Web Agenda/Minutes Summary Document

Meeting Name:
Children's Services and Leisure Overview and Scrutiny Panel

Meeting Date:
09/29/2008 Pick

Meeting Time:


Location:


Sub Committee / User Forum etc (if required):




Members Present:

Non-Members Present:

Confidentiality: Part I


Document Type: Agenda


Document Status: Final

COUNCILLORS MAXWELL (CHAIRMAN), MISS BARTON, J EVANS, FIDO, LENTON, MRS PITTEWAY (VICE-CHAIRMAN) AND MRS STOCK.

MR GIBBONS (PORTSMOUTH DIOCESAN REPRESENTATIVE) AND MRS MINTERN (OXFORD DIOCESAN REPRESENTATIVE)

SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS
COUNCILLORS BASKERVILLE, MRS BURSNALL, MRS ENDACOTT, MRS HERDSON, MRS HUNT, MRS LUXTON AND MAJEED

ITEM	SUBJECT	WARD	PAGE NO
1	APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE To receive any apologies for absence.
2	DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST To receive Declarations of Interests from Members of the Panel in respect of any item to be considered at the meeting.
3	MINUTES To confirm the Part I minutes of the meeting of the Panel held on 4th August 2008.		i-iv
4*	PANEL WORK PROGRAMME To consider and discuss the Panel’s programme of work (attached)		a
5*	EFFECTIVENESS OF GOVERNING BODIES To consider a report on School Governance.		1
6*	APPOINTMENT OF LEA REPRESENTATIVES TO GOVERNING BODIES OF SCHOOLS IN THE ROYAL BOROUGH To comment upon the report being submitted to Cabinet on 23 October 2008 on the Appointment of School Governors.	All	8
6*	DEVELOPING PHASE 3 CHILDRENS CENTRES IN THE ROYAL BOROUGH – CAPITAL EXPENDITURE 2008-2010 To comment upon the report being submitted to Cabinet on 23 October 2008 on the Development of Phase 3 Children’s Centres.	All	14
7*	QUALITY AND ACCESS CAPITAL FUNDING WITHIN EARLY YEARS AND CHILDCARE PROVISION 2008-2009 To comment upon the report being submitted to Cabinet on 23 October 2008 on Quality and Access Capital Funding within Early Years and Childcare Provision 2008-2009.	All	19
8*	REVIEW OF THE AREA CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE’S TEAMS To comment upon the report being submitted to Cabinet on 27 November 2008 on a Review of the Area Children and Young People’s Teams.	All	28
9*	USER EVALUATION OF THE CHILDREN’S INFORMATION SERVICE DURING JUNE2008 To consider a report on the Children’s information Service.	All	35
10*	PROPOSED AMALGAMATION AT SOUTH ASCOT VILLAGE SCHOOL To comment upon the report being submitted to Cabinet on 23 October 2008 on the proposed amalgamation at South Ascot Village School.	Suuning -hill and South Ascot	40
11*	SECONDARY SCHOOL PROVISION IN THE ROYAL BOROUGH To comment upon the report being submitted to Cabinet on 23 October 2008 on secondary school provision in the Royal Borough.	All	To follow
12*	SCHOOL CATCHMENT AREAS To comment upon the report being submitted to Cabinet on 23 October 2008 on school catchment areas.	All	To follow
13*	HOLYPORT MANOR SCHOOL REPROVISION To receive a verbal progress update on the reprovision of Holyport Manor School at Cox green, Maidenhead.	All	-
14*	SERVICE MONITORING REPORT To receive the latest service monitoring report in respect of Children’s Services and Leisure services.	All	46
15	LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972 – EXCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC To consider passing the following resolution :- “That under Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the remainder of the meeting whilst discussion takes place on item 16 on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraphs 1-7 of part I of Schedule 12A of the Act"

TITLE/PURPOSE OF REPORT	AUTHOR
RBWM Twinning Committee	Kevin McGarry
Holyport Manor School	Chris Thomas
Appointment of School Governors	Libby Dineley/David Mead
Annual Consultation on School Admission Arrangements	Anna Crispin
Holyport Manor School Main Contract: Tender Approval	Chris Thomas/Laurel Hegarty
Evaluation of First Year of Phase 2 Children’s Centres	Angela Wellings
Service Monitoring Report

TITLE/PURPOSE OF REPORT	AUTHOR
Budgetary Matters
Communication and Interaction Review	Anna Crispin/Rhidian Jones
Annual Performance Assessment of Children’s Services – Outcome and Action Plan	Anna Crispin
Service Monitoring Report

TITLE/PURPOSE OF REPORT	AUTHOR
Update on Every Disabled Child Matters
Home to School Transport	Anna Crispin/Rhidian Jones
Holyport Manor School Residential Unit: Tender Approval	Chris Thomas
The effects of aircraft-related sleep disturbance on academic performance	Cliff Turner
Service Monitoring Report

Date: 29 September 2008

Member Reporting: Cllr. Mrs Eileen Quick

Contact Officer(s): Carol Pearce 01628 796680

Wards affected: All

1. SUMMARY

The purpose of this report is to consider the current position in relation to school governance in The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead (RBWM) in response to the following questions raised by members: What do governors do? How well are they doing it? What is the RBWM doing to support its school governors? What else might the Royal Borough do in the future?

1.1 The report is based on evaluation of the current support offered by the Strategic School Leadership Team, working collaboratively with other unitaries and the West London Partnership of Governors’ Services, in addition to feedback from schools, governors and other units within the RBWM.

1.2 There is a brief background to school governance within the national context followed by the Strategic School Leadership Manager’s responses to the questions raised by members, as stated above.

1.3 There is a set of supporting papers (in the appendices listed at the end of this report), which is available in the groups offices, the Members’ Room or from Democratic Services.

2. RECOMMENDATION

To note the report.

3.1 Background

‘The role of the governing body has changed beyond recognition over the past twenty years. With the introduction of local management of schools and further reforms, governing bodies have become the strategic leaders of schools. They are rightly responsible and accountable in law and in practice for major decisions about the school and its future. Governing bodies are equal partners in leadership with the headteacher and senior management team. We want to see them taking a full part in driving the improvement and culture of the school’. DfES: Governing the School of the Future. 2004

In 1981 the, now substantial, statutory duties of governors began to expand with an Education Act designed to support children with special educational needs. Governors were charged with the duty of ensuring that these needs were met. The roles and responsibilities of governors have continued to increase and as a result there have been several changes in regulations regarding the composition of governing bodies. Currently, the composition of governing bodies is set out in the Education Act 2002, the School Governance (Constitution) (England) Regulations 2007. School Governance (Federation) (England) Regulations 2007 and School Governance (New Schools) (England) Regulations 2007 (Appendix 1).

Governing boards are public bodies with corporate existence and corporate responsibility. No single governor has the power to make a decision alone except in exceptional circumstances, for example, if a decision has to be made urgently, as in the case of an emergency incident. The Chair can then act, and is required to inform the whole governing body at the earliest opportunity. Within this corporate existence it is important that once a decision is made by the board, all governors, regardless of personal opinion, support the board’s decision and act accordingly. As a public body, there are certain ethical standards the governing bodies of schools are expected to meet, ‘The Seven Principles of Public Life’ (Appendix 2), with which members will be familiar.

A Ministerial Review, concerned with the effectiveness of governing bodies, is currently taking place. The final meeting of the Ministerial Group is likely to be in October. The main areas of discussion so far have included:

How to ensure governing bodies are more effective

The Challenge role of governors

The purpose of governing bodies and the principles of good governance

Flexibility on the representation of key stakeholders

The necessary skills to be a good governor

Sizes of governing bodies and lengths of terms of office

3.2 What do school governors do?

The key purpose of governing bodies is to help schools provide the best possible education for pupils. The Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) expects that they do this by:

being strategic through setting the school’s values, vision and strategic aims, agreeing plans and policies, and making creative use of resources.




ensuring school accountability to the children and parents it serves, to its local community, to those who fund and maintain it, as well as to the staff it employs.




monitoring and evaluating performance, acting as a critical friend to the headteachers to support and challenge them in leading and managing their schools.

