Agenda item

The Panel will consider a report giving an update on the decline of the cohort of children in primary schools in Kirklees.

Contact:         Martin Wilby, Head of Education Places and Access Strategy

                        Jo-Anne Sanders, Service Director, Learning and Early Support

The Panel considered a report on the decline of the cohort of children in primary schools in Kirklees, which was presented by Martin Wilby, Head of Education Places and Access.

Martin Wilby gave an overview of the report and highlighted the following key points:

·       The number of children in the cohort entering Reception had been in decline since a peak in 2015/16, and the cohort across Kirklees had reduced by over 1,000 since then.

·       A large proportion of school funding was determined by the number of children on roll, and the decline in numbers was having an impact on the budgets of some schools.

·       Over the last five years opportunities for reducing places had been considered, to enable schools to have a more efficient financial model.

·       The mechanism for this had been a reduction in Pupil Admission Numbers (PAN).

·       Progress had been made, with a reduction of 7.7% Reception places, over 400 places less than 5 years ago. At the same time, the cohort reduced by 8.2%.

·       In some geographical areas progress had been limited, and there were a larger number of surplus places available, with two named areas having a 26% surplus.

·       A healthy surplus would be 5-10%, so 26% was being highlighted as a concern.

Martin Wilby informed the Panel of the background to School Planning Areas and explained that there were 23 Primary Planning Areas in Kirklees which were geographical areas signed off by the Department for Education. All schools in the planning area were looked at when planning school places. Pupil cohorts fluctuated year on year within a single schools’ locality, so having a larger number of schools within a local area made planning more effective. More information could be found in the school place planning document which provided the evidence base for this report (School Place Planning 2024-2027).

The Panel was informed that there were no plans for school closures, but this was the ultimate destination for schools if they could not remain sustainable. There was a heightened risk of school closures in cases where high surplus places could not be resolved.

In response to a question from the Panel, Martin Wilby advised that the majority of engagement to date had been with school leaders, and where this had not resulted in progress being made, he recommended that the next steps would be to present the facts and information to both school leaders and governors, and to discuss potential opportunities in partnership with them. The Panel noted that Kirklees was not the admission authority in some schools as they had their own admission arrangements and made their own decisions. Martin Wilby advised the Panel that by bringing the report to Children’s Scrutiny, awareness of the facts on this issue would be raised and suggestions from the Panel were welcomed.

The Panel suggested that where schools were run by Multi Academy Trusts (MATs) the governors of the MATs were often spread across a large geographical area, however there were often individual school subcommittees/governors whose members held local knowledge and could be valuable contacts for such future discussions. Martin Wilby thanked the Panel for the suggestion.

In response to a question about the Published Admission Number (PAN) the Panel were informed that the National Admissions Code underpinned the national system for admissions, with the decision on a school’s PAN made by the admission authority. Martin Wilby advised the Panel that for community and voluntary controlled schools the Council was the admission authority, although schools were engaged with prior to any proposed changes to PAN. Academies, voluntary aided schools and Trusts were their own admission authorities and complied with the same admissions code. The Published Admission Number (PAN) determined the number of pupils admitted at a usual point of entry, for example into Reception for Primary Schools. The most financially efficient PAN would be 30 or multiples of 30.

Jo-Anne Sanders, Head of Learning and Early Support, advised the Panel that:

·       Some smaller schools worked creatively to differentiate the curriculum with PANs that differed from the usual model of 30 per year group.

·       Schools needed to be financially sustainable to enable them to provide a high quality of education.

·       The birth rate was falling nationally, while a bulge of pupils were passing through the secondary system.

·       Engagement was taking place with secondary schools; there were opportunities to use surplus space for Additional Resourced Provisions, or satellites for special schools.

·       The service was exploring how the school estate could be used to the greatest effect and seeking creative solutions to the issue of surplus places.

The Panel asked for reassurance that the Council had planned for any further significant drops in birth rate.  Jo-Anne Sanders informed the Panel that the Council met its statutory duty to provide sufficient school places by using detailed information on birth rates from the NHS, tracking patterns of pupil movement and taking into account factors that impacted on demand such as house building, to ensure the right number of places were available. Schools had the opportunity to join together by federating, and to look at different ways to be as effective and efficient as possible; all avenues would be explored with stakeholders before closures would be considered.

In answer to a question about potential timescales where schools may change their PAN significantly, Martin Wilby advised the Panel that the significant change procedure outlined in the admission code would be followed, which specified a window between October and January for consultation to take place for planned changed for the September the following year, effectively giving an 18-24 month lead time before changes would take effect.

In answer to a question from the Panel about the opportunities around Alternative Resource Provisions (ARPs) and satellite provision for specialist schools, Jo-Anne Sanders advised that Stuart Horn was leading on the publication of a document around specialist places, and that cluster working would provide additional insight into demand for places. Jo-Anne Sanders suggested that this document could be brought to a future scrutiny meeting. The Panel were informed that further ARPS needed to be established, closer to where children lived to improve opportunities for relationships to be built and to reduce travel time for children. Jo-Anne Sanders advised that discussions were underway with some schools regarding new ARPs which provided the opportunity for more inclusive practice and that schools were invited to come forward to discuss possibilities. Kirklees schools had developed good examples of best practice, and the DfE were working with the service while developing their policy on ARPs.

The Panel asked a question about decision making on school closures. Martin Wilby informed the Panel that where schools were under council control, the council made the decision, and it would follow the significant change procedure outlined previously. A non-statutory consultation was always carried out by Kirklees where a controversial change was proposed, followed by statutory consultation as outlined in the Admissions Code. Academies would follow a similar process, also following the Admissions Code, and the decision would ultimately be made by the regional director at the DfE.

RESOLVED:

1)    That the officers be thanked for their contributions.

2)    That the suggestions made by the Panel be taken into account by officers in taking this work forward.