Agenda item

Officers presented the draft School Organisation Plan.

Officers noted the usefulness of the School Organisation Plan for schools in planning around pupil numbers and in strategic development. The draft Plan was divided into three sections: Introduction, Context and Strategy. These sections provided an overview of the education landscape in Hillingdon; a summary of current pupil numbers and projected demands in primary, secondary and specialist provision; and the options for the Local Authority to consider when determining the need to increase or reduce school places. It was emphasised that it was a statutory duty of the Local Authority to ensure a sufficiency of school places.

Members expressed their satisfaction with the comprehensiveness of the report and thanked officers for their hard work.

Members asked about PAN reductions and asked if the reductions were sufficient.Officers noted that they regularly reviewed census information. Alongside this, officers looked at preference data and had ongoing discussions with schools. The pupil roll had been declining in primary schools and there was pressure in secondary schools. PAN reductions were not always concentrated in a particular school. Schools were monitored and supported by education advisors and the admissions team. The recent occurrence of nine PAN reductions was noted as something that was not the norm, and it was noted that maintained schools and academies were supported in the same way.

Members asked about the timing of the creation of the School Organisation Plan. Officers noted that there was no longer a statutory requirement to publish a School Organisation Plan, but it was good practise to have one. Officers further noted the alignment with other strategies such as the SEND, AP (alternative provision) and Education strategies and the need for timely dissemination of information to schools. There was pressure around primary places and the knock-on effect this would have on secondary places. The School Organisation Plan would help schools to have as much data and information as possible so that they were in the strongest position to be able to make appropriate plans.

Members suggested this was a simplistic way of planning secondary places. When the School Organisation Plan was statutory, headteachers were consulted and noted that planning was very complex in the middle of the borough. There were formerly three secondary planning areas, north, central east, and central west, which gave a detailed idea of where the pressure was. Having separated north and south, it appeared that the pressure was in the north, when it was coming from the centre. Members suggested reverting to the use of former planning areas. Officers noted that any changes to planning areas had to go through the SCAP process so any changes would have to be requested. Officers highlighted that this suggestion may have been explored previously and rejected but would look into it.

Members asked about the forecasting process and the error margin around long-term forecasting. Officers suggested they could refer to the data team on this but suggested a variance of around 3%.

Members asked about the timescale for looking at changing secondary school capacity to match the surplus that would build up. Officers noted that this was currently happening. With current projections, the numbers were going to plateau in the coming year and beyond that start to reduce. Analysis of this was already underway. What officers wanted to do was, similar to in primaries, be able to use any surplus capacity to provide specialist places. There had been a series of SEND projects in the primary sector, and officers aimed to mirror this in the secondary sector.

Members noted their preferences for having yearly updates rather than twice-yearly. Members asked for clarification on how decisions were made to reduce PAN, amidst avoiding over-crowding and financial pressures. Officers noted that this involved ongoing conversations with schools, understanding what was working for them and where there were challenges. It was also dependent on year groups as there was more flexibility in Key Stage Two than in Key Stage One. Officers could explore informal caps and supporting schools with that. This was informal and so where there was demand, the full PAN would need to be used. It was also important to be flexible.

Members asked about long-term planning in terms of either increasing or decreasing PAN. Officers noted that having a plan such as the School Organisation Plan allowed a longer-term view on the direction of travel. However, officers would not want to be making big decisions on long term projections as they would not want to be putting the Council in financial risk for example. Having a School Organisation Plan was helpful as it allowed forward thinking. It would also be updated annually to reflect the direction of travel. Keeping in conversation with schools was important, and it was also important to be flexible as although pupil numbers were currently falling, this could change in the near future.

Members noted that Hillingdon had become a net exporter of students to neighbouring boroughs and suggested the use of a map to show exactly where the pressures were.

Members referred to the table of ‘Total number of places available by phase’, noting that the stated 5.6% difference between PAN and those on roll in secondary schools was not equal to the 8% required. Members further suggested that the 5.6% included bulge classes. Members asked when there would be enough wiggle room to allow move-ins, for example. Officers noted that that 5.6% excluded bulge classes but included Studios and UTCs (university technical colleges) but would check again with the data team.

Members asked about PPA 3, and why there appeared to be a big drop off in surplus places from the current academic year moving forward. Officers noted that there had been a double counting for the PAN reductions in the 24/25 column. Where there was a difference of 30, this was because there were two PAN reductions that will come into effect this year but for infant and junior.

Members asked about vacant caretaker properties, noting that it was good that Hillingdon had already identified vacant properties suitable for SEND provision. Members asked if there were any timescales on this. Officers noted that they were only just starting these conversations, and this was another way of supporting schools financially whilst also helping with other Council objectives. This was an ongoing plan.

Members asked about how the Council had been working to reduce the number of children in Independent Non-Maintained Special School (INMSS) provision, and also about the number of children being sent outside of the borough who have SEND. Officers noted that they could provide this information outside of the meeting. Officers highlighted the importance of children with SEND being educated in their local community, and one of the key reasons for this was transport. Having to travel long distances to school could be difficult and affect social groups that young people made. Furthermore, it was important to ensure there were enough maintained local settings, including SRPs (specialist resource provision) and designated units. Officers were looking at special school admissions criteria so that there was a clear framework around which schools provided the right provision for the right need. As those building projects completed there would be more places within borough but Hillingdon did have quite a high level of special school places compared to national levels.

Members asked about assessment and how pupils were assessed in terms of determining the level of educational provision that they might need. Related to EHCPs, this would go through an assessment process that may involve an educational psychologist. This was often supplemented by a speech and language therapist report, occupational therapist assessment or medical report assessment. These assessments were pulled together to ensure the child’s need was met. Officers would be putting together videos of maintained special schools so parents can see what they look like where physical visits can be difficult.

Members referred to the inadequate rating given to a special school and asked if there was an update on this. Officers clarified that this related to a school that had since closed and re-opened as a new school. Therefore, it was ungraded but was being monitored.

RESOLVED: That the Children, Families and Education Select Committee:

1.    Noted the draft School Organisation Plan;

2.    Delegated to the Democratic Services Officer in conjunction with the Chair (and in consultation with the Opposition Lead) to agree comments to be submitted to Cabinet; and

3.    Agreed to being updated annually by officers with the latest data and forecasts.