It is becoming increasingly evident that collaboration and partnership working is a key factor to success both within and outside the school boundaries. Consequently, it is important that governors are forward thinking and open to new ideas. They will be judged in this respect by Ofsted and in achieving the Financial Management in Schools Standard (FMSiS).

Members of the governing body (often the Finance Committee or another group of designated governors) are expected to have a clear understanding of best financial management practice and school performance compared to it. The most effective governors with financial responsibilities have knowledge of internal control processes, are outward looking and network to make the best use of financial resources available across the system, rather than being focused solely on their own organisation and inward looking, as has been the practice historically. Governors with financial responsibilities also need to understand and participate in the school’s self-evaluation (SSE) activities such as: financial performance/controls, monitoring, evaluating and reporting back to the governing board with reference to the school’s financial performance regularly and in detail at least annually. These governors also co-operate with external inspectors/auditors and initiate appropriate action in response to their findings.

The governing body’s strategic role is in contrast to the roles of a headteacher and leadership team whose responsibilities include: the internal organisation, management and control of the school, formulation of aims and objectives, policies and targets for the governing body to consider adopting, advising on and implementing the governing body’s strategic framework, reporting on progress, in line with the SSE, at least once every year and good practice indicates termly reports are highly beneficial.

Ensuring accountability - As outlined above it is good practice for a group of governors to take delegated responsibility for the financial accountability. They will need to understand the Royal Borough’s and statutory financial requirements for schools. The most effective governors understand and can undertake budget setting and budget monitoring activities in partnership with the school. It is important that at least some of the governing body have numeric and analysis skills and are able to interpret budget monitoring information and communicate the analysis in a clear and open way to all governors, and other interested stakeholders.

Monitoring and evaluating - Schools and governors are judged by Ofsted on their effectiveness of and improving pupils’ performance. As the core purpose of schools is to continually improve standards and achievement, this is a central aspect of governors’ accountability: This is done in two ways; the standards reached at given points (national test/exam results) and achievement over time related individual pupil starting points. Governors are advised to make comparisons such as: any significant variations between groups of learners, subjects, courses and key stages; trends over time; comparisons with other schools (nationally and to schools in similar contexts) and whether the school sets challenging targets for all pupils. It is important that governors evaluate performance of pupils regularly through an expectation that schools continuously track pupils’ progress and note any significant differences in current progress between groups or subjects. Schools and governing bodies need to be vigilant in identifying any particular pupils/groups that are underachieving and ask what interventions are in place to support these pupils. Governors are responsible for seeking assurance and evidence that all pupils are making good progress relation to their learning.

Just as the core purpose of schools is to continually improve standards and achievement, stated above, another central function of a governing body is to ensure that schools are monitoring and evaluating standards of teaching and learning and are reporting these to governors. It is good practice for schools to expect their senior leaders and subject leaders to present reports to governors (often a committee) on a regular basis that outline current standards of teaching and evidence of attainment and standards. An integral part of teaching and learning is making good use of assessment on a daily basis in addition to that gained through tests/exams. Governors need assurance and evidence that their school has an assessment policy and that all staff implement it in day-to -day practice. Governors will also need to know that: all pupils have and are aware of their individual targets; progress is tracked towards these; the school’s assessments are accurate; (How do the senior leadership know?) and that senior leaders are ensuring that work is regularly marked and advice is given to individual pupils on how to improve.

Other key areas in the current educational context for monitoring and evaluating include: how the school encourages and gains parental involvement and promotes community cohesion, as these are hugely influential in children’s ability to learn. As a consequence, good practice is that governors support schools in building strong relationships with parents/carers and the community through monitoring such as how the school communicates with parents/carers/community; consults with parents/carers/community; encourages parents/carers/community to support children’s learning and the school.

3.3 Current Standards of School Governance in the Royal Borough

The standard of school governance in RBWM is good, demonstrated by 84% of the Royal Borough’s school governing bodies being judged as good or better by Ofsted. A significant percentage of these (18%) is judged to be outstanding and the remaining 14% of governing bodies judged as satisfactory. RBWM is one of a few local authorities, judged by Ofsted, to have no inadequate governing bodies. This reflects the commitment of governors in the Royal Borough and the work of the Strategic School Leadership Team over the last two academic years, which has focused on improving governance through training and development opportunities offered to them on their involvement in SSE. The Strategic School Leadership Manager has worked in partnership with two Buckinghamshire colleagues to produce a comprehensive support pack to guide governors in this work which has been used to support schools and governing bodies across the Royal Borough (Appendix 4).

It is recognised nationally that the standard of clerking a governing body is a key factor in the quality and effectiveness of the governing body. The majority of RBWM governing bodies have clerks, although the quality of their work is variable, as it is nationally.

3.4 What are the RBWM doing to support school governors?

Governors’ Services are part of The Strategic School Leadership Team and covers a number of core functions supporting school improvement on behalf of the Royal Borough.

In addition three elements are offered to schools within the Service Level Agreement (SLA)

(i) A support and advice service for all aspects of school governance and

school leadership development for Headteachers, Leadership Teams,

Clerks and Governors.

(ii) A programme of central development and training opportunities.

(iii) Bespoke Continual Professional Development (CPD) for a particular

school or cluster of schools.

At present 97% of RBWM schools have renewed their contract with the Governors’ Service Level Agreement, which shows a high level of customer satisfaction. The service is proactive in taking account of the needs of its service users and recently carried out a survey to ascertain the level of satisfaction with the way training and development opportunities are delivered (Appendix 6). The results of the analysis along with the outcomes of the Ministerial Review will be used to plan future developments within the service.

3.5 What else might the Royal Borough do in the future?

It is clear that the Ministerial Review is an important process and that the outcomes will determine the major areas of development for RBWM in terms of further improving the quality of school governance over the next few years.

Priorities for governor development in 2008/2009 include:

Consider and make best use of Ministerial Review Outcomes

Succession Planning for school leadership to include governors

Promoting the importance of professional clerking and provision of Model Job Description, Accountabilities and Person Specification, Guidance for Chair of Governors and Clerks on Performance Management of Clerks

Further develop partnership working with other authorities to build capacity to offer more development opportunities for governors in the Royal Borough

Recruit and Train Additional Support Governors to build capacity to further develop and support governors across the Royal Borough and particularly those with a satisfactory Ofsted judgements, or those experiencing difficulties in governor recruitment/retention

Offer support and guidance to governing bodies currently judged as satisfactory by Ofsted to assist them in gaining at least a good judgement at their next Ofsted inspection

Review and select appropriate e-learning packages to offer to governors – not in place of face-to-face sessions, but to reduce amount of time and increase the flexibility of RBWM approach to training and development opportunities for governors.

update and develop new training programmes for governors

support governors through guidance on their involvement in SSE

provide high quality support and guidance to clerks and chairs

maintain a database of governors

ensure that development opportunities are evaluated

listen to and act upon the views of governors in the Royal Borough through the Governors Consultative Group, Development Link Governors meetings, Clerks and Chairs Meetings/Briefings

monitor and evaluate the quality of governance in RBWM and support as appropriate

1.1 To consider the vacancies that have arisen or will shortly arise for Local Education Authority (LEA) representatives on school governing bodies within the Royal Borough, and of nominations that have been received, so that appointments may be made.

2. RECOMMENDATION:

a) James Evans is appointed to Hilltop First School.
b) Susan Le Page is re-appointed to Furze Platt Senior School.
c) Cynthia Endacott is re-appointed to Homer First School.
d) Members note existing vacancies set out in paragraph 3.4

Background

3.1 Applications were received for the following vacancies:

The final approval of which applicant becomes an LEA governor lies with Cabinet.

3.2 Wards Affected

Clewer South

3.3 Relevant Matters Upon Which Decision is Based and Reasons Supporting Recommendation

Details of vacancies that have arisen within the borough are given below. Details of candidates seeking appointment are given in the attached Appendix A. All appointments should be made in accordance with the authority’s Code of Practice on the Appointment of LEA Governors.

