications and the need to plan future years’ budgets to reflect lower pupil numbers and the consequent impact on budget allocations.

 

            Finance Officer Consulted:     Steve Williams                             Date: 07/12/20

 

Legal Implications:

7.3       Section 88C of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 and the

School Admissions (Admissions Arrangements and Co-ordination of

Admission Arrangements) Regulations 2012 require admission authorities to

determine their admission arrangements annually. Arrangements must be

determined 18 months in advance of the academic year to which they apply.

 

7.4       Where changes such as a decrease in the PAN are proposed to admission

arrangements the admission authority must first publicly consult on those

proposed arrangements. The School Admissions Code 2014 states that

consultation must be for a minimum of six weeks and must take place

between 1 October and 31 January of the school year before those

arrangements are to apply. The admission arrangements must be

determined by 28 February 2021.

 

7.5       Community schools have the right to object to the Schools Adjudicator if the

PAN set for them is lower than they would wish.

 

7.6       The 1998 Act also requires local authorities to establish a relevant area in

which admission authorities must consult regarding their admission

arrangements. The Education (Relevant Areas for Consultation on Admission

           Arrangements) Regulations 1999 requires LA’s to consult on these proposals every two years.

           

            Lawyer Consulted: Serena Kynaston  Date: 21.12.2020

 

            Equalities Implications:

 

7.7 An Equality Impact Assessment has been carried out on the proposals being recommended to the committee. The assessment can be found at Appendix 7 and the results have been incorporated into the content of the report.

 

7.8 It is worth noting that the admission process is ‘blind’, by virtue of applications being considered in line with the published admission arrangements that do not take account of a person’s protected characteristics.

 

7.9 However, the availability of school places across the city could have an impact on certain groups by virtue of their proximity to certain schools and the availability of places should families make a late application.

 

7.10      When determining admission arrangements, the council needs to ensure that there are sufficient school places available within a reasonable distance for families who may contain members who have special educational needs, disabilities, speak English as an additional language and of various races/ethnicities. This will ensure that if families apply after the deadline date they will not be significantly disadvantaged and face the prospect of a lengthy journey to school.

 

7.11      It is recognised that to foster strong community cohesion school’s intake should seek to reflect the city’s diversity.  

 

            Sustainability Implications:

 

7.12      There are no sustainability implications as a result of the proposals in this report.

 

7.13      Wherever possible the council aims to reduce the number of journeys to school undertaken by car. A reduction in the availability of school places across the city could risk a rise in the number of journeys undertaken by car.

 

7.14      Schools are expected to have a School Travel Plan to:

 

o   reduce the number of vehicles on the journey to school

o   improve safety on the journey to school

o   encourage more active and sustainable travel choices

 

7.15      Any change in PAN is expected to require the school’s travel plan to be re-written to take account of the change.

 

7.16      In relation to Hove Park School many secondary aged pupils will either use public transport or make their own way to school. As a school that often has surplus places on allocation students from further away in the city are often allocated a place there. This will reduce should the school’s PAN be reduced.

 

7.17      Many primary schools are clustered in areas which means that a reduction in places will not mean a significant increase in journeys to other schools.

 

 

Any Other Significant Implications:

 

7.18      None

 

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION

 

Appendices:

 

1.    Proposed Published Admission Numbers for Primary and Secondary schools.

 

2.    Proposed Admission arrangements and priorities for community primary and secondary schools

 

3.    Proposed Coordinated scheme of admissions – primary.

 

4.    Proposed Coordinated scheme of admissions – secondary.

 

5.    Proposed Coordinated scheme of admissions – in year arrangements

 

6.    Primary school pupil projections by planning areas

 

7.    Equalities Impact Assessment

 

Documents in Members’ Rooms

 

Consultation responses     

 

Background Documents

 

None