3.4 Existing vacancies

On 5^th Septmber there were 11 vacancies for LEA governors at schools within the Royal Borough at the following schools:

School	Ward	No. Vacancies
All Saints C.E. Junior School	Boyne Hill	1
Braywood C of E First	Bray	1
Clewer Green C of E	Clewer East	1
Datchet St Mary’s	Datchet	1
Dedworth Green First	Clewer North	1
Eton Wick C of E First School	Eton Wick	1
Hilltop First School	Clewer South	2
Holy Trinity Primary School Sunningdale	Sunningdale	1
Oakfield First	Clewer East	1
Windsor Boys’	Castle Without	1

3.6 Future vacancies

LEA governors at the following schools will reach the end of their current term of office before the end of October 2008. Letters are sent to each governor inviting them to apply for re-appointment. Applications are invited from Members and other interested individuals for consideration for these positions at the time of the next report.

Current representatives

4. OPTIONS AVAILABLE AND RISK ASSESSMENT

Under the Authority’s Code of Practice, nominations will only be considered if submitted on the appropriate application form prior to a published closing date. Appointments to fill any of the vacancies in this report can only be made from the nominations listed in the schedule at Appendix A.

4.1 Options

	Option	Comments	Financial Implications
	1. To select an appropriate applicant from those included to be recruited to the corresponding vacancy.	If it is deemed that the skills and knowledge of the applicant meet the needs of the schools it will be an advantage to the governance resource of that school to endorse the application immediately.	Revenue Capital
	2. To defer some/all appointments to a future meeting.	3.1 Members select applications for recruitment at alternate Cabinet meetings. This means that a delay could add a further two months to the application process. The DCSF recommend that appointments should normally be made to fill vacancies within three months.	Revenue Capital
	3. To reject some/all applications.	3.2 Members have the right to reject applications. This would be on the basis that the applicant’s skills and knowledge will not support the school and does not fit with the current required need.

5.1 Text.

6. IMPLICATIONS

The following implications have been addressed where indicated below.

APPENDIX A

DETAILS OF CANDIDATES LISTED IN ORDER OF SCHOOLS

Criteria for Appointment

LEA governors will be chosen on the basis of the contribution they can bring to a school in terms of their skills and experience as specified in their nomination form, taking account of any supporting information provided by the candidate or by the school.

Title: DEVELOPING PHASE 3 CHILDRENS CENTRES IN THE ROYAL BOROUGH- CAPITAL EXPENDITURE 2008-2010

Date: 23^rd October 2008

Member Reporting: Councillor Mrs Quick.

Contact Officer(s): Debbie Verity 01628 781430

Wards Affected: Pinkneys Green, Furze Platt, Clewer South, Eton Wick, Old Windsor, Oldfield and Datchet

1. SUMMARY

1.1 A Children’s Centre is designed to be a “one-stop” shop for families of children under five years of age to receive advice and support regarding children’s health, care and development. Largely they are funded by central government “SureStart” grant. Nationally, children’s centres have been established in three phases. The Royal Borough did not receive any funding in the first phase which was targeted on the most deprived areas of the country. Some Phase 1 children’s centres were purpose-built buildings costing millions of pounds. Less money per centre was available during Phase 2, but seven children’s centres were set up in the Royal Borough under this Phase (on time and within the budget for six centres), all of which were extensions to existing provision. Members approved the Phase 3 areas for development in May 2008. The next step of the children’s centre development is to propose capital allocations for the new Phase 3 sites across the Royal Borough. The Phase 3 grant to the Royal Borough is £970k. The Royal Borough is required to open a further six centres with this funding, which again represents a reduction in funding per centre. The grant has to be spent by the end of March 2010.

1.2 Phase 3 developments will consist mainly of refurbishments to existing space or small extensions to existing buildings, such as schools and community centres. Rather than open six new centres, the plan is to open five centres and to develop two small projects serving rural areas of the Royal Borough.

1.3 Progress is monitored via Together for Children (TFC), the government’s appointed contractor. To date they have rated us as a “low risk” authority. They visit us several times a year. One of these visits is a formal capital review (carried out by Norfolk Property Services, again commissioned by DCSF) to check local authorities are making properly planning capital projects. The DCSF have also developed a web based monitoring system that records all capital projects. This includes information on costings, plans, timetables etc.

1.4 This report seeks approval of the proposed allocations to complete the programme by March 2010 giving borough wide coverage of Children’s Centre services

2. RECOMMENDATION:

That the proposed capital allocations are approved for the six areas and that the appropriate draw down of funding for individual projects is via the monthly cabinet monitoring reports.

Background

3.1 Details of Phase 2 children’s centres in the Royal Borough and the strategic plan for Phase 3 were set out in the May 2008 Cabinet report. Current children’s centres are working well.

3.2 Phase 3 in the Royal Borough will be funded by a SureStart Early Years Childcare Capital grant of £310k in 2008-2009, and £665k in 2009-10. In order to develop the Phase 3 centres it is necessary to begin the detailed feasibility and commissioning of capital works at each site to meet our statutory targets. Further information on why the sites have been selected can be found in the May 2008 Cabinet report on children’s centres. At this stage, the building projects identified are proposals rather than definite decisions. Formal consultations and feasibility studies have not been completed on any of the identified sites. Members can receive detailed specifications about individual projects via the monthly cabinet monitoring reports as they become available.

3.2 The proposed capital allocations to those six sites are as follows;

Larchfield Area £300k
Larchfield area has two “super output areas” (SOAs) ranked in the top ten most deprived areas within the Borough. The school is located close to the areas of disadvantage and already has a Neighbourhood Nursery on site. The money will be used to site a purpose built modular building within the school grounds to offer a broad range of advice and support to parents without disrupting the smooth running of the school itself.

Pinkneys Green Area £120k
This area has a SOA ranked as the 2^nd most deprived within the Borough. The money will be used to refurbish existing community centre including upgrading the kitchen area and toilet facilities. The kitchen will be used to prepare food for children and families using the centre to support healthy eating targets in partnership with the local dietician. The toilets will include at least one for disabled access and baby-change facilities. Early Years staff are working with the Community and Youth Service. Officers will consider the use of Section 106 funding from developers to make best use of the resources available.

Broom Farm Estate £180k
The new centre will support the army families on the estate. It is a joint project with the Army Welfare Service and the Royal Borough. The Army is contributing free use of an existing community building that will require changes to the internal layout and new kitchen and toilet facilities, and is also picking up the cost of heating, lighting, water, etc.

Datchet Area £280k
This area has a high share of households where neither parent is working and a significant Traveller population. The money will be used to provide additional rooms for service delivery, with a dedicated entrance on the site of Datchet St Mary’s School. The kinds of service to be delivered in the new rooms include “stay and play” sessions for children under five and their parents or carers, speech and language “drop in” advice sessions, and 9 month developmental checks by a health visitor.

Old Windsor Area £40k
The area forms part of the rural model offer with Horton and Wraysbury. To provide universal access for all children 0-4yrs this centre will offer services from Kings Court First School. The school has an existing community room and the money will be used to develop new toilet facilities and a dedicated entrance to the area.

Eton Wick Area £50k
The area forms part of the rural model offer and due to its isolated location will have a centre within the village. This will be based on the school site and the money will be used to provide accessible toilet facilities and refurbishment of rooms within an adjoining block.

Total £970k
The allocations include full feasibility and all other associated costs; professional fees, PCB and contingency (This total figure excludes the maintenance funding for existing centres)

4. OPTIONS AVAILABLE AND RISK ASSESSMENT

4.1 Options

	Option	Comments	Financial Implications
	1. To agree the proposed capital allocations for each Children’s Centre area.	Draw down of funding will be requested via the monthly cabinet monitoring reports. This would be the recommended option to meet the target number of designated centres by 2010.	Revenue: None Capital: All proposals are within the overall funding allocation from government for this purpose.
	2. To propose alternative capital allocations	This would present a risk to the completion of the overall programme within the timeframe.	Revenue: None Capital: Capital monies may not be spent and would then need to be returned to the Department of Children Schools and Families (DCSF)
	3. Not to agree the proposed allocation	This would significantly delay the process of commissioning works and put the programme at risk.	Revenue: None Capital: Capital allocations would need to be returned to DCSF.

4.2.1 The main risk is in the failure to complete the portfolio development within the agreed timeframe. The Local Authority would then fail to meet its statutory duties in this area and would lose significant funding and the opportunity to improve local services for families with young children.

5. CONSULTATIONS CARRIED OUT

A community survey and baseline health assessment for the Borough was carried out by Berkshire East Primary Care Trust (PCT) during 2006 and the report was presented to all stakeholders in 2007. From this the PCT were able to map service delivery to the proposed areas.

An audit of need was carried out by Family Friends on the parenting support needs of families within the Borough between June and December 2007. Families were asked about the services they currently used and those that would benefit in the future, the findings are being used to shape the centrally negotiated services offered to the Children’s Centres.

Morgans Research Ltd was commissioned as part of the Childcare Sufficiency Assessment to carry out a parental telephone survey to explore childcare preferences and how and where parents access information relevant to family life eg access to benefits. This was supported by focus groups and one to one interviews with particular groups eg lone parents, parents of disabled children etc. Findings showed that parents access information from a range of sources but that there are groups that require a specialist one to one services that are offered locally. The Family Information Service and centres are working together to identify packages to support these local needs.

6. COMMENTS FROM OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY PANEL

6.1 To be inserted.

7. IMPLICATIONS

The following implications have been addressed where indicated below.

Title: QUALITY AND ACCESS CAPITAL FUNDING WITHIN EARLY YEARS AND CHILDCARE PROVISION 2008-2009

Date: 23^rd October 2008

Member Reporting: Councillor Mrs Quick

Contact Officer(s): Debbie Verity 01628 781430

Wards Affected: All

1. SUMMARY

1.1 There are estimated to be 3,250 three and four year old children living in the Royal Borough. 1076 of these children receive early years education and child care in the nursery classes and schools maintained by the Royal Borough. 1,514 three and four year old children receive early years education and child care in private, voluntary and independent settings. Private settings are those that are owned by individuals, partnerships or companies. Independent settings are those that have provision for three and four year old children attached to an independent (i.e. fee paying) school. Voluntary settings are those that provide for three and four year old children on a non-profit making or charitable basis. Local authorities have a responsibility to work in partnership with other early years settings. Some pre school children do not access early years education and child care in settings for a range of reasons. Parents of children with disabilities (of whom there are about 2.5% in this age group) sometimes struggle to find a suitable place for their children. A grant of £1.875m has been awarded to the Royal Borough in capital to improve quality and access for young children within the private, voluntary and independent (PVI) early years and childcare settings. The grant is in three equal annual amounts of £625k beginning in April 2008. It must be spent by March 2011.

1.2 The grant has three key aims:

- To improve the quality of pre school provision with particular emphasis on improving play, physical activities, and access to ICT.

- To ensure all children, including disabled children, are able to access provision.

- To enable provides to deliver the extensions to the free offer for 3 and 4 year olds and to do so flexibly.

1.3 This report seeks approval for the proposed distribution of funding to meet the above aims. Each option is given an estimated budget. It is requested that delegated power be given to vary these budgets by 25% if necessary, within the overall grant, as more precise costs are identified.

2. RECOMMENDATION:

That the proposals for spend are approved and that authority be delegated to the Lead Member for Children’s Services and Lead Member for Finance in consultation with the Director for Learning and Care and the Head of Finance to amend the individual budgets by 25%, within the grant.

Background

3.1 The Childcare Act 2006 gave local authorities specific statutory responsibilities around supporting the provision of high quality integrated care and learning environments for all children. Recognising the vital role that the PVI sector has capital funding was awarded to ensure that limitations to buildings were not a barrier to quality or access. The local authority has an additional statutory duty to ensure that as far as is reasonably practicable there is sufficient provision for parents wishing to return to work, including those who have disabled children.

3.2 The local authority has a high proportion of three and four year old places in the PVI sector. There are currently over 75 such early years settings, which include day nurseries, pre-schools and independent schools offering the Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS) curriculum. While this funding is aimed at three and four year olds, these settings provide a wider range of services for 0-5 year olds including meeting the needs of working parents.

3.3 The proposed financial packages cover the three key aims of quality, inclusion and extension to the free entitlement of provision from 12.5 hours per week to 15 hours per week for 40 weeks of the year. They will support providers in improving their environment, which will have a positive impact on outcomes for children at the end of the EYFS. The Royal Borough is judged on two national indicators related to early years education and childcare. These are:

NI 72 = Achievement of at least 78 points across the early Years Foundation Stage with at least 6 in each of the scales in Personal social and Emotional Development and Communication, Language and Literacy.

NI92 = narrowing the gap between the lowest achieving 20% in the EYFS Profile and the rest.

Quality

Package 1 All 75 non-maintained providers delivering EYFS will be offered a bundle of ICT resources. Allocated budget = £120,000

Package 2 All providers, (maintained and non-maintained) will be allocated additional funding to support the delivery of EYFS. Allocated budget = £87,500.

Package 3 All providers, maintained and non maintained will be invited to apply for funding to enable them to develop their outdoor play space to support learning. Allocated budget = £187,500.

Access

All providers, maintained and non maintained will be invited to apply for funding to create a more inclusive environment which will include improvements to access arrangements for disabled children. Allocated budget = £130,000.

Free Entitlement

All providers, maintained and non-maintained will be invited to apply for funding to enable them to offer extended hours or more flexible provision. Allocated budget = £100,000.

4. OPTIONS AVAILABLE AND RISK ASSESSMENT

4.1 Options

	Option	Comments	Financial Implications
	1. To agree the proposals for spend during 2008	By progressing this option all Early Years and Childcare Provision offering the EYFS will have an investment in the environment and for resources.	Revenue - None Capital - All capital expenditure will be within the grant allocation.
	2. To develop alternative options for service delivery	This would delay expenditure and not support the implementation of the EYFS (Sept 2008)	Revenue- None Capital- This would result in underspend on 2008/09 funding
	3. Do nothing	This could expose the local authority to allegation of non-compliance of public funding for a specific purpose.	Revenue - None Capital - Loss of funding stream

4.2.1 The main risk in relation to these proposals is possible non-compliance with the aims of the grant.

5. CONSULTATIONS CARRIED OUT

5.1 The recent Childcare Sufficiency Assessment (CSA) published in March 2008 included significant analysis on the range and type of registered early years and childcare provision within the Royal Borough. This information was derived from surveys and discussions with our local providers and presented at ward level within the document.

5.2 Morgans Research Ltd was commissioned as part of the CSA to carry out a parental telephone survey to explore childcare preferences and future needs. This was supported by focus groups and one to one interviews with particular populations, e.g. lone parents, parents of disabled children. All the responses were collated at ward level to identify areas for development and investment within both existing and new provision.

5.3 Meetings were held with HR representatives of two large private sector employers, RBWM, and East and West Berkshire PCT on how they met their employee needs. More broadly a questionnaire was circulated to a number of local businesses via the Maidenhead Chamber of Commerce.

5.4 The findings and key messages that contribute to the proposals for investment in the sector outlined in this report can be found in the full CSA report that is posted in the Members’ room.

6. COMMENTS FROM OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY PANEL

6.1 To be inserted.

7. IMPLICATIONS

The following implications have been addressed where indicated below.

 Meetings 080929 Cslosp Quality and Access Capital Funding Appendix

Date: 27 Nov 2008

Member Reporting: Cllr Mrs Quick

Contact Officer(s): Lesley Galloway, Maidenhead Area Children’s Team Manager
Angela Wellings, Windsor Area Children’s Team Manager

Wards Affected: All

1.1 Area Teams for Children and Young People (ACTs) began to function from two bases from September 2007, following a restructure of the local authority and the need to develop an integrated Children’s Service as identified in The Children’s Act 2004 and Every Child Matters: Change for Children.

1.2 Area Teams brought together several universal and targeted front line services working with children, families, schools and other settings. This report summarises progress to date and sets out options for future improvement.

2. RECOMMENDATION:

3.1 Background

3.1.1 The Royal Borough wants all our children to be safe, healthy, and successful whatever their background.

3.1.2 The Children Act, 2004 required a new approach to securing the well-being of children and young people from birth to 19. The government’s aim is for every child to have the support they need to “Be Healthy, Stay Safe, Enjoy and Achieve, Make a Positive Contribution and Achieve Economic Well-Being”.

3.1.3 The expectation is that organisations involved in providing services to children will be teaming up in new ways, sharing information and working together to protect children and young people from harm and help them achieve what they want in life.

3.1.4 Within the Royal Borough, education, youth and social services for children and young people were brought together to provide a single service under the Head of Children and Young People. As part of this structure, Area Teams were developed to provide universal, targeted and preventative services across the Borough. Those services that support schools and early years settings, and work with vulnerable families have come together on an area basis with staff co-located in Windsor for the Windsor and Ascot areas, and in Maidenhead. Co-location is recognised as facilitating joint working between professionals and better-informed local planning.

3.1.5 Currently some of the larger services remain in their original locations due to accommodation issues. This has presented a challenge as some front line staff have not benefited from the service development of their colleagues.

3.2 Scope of Work

3.2.1 The aim for ACTs has always been to develop a model that puts the child and family needs at the heart of delivery. Area team staff provide a wide range of services for families from pre birth to 19. They also encompass the Lifelong Learning agenda, which encourages adults to learn and thereby support their children to achieve their potential. Similarly, the ACTs support educational settings from birth (nurseries, childminders etc) to adulthood. The table below outlines the range of main functions and services involved:

FUNCTION	EXAMPLES OF ACTIVITY	SERVICE
Improving attendance	Monitor and respond to poor attendance by working on school systems and individual casework Ensure access to school placement Track missing children	Education Welfare School Improvement (Learning and achievement)
Raising academic attainment at all key stages	Identifying underperformance in teaching and learning Focus on schools causing concern Focus on pupils with additional learning and behavioural concerns to empower schools to meet pupils needs Individual learning and curriculum support Brokering and delivering continuous professional development for staff in settings	School Improvement Ethnic Minority Achievement (EMA) Educational Psychologists (EPs) Specialist Inclusion Services (SIS) Early Years and Childcare (EYCC)
Improving behaviour and reducing exclusions	Identifying underperformance in teaching and learning Focus on schools causing concern due to poor behaviour Focus on pupils with additional learning and behavioural concerns to empower schools to meet pupils needs Individual learning and curriculum support Brokering and delivering continuous professional development for staff in settings Support for individual pupil and family outside school	School Improvement Ethnic Minority Achievement Educational Psychologists Specialist Inclusion Services Education Welfare Youth Service
Support and challenge to early Years settings	Quality assurance inspections and visits Training and CPD for staff employed in this sector	Early Years and Childcare School Improvement
Support and challenge to schools to raise standards	Curriculum advice and challenge Advice on leadership and management Strategies to improve teaching and learning Support to implement core offer for extended schools Direct intervention for schools in Ofsted categories or at risk	School Improvement Ethnic Minority Achievement Educational Psychologists (inc Primary Mental Health Workers) Specialist Inclusion Services Education Welfare Extended schools
Support to parents, carers and families	Delivery of family learning Casework including legal interventions Advise & support on effective parenting	Lifelong learning Education Welfare Early Years & Child Care Educational Psychologists (inc Primary Mental Health Workers) Parent support workers (agreed but not yet recruited)

3.3 Key achievements of the first year of Area Teams

There are no schools in Ofsted “categories”. Five schools are now judged by Ofsted to be “outstanding”. ACTs have developed a ‘team around the school’ approach to support schools where there are concerns that standards may be slipping.

Permanent exclusions have reduced from 38 to 16. Secondary schools have signed up to work in Behaviour and Attendance Partnerships. Any school with a pupil at risk of permanent exclusion can ask for a Rapid Response from the Area Team Manager and a meeting will be held quickly to divert the young person away from exclusion if at all possible.

We have improved GCSE results from 65% with A*-C to 69%, or from 55% to 58% including English and Maths (provisional results).

We have opened six Children’s Centres to support families and children. This has been done within an agreed timescale and budget.

We have exceeded National Indicator targets on developing Extended Services. Currently 57% of the Borough’s schools meet the full core offer against the national target of 50%.

Based on part year data, it appears we have raised attendance in secondary schools in and decreased persistent absence to 4.2% to below our own target of 4.7%.

3.4 Outcome issues

There has been a small increase in the number of young people not in education, employment or training (NEET). The NEET figure for July 2007 was 4.6% whereas this July it is 6%. This is disappointing but represents less than 10 individuals, and is the second lowest figure across Berkshire. It is possible that this increase is partly a result of the current economic situation.

We do not yet have the results for those young people who may have left statutory education without any qualifications but these are a focus for our work for the future. Our aim is for 100% of the cohort to achieve a qualification.

We have worked closely with our colleagues in Safeguarding and Specialist Services to improve the outcomes for children in care. We have recently appointed our Principal Adviser as Virtual Headteacher, and restored the multi disciplinary Education Group for Children in Care.

Another priority, which we have been unable to resource effectively, is that of Anti Bullying. When resources allow it would be helpful to appoint a dedicated member of staff to undertake the work that new guidance indicates is necessary.

It has proved hard to place some children who arrive in the Borough in need of a secondary place in school, and who may have additional needs.

There is a disproportionately large number of children with SEN being excluded.

3.5 Process issues

There have been occasions when ACT managers have struggled with unclear responsibilities for activities in their areas. Both managers have key areas of accountability in line with the requirements of performance management but also need to take a lead on a geographical basis.

Within Area teams budgets are fragmented, with small pots being held by a number of staff. This situation does not lend itself to taking a strategic view of what is needed.

The accommodation set aside for Area teams has been less than satisfactory. Access to the public is not good and in Windsor in particular there is insufficient infrastructure available for the staff that are based there. There has been no identified support for ACT managers from administration.

The work of other services is not aligned to the Area Team model and this leads to duplication of effort in some instances and gaps. The use of a geographical model is inconsistent with the work of the rest of the council.

As a small borough the process of dividing small teams has proved unhelpful. In many instances there is only 1 person to do a task and they therefore have a cross borough brief. This has led to more meetings than previously when teams were based together.

Staff have understood and responded well in the main to the need to work more collaboratively. However the physical division of teams has certainly not been welcomed. A large number of staff currently are based outside ACT ‘bases’ and remain largely untouched by the area dimension. These staff cannot be physically accommodated in the current premises.

3.6 National issues

There is a need to build on existing good practice in joint working to meet the government’s drive to implement Targeted Youth Support. Youth workers and Connexions in Area Teams have contributed to some of our success eg in reducing exclusions but further management and operational coordination is needed to ensure gaps are filled and we do not duplicate effort.

Building Schools for the Future will be a major driver for future schools and for the pupils in the Royal Borough. We need to have a focus on this agenda

The handover of responsibility from LSC to local authorities, as part of the changes emerging from Machinery of Government, for the planning and funding of post 16 education and training, and the Education Business Partnership will require a clear local strategy and will influence the work of ACTs.

ACTs will lead on implementation of changes to the funding of Early Years providers, maintained and non-maintained,

There is a national drive to eradicate child poverty that rests with the Chief Executive but impacts on those children and their families that ACT staff work most closely with.

4. OPTIONS AVAILABLE AND RISK ASSESSMENT

The authority’s restructuring of senior management and the end of the first academic year of ACTs offers the opportunity to reflect on what has worked well, what hasn’t and the best way to further integrate Children’s Services. The two options are:
To cluster together all universal services and those services who target their work on those most in need
To continue to divide a range of services into geographically defined bases

4.1 Options

	Option	Comments	Financial Implications
	1. Redesign into 2 teams of Integrated Childrens Services clustering universal services and targeted services together.	This option offers the synergies of collaborative working without the risks of dividing teams. It also allows for centralised teams to be integrated with front line teams. Locality working will develop through Children’s Centres, Extended Schools and Targeted Youth Support	Possible management savings – the proposal needs to be developed in greater detail before the financial implications can costed.

	Option	Comments	Financial Implications
	2. Move into Phase 2 of ACTs bringing more teams into line with geographical bases	This option will not be possible without improved accommodation and infrastructure. It is not clear how this will add value to outcomes for children & young people. Many teams are too small to be physically divided and offer a cross borough expertise	Accommodation costs Moving & relocation costs Travel costs
	3. Do nothing	Without a coherent structure being put in place the ACTs are unlikely to produce the continual improvement required.	No change

4.2.1 Staff demotivated if there is an inadequate support infrastructure for the proposed Area Teams. A back office function is required to deal with certain routine enquiries on data and finance from colleagues, schools, public, so there needs to be a designated budget to do so. Medium risk. Action: account to be taken of the need to make provision by children’s services managers.

4.2.2 A failure of the service to provide sufficient support to schools or a failure to raise awareness of schools of requirements leads to a direct fall in children’s attainment as judged by Ofsted. Medium risk. Action: School Improvement restructured and review of Inclusion Services underway.

4.2.3 A change of funding streams (DCSF funding, grant funding and SIPS funding (Standards Fund grant Social Inclusion Pupil Support) due to statutory changes leads to challenges in maintaining proposed level and standard of support. High risk. Action: costs of any changes to be built into any staffing restructure.

4.2.4 Failure to account for succession planning leads to service bereft of skilled officers in the short term and consequent skills gap. Service is predominantly currently operated by officers with long service, approximately five years from retirement. High risk. Action: structure of integrated teams needs to be attractive to possible new recruits and those staff who are potential leaders for the future.

5. CONSULTATIONS CARRIED OUT

Consultation and review of School Improvement completed
Review of Youth Services in progress
Full review of all inclusion services underway
Management restructure of the Council in progress

6. COMMENTS FROM OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY PANEL

6.1 To be inserted.

7. IMPLICATIONS

The following implications have been addressed where indicated below.



Financial

Legal

Human Rights Act

Planning

Sustainable Development

Diversity and Equality

Background Papers: None

Date: 29 September 2008

Member Reporting: Councillor Mrs Quick

Contact Officer(s): Debbie Verity 01628 781430

Wards affected: All

1. SUMMARY

The Children’s Information Service (CIS), provide frontline advice, information, support and signposting to parents/carers and other borough residents on all matters relating to family life. The Childcare Act 2006- Section 12 set statutory duties on local authorities specifically, the duty to provide information, advice and assistance. The CIS drive this duty on behalf of the local authority.

A user evaluation was carried out during the month of June 2008 to inform members of the level of customer satisfaction with the service received. The main findings are summarised in Section 3 with further detail in Appendix 1. In line with national changes the CIS will be changing its name during September 2008 to the Family Information Service (FIS). This better reflects the remit of the service and will be consistent with other Local Authorities. Members are asked to consider the findings of the user evaluation.

2. RECOMMENDATION

That the current direction of the CIS is maintained and that the information services remain current and appropriate to customer needs.

3.1 Background

The CIS is part of the Early Years and Childcare Service and comprises of a telephone help line, web based information and a comprehensive outreach service that targets traditionally hard to reach groups. Staff (3 full time equivalents) are deployed to maximise resources and to prioritise outreach work. Officers work closely with all other relevant teams/services within the Royal Borough and with a wide group of external partners.

Data collection is a high priority in order to support the councils wider needs in terms of understanding parental needs and trends relating to work, training, childcare and other drivers within the family.

The service is responsible for the production of key resources that support professionals and parents. Examples include;

a. The upkeep of the Children’s Service Directory – a web based resource for vulnerable children and young people.




b. Making It Happen – A newsletter for all those professionals working with parents/carers.




c. Moving Up – an information sheet for parents of children who are about to go to secondary school.




d. From October 2008 a dedicated Helpline for parents/carers who are concerned about bullying.

1. How did you hear about the CIS?




2. Did the information that you were given/sent meet your needs?




3. Would you consider using the service again?




4. On a scale of 1-10 how would you rate the service received.

The ICHIS information management system currently being used by the CIS is provided free of charge by the DCSF, however this is changing by March 2009 with each local authority being give funding to purchase their own system. Strategy and Resources have been working closely with the CIS to procure the most appropriate model in line with RBWM procedures. The preferred model has been identified and the appropriate procurement has been put in place. Funding available – Capital £20,018, revenue £11,000.

4. OPTIONS AVAILABLE AND RISK ASSESSMENT

4.1 Options

	Option	Comments	Financial Implications
	1. That the current direction of the CIS is maintained.(Do nothing)	On-going monitoring of the service would suggest that this would be in the best interest of all customers and remains in budget.	Revenue – Continued funding by the Sure start, Early Years and Childcare Grant. Capital - None
	2. Suggest additional new areas of development for the service.	Whilst suggestions would be welcomed they would need further investment as staff are at capacity.	Revenue – Would need an expansion to the staff team and currently there are insufficient funds for this. Capital - None

There are no associated risks with the content of this report, however the service must remain vigilant in assessing how well they are meeting their customer needs and adapt/develop the service appropriately.

5. CONSULTATIONS CARRIED OUT

No specific external consultation has been carried out in the preparation of this report.

6. IMPLICATIONS

The following implications have been addressed where indicated below.

 Meetings 080929 Cslosp Childrens Information Service User Evaluation Appendix

Date: Monday 29^th September 2008

Member Reporting: Cllr Quick, Lead Member for Children’s Services

Contact Officer(s): Ben Wright, Education Planning Officer, ext 6572

Wards affected: Sunningdale, Sunninghill and South Ascot, Ascot and Cheapside

1. SUMMARY

This report concerns a proposal to ‘amalgamate’ South Ascot Village Primary School and South Ascot Village Nursery School into one school, with effect from 1^st September 2009. The schools are currently federated as South Ascot Village School.

The proposal is driven primarily by concern from the schools over future funding arrangements for nursery schools, but an amalgamation will benefit the school also by streamlining the administrative burden on the management team of the federation. This, in turn, should help focus effort on improving outcomes for all children.

2. RECOMMENDATION

(1) That the borough undertakes public consultation over the proposed amalgamation of South Ascot Village Primary School and South Ascot Village Nursery School, in time for completion by 1^st September 2009.
(2) That consideration of the outcome of that public consultation and the decision whether or not to proceed with the publication of statutory notices proposing amalgamation be delegated to the Corporate Director of Learning and Care and Lead Member for Children’s Services.

3. SUPPORTING INFORMATION

3.1 Background

South Ascot Village Primary School is a so-called hard federation, with one headteacher and governing body overseeing two schools – South Ascot Village Nursery School and South Ascot Village Primary School. This federation became operational on 1st January 2004, following consultation with parents and other stakeholders.

The federation, which remains the only one of its type in the borough, has proven successful and South Ascot Village Primary School was recently expanded from 22 to 30 places in each year group. The primary school was judged ‘satisfactory’ by Ofsted in June 2007, but the nursery school has very recently been judged ‘outstanding’.

The two schools share a site, with the Foundation Stage children (i.e. nursery and Reception children) taught in the nursery school buildings, and Key Stage 1 and 2 pupils taught in the primary school buildings. Both blocks have benefited in recent years from capital investment with a new classroom, entrance and staffroom together with substantial refurbishment works.

The Headteacher and Chair of Governors met with officers from the borough in July 2008 and expressed a desire to move the schools forward by amalgamating the two schools into one. An amalgamation had, in fact, been the original plan in 2003/04, but there had been difficulties around the levels of funding available to nursery schools and nursery classes. A federation provided a solution to this.

Now, however, there are concerns from South Ascot Village School about the impact of the Early Years Funding Review on nursery school funding. In addition, a hard federation of this type means that although there is just one headteacher and one governing body, there are still two schools with their own separate budgets, and admissions arrangements. The schools also have to be separately inspected by Ofsted, all of which can lead to an increased administrative load compared with a ‘normal’ primary school with a nursery class.

South Ascot Village School have requested, therefore, that the Royal Borough considers an amalgamation of the two schools with effect from 1st September 2009. The issue had been raised by the headteacher on other occasions since the federation but has only now become a formal request.

Amalgamations

In law, there is no such thing as an amalgamation of two schools. In the past, if two schools wanted to join together then generally both the infant and the junior school (for example) would be closed and a new primary school opened.

Legislation introduced over the past five years means that, for the Royal Borough, a new school can only be opened through the running of a competition. This is time-consuming and in most cases would result in a school that is no longer a community school. The Royal Borough’s draft Primary Strategy for Change notes that:

“In certain areas, particularly Ascot, Cookham and the eastern part of Windsor, the Royal Borough would not support moves by community schools to become Voluntary Controlled or Voluntary Aided as this would reduce, rather than increase, the local diversity of provision.”

The borough has, however, relatively recently ‘amalgamated’ two schools to form Wessex Primary School. This was done by closing Wessex Infant and Nursery School and extending the age range of the children taught at Wessex Junior School downwards. The Governors agreed a new name for the junior school, via a revised Instrument of Government, and the school was duly named Wessex Primary School.

Thus, an amalgamation at South Ascot Village School could be achieved in practice by closing either the nursery school or the primary school, and extending the age range up or down to cover ages three to eleven.

Implications

There are many implications arising from any amalgamation of these two schools, and these are considered in the following paragraphs.

Finance

One of the main drivers from the Headteacher and the Chair of Governors for an amalgamation arises from concerns about the future funding arrangements for nursery schools arising from the early years funding review. Until this is completed it is impossible to say with any certainty what the financial implications of an amalgamation would be for South Ascot Village School.

An amalgamation would bring few financial benefits as these have already been achieved via the federation. There are, however, short-term financial benefits to the school from amalgamating in either September 2009 or September 2010. Changes to the way in which three and four year olds area funded are likely to have a negative impact on the budget of the school. These will be temporarily counteracted by the transitional arrangements for amalgamations in the Funding Formula, although delaying amalgamation until September 2010 would lessen this benefit to the school. On the other hand, a later implementation date would mean that the borough (and school) would know the outcome of the early years funding review before proceeding with any consultation on amalgamation.

Administration

Although a hard federation shares one headteacher and one governing body there are still two separate schools in the South Ascot Village Federation. This means that there are two separate budgets to be managed, two sets of contracts, and two separate Ofsted inspection processes. There are also often two sets of returns to the DCSF for various surveys, including the triannual pupil CENSUS. All these are managed by one, rather than by two, management teams. This additional work could be avoided by having one primary school.

Governing Body

Clearly, the creation of one school in place of two will negate the need for a federation. The federation and the existing Governing Body will both, therefore, need to be dissolved and a new governing body and Instrument of Government put in place in time for the implementation of the amalgamation.

The Headteacher and Chair of Governors have already indicated that they consider the existing governing body to be too large and unwieldy. A smaller governing body is in line with borough policy on school governance. The reconstituted governing body would have to have as members at least 1/3^rd parents; at least two but no more than 1/3^rd staff (including the Headteacher); 1/5^th LEA and at least 1/5^th Community.

Staffing

There are no major implications for staff arising from an amalgamation at South Ascot Village School. There would be no change to the number of staff employed, although obviously those in the school that was closing would switch to the other school. Conditions of service would remain unchanged.

Improving outcomes for all children

As a result of the above, therefore, there are only limited implications with regard to raising levels of attainment. All children will continue to be taught under the present arrangements, with Foundation Stage and Key Stage 1/2 children taught in the nursery and primary school buildings respectively. Children could benefit, however, from an increased focus on teaching and learning from a senior management team freed up from the administrative burdens of running two, rather than one, schools.

Early Years Provision

It seems very unlikely that this proposal will attract any opposition from parents, staff or governors at South Ascot Village School itself. It may be more controversial further afield, however, as South Ascot Village Nursery School is technically the provider of nursery education for all five maintained primary schools in the Ascot area. There were, for example, 43 children on roll in May 2008 who were of an age to move out of nursery education at the end of the year. This is significantly higher than the admission number of 30 at the primary school and reflects the fact that many move into Cheapside, Holy Trinity, St Francis or St Michael’s rather than South Ascot Village School.

There may be concern amongst these other schools that changing the nursery school into a nursery class may have an affect on this flow of pupils. It should be noted, however, that attendance at a nursery class does not mean that children are automatically enrolled at the relevant primary school. Places in Reception can only be allocated via the annual admissions process and so parents will still have to actively choose one or other school. In addition, all four of the voluntary aided schools already take in Rising Fives as a matter of published policy and so the effect of any change may be limited.

Next steps

Both elements of this amalgamation (the closure of one school and the extension up or down of the age range) are governed by regulations and thus require statutory proposals. The Governing Body of a community school can publish proposals to lower the age range of a school, but they cannot publish proposals to close a school. The whole proposal is, therefore, the responsibility of the local authority.

The borough would need to carry out informal consultation with parents, staff, governors and other stakeholders. Having considered the outcome of that consultation the borough could then proceed with formal consultation by publishing statutory notices for a period of six weeks. The borough would then have to determine the proposal at the end of that period.

If the proposal were to proceed for 1^st September 2009 then the timescales are as follows:

Governing Body decision to go ahead with consultation - tbc
Cabinet decision on proceeding with informal consultation - 23/10/08
Informal consultation period - 03/11/08 to 12/12/08
Corporate Director of Learning and Care and
Lead Member for Children’s Services consider outcome
of consultation - by 22/01/09
Statutory Notice period - 30/01/09 to 13/03/09
Formal determination of proposal - late March 2009
Implementation of proposal - 01/09/09

If the proposal goes ahead then the Governing Body will also need to go through the formal dissolution of a federation proposal, which can be tied up with the process of setting up a new Governing Body.

If implementation of the proposal were to be shifted to 1^st September 2010 then the above dates would still apply, but one year later.

4. OPTIONS AVAILABLE AND RISK ASSESSMENT

4.1 Options

	Option	Comments	Financial Implications
	1. Reject consultation on the amalgamation	If consultation on amalgamation is rejected then the schools will remain as at present, with a higher than necessary administrative burden and no financial benefits from transitional funding arrangements.	Revenue - the schools would not benefit from the transitional funding arrangements as described above. Capital - there are no capital implications arising from this report.
	2. Approve consultation on the amalgamation for 1st September 2009	Recommended. If consultation is approved then wider views on an amalgamation can be obtained, ahead of any decision to proceed with statutory notices.	Revenue – the school would benefit from the transitional funding as described above with amalgamation in September 2009. Capital - there are no capital implications arising from this report.
	3. Approve consultation on the amalgamation for 1st September 2010 (with consultation delayed until Autumn 2009)	If consultation is approved then wider views on an amalgamation can be obtained, ahead of any decision to proceed with statutory notices. Delaying until 2009 would mean that the borough would know the implications of the Early Years Funding Review prior to consultation.	Revenue - the school would benefit from the transitional funding as described above with amalgamation in September 2010, but this would be less than with an earlier amalgamation. Capital - there are no capital implications arising from this report.

To follow after discussions with headteachers at 25^th September meeting.

5. CONSULTATIONS CARRIED OUT

There have been informal discussions with the headteacher and Chair of Governors about the proposed amalgamation of the two schools. Views of the other Ascot headteachers will need to follow following 25^th September meeting.

6. COMMENTS FROM THE OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY PANEL

To be inserted.

7. IMPLICATIONS

The following implications have been addressed where indicated below.

Title: BUILDING SCHOOLS FOR THE FUTURE

Date: 23^rd October 2008

Member Reporting: Cllr Quick, Lead Member for Children’s Services

Contact Officer(s): Ben Wright, Education Planning Officer, ext 6572

Wards affected: All wards

1. SUMMARY

This report considers two issues facing secondary school provision in the Royal Borough, the most important of which is the Building Schools for the Future (BSF) programme. This national programme, intended to renew all secondary school provision by 2020, has been running for several years. The government has now issued new guidance about this and the Royal Borough may be able to enter the programme earlier than envisaged.

Local authorities are invited to submit an expression of interest for a project involving the rebuild, refurbishment and remodelling of between three to five schools. This report explains BSF and makes some recommendations about the next steps. It is recommended that the Royal Borough submit an expression of interest based on renewing secondary school provision in Maidenhead. Consultation on general principles around secondary school provision in the town is recommended.

The report also looks briefly at the Targeted Capital Fund (TCF) grant, relating to the 14-19 Diploma and to special educational needs (SEN) provision, noting that these funds will need to be spent in a way that is complementary to developing BSF plans. The guidance suggests that the TCF grant should be spent on fewer, larger, projects to maximise impact.

2. RECOMMENDATIONS

(1) The Royal Borough submits an expression of interest to the DCSF with regard to BSF, with a view to promoting an earlier entry to the programme for a project involving three to five schools;

(2) The expression of interest to the DCSF on BSF should be focused initially on a project for the five Maidenhead secondary schools. Windsor, Ascot and Datchet/Wraysbury would be identified as later ‘follow-on’ projects;

(3) The Royal Borough undertakes consultation this autumn/winter with pupils, parents, staff and other stakeholders on the pattern of secondary school provision in Maidenhead;

(4) The Royal Borough commits, from within its existing resources, additional funding to allow for the preparation of the Readiness to Deliver documentation. In due course the Royal Borough will also commit the further funding necessary to set up a fully staffed BSF Project Team; and

(5) The Royal Borough notes the 14-19 Targeted Capital Fund Grant and commits to spending this in a way that is complementary to developing BSF plans,

3.1 Background

This report brings together two issues relating to the future of secondary school provision in the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead. These topics are:

The Building Schools for the Future programme;
14-19 Diploma and SEN Capital Grant; and

3.2 Building Schools for the Future (BSF) Programme

Background to BSF

BSF is a national secondary school renewal programme, begun by the government in 2003 and intended to run until 2020. The expectation is to enable local authorities not only to completely renovate their secondary schools but also to transform education “in a way that best serves the local community for generations to come”.

Each local authority is expected to achieve a 50% total rebuild, 35% remodelling and 15% refurbishment of all its secondary schools (including upper and middle schools) under BSF by 2020.

The size and scope of BSF means that local authorities enter the programme at different times. Resources have been targeted towards more deprived areas nationally, and so the Royal Borough had been placed in ‘waves’ 13-15 (of 15) with the expectation of entering the programme in around 2016.

The Royal Borough has, in fact, already been a beneficiary of the BSF programme. Problems with delivery in the initial waves meant that the DCSF had significant underspend, with the result that they were able to offer authorities in later waves the so-called One School Pathfinder (OSP) projects. These focused on rebuilding just one school in ‘later wave’ authorities, allowing them to gain experience of handling large projects ahead of entering the full BSF programme. The Royal Borough’s OSP project is the relocation and rebuild of Holyport Manor Special School.

The main BSF programme for the borough was thought to be still some way off, but in Spring 2008 the government reviewed the delivery of BSF. They concluded that many local authorities simply do not have the capacity to implement projects involving large numbers of secondary schools (five to ten) at a time. It was recognised as being particularly difficult for smaller local authorities.

Consequently, the government have consulted upon new arrangements and have issued revised guidance changing the grouping of the financial allocations to each authority.

It will be possible, therefore, to enter the BSF programme with an improvement project involving three to five schools at a time. This will enable local authorities in later waves, including the Royal Borough, to bring forward elements of their programme.

This now means, therefore, that the Royal Borough could try to enter the BSF programme from next year.

The BSF Programme

The BSF programme will be unlike anything undertaken by the Royal Borough before. A project involving three to five schools will bring around £80m of investment in the Royal Borough’s secondary schools, with subsequent projects (for the remaining schools) funded at a similar level. Understandably, this is a complex process and there are a number of stages that the Royal Borough will need to go through, both for approval and implementation. The approval steps are given in detail in Appendix 1, and summarised here:

Step 1 (by 30^th November 2008) – submit revised expression of interest;
Step 2 (early 2009) – DCSF announce revised national programme for BSF;
Step 3 (early 2009) – local authorities provide evidence of readiness to deliver;
Step 4 (spring 2009) – DCSF announces next authorities to enter BSF programme;
Step 5 – Preparation of Strategy for Change (SfC) (once entry to programme announced); and
Step 6 – Preparation of Outline Business Case (OBC).

3.2.1 It is important to note that even under the new arrangements it is possible that the Royal Borough will still be in a late wave and so not necessarily enter the programme next year.

Recommendation No. 1

It can be seen, therefore, that even the approval process relating to BSF is complicated, and significantly more so than any other school organisation related programme. It is also clear that there is no guarantee at this stage that the Royal Borough will be invited to enter the programme next year or even within the next few years.

Nevertheless, it is also evident that unless the Royal Borough submits a revised expression of interest, there is no chance that the authority will even enter the programme before 2016 although it is possible that the DCSF may allow Expressions of Interest in subsequent years. The first recommendation is, therefore, that:

The Royal Borough submits an expression of interest to the DCSF with regard to BSF, with a view to promoting an earlier entry to the programme for a project involving three to five schools.

Which Schools?

The guidance on the expression of interest to be submitted by this November requires that the local authority identify which area(s)/schools should benefit from the programme. Many secondary schools in the Royal Borough would benefit greatly from the level of capital investment brought by BSF. Some have buildings that are in poor condition, and rather more have buildings that are somewhat unfit for purpose and/or sites that are overcrowded and poorly laid out. Some require considerable, urgent, capital investment to enable them to continue to deliver the curriculum.

The following sections consider the relative merits of Windsor, Maidenhead and Churchmead/Charters as possible beneficiaries of BSF funding.

Windsor

Windsor has four middle schools and two single-sex upper schools, forming the top two tiers of a three-tier system.

There is a lack of any co-ed or denominational upper school provision in Windsor itself, although such provision does exist in Datchet. The extent to which this is a concern for local parents could be established through a public consultation.

With regard to the individual schools, the condition, suitability and sufficiency issues would need to be looked at in detail, but essentially the most likely BSF solution, assuming we retain the current schools in their current locations, would be:

Maidenhead

Maidenhead has five secondary schools, including two single-sex schools and a Church of England controlled school. There are questions that will need answering if a BSF project involving Maidenhead goes ahead, particularly around the number of schools, the current high level of surplus places in some of them and locations. The views of parents and other stakeholders on these matters could be established prior to the working of detailed proposals through the initial consultation referred to in paragraph 3.2.29 above.

With regard to the individual schools, assuming the five were retained as at present, BSF would most likely be used to:

Ascot and Datchet/Wraysbury

The Royal Borough’s remaining two secondary schools are isolated and could not sensibly be done as part of either Maidenhead or Windsor. They could be done together but the DCSF expect greater numbers of schools to be involved in order to deliver the necessary efficiency savings. It is likely, therefore, that the Royal Borough would need to work in collaboration with our neighbouring authorities of Slough and Bracknell Forest to procure a joint Local Educational Partnership for Churchmead and Charters respectively. Alternatively, the Windsor package could be split into two groups, to include Churchmead and Charters. Working with neighbouring authorities assumes, of course, that they themselves put forward BSF programmes. Their intentions are unknown at this stage.

With regard to the two schools, BSF would most likely be used to:

Recommendation No. 2

Having considered the above points it seems clear that the area that it would be possible to advance the most quickly and which also has the most need with regard to condition, suitability and sufficiency is Maidenhead. The other areas would benefit from BSF as later ‘follow on’ projects. The second recommendation is, therefore, that:

The expression of interest to the DCSF on BSF should be focused initially on a project for the five Maidenhead secondary schools. Windsor, Ascot and Datchet/Wraysbury would be identified as later ‘follow-on’ projects.

Consultation

One important issue to resolve is the requirement to consult. Entry into the BSF programme does not absolve the authority of the duty to consult on all proposals that involve expansions, closures, relocations and so on in the normal way. It is likely that the formal element of this consultation – the statutory notices – would be carried out towards the end of the approval process described above and this would need to be timetabled into the programme.

Any wider consultation on principles, however, would need to happen considerably earlier, not only before the Royal Borough actually entered the programme, but also before the DCSF announces the revised national programme for BSF (as outlined at paragraph 1.2 in Appendix 1). This is because the Readiness to Deliver documentation is likely to require some detail about what the plans are for BSF, and this will be difficult to provide unless consultation has taken place to establish the priorities of children, parents, staff and other stakeholders. There is little time in the proposed new timetable for public consultation between the announcement of the revised national programme and deadlines for the Readiness to Deliver submissions, therefore implying that this consultation needs to occur earlier rather than later. It is suggested, therefore, that consultation would need to begin this Autumn, probably concluding early in January.

The consultation to be undertaken would not, however, be about specific proposals (this would follow later) but would seek to establish what views are held locally about the pattern of school provision in the town. Views would be sought on school locations, support for single-sex schooling, demand for other types of school provision and so on.

Analysis of the consultation could then be used to (a) help identify the general proposals for the Readiness to Deliver document and (b) develop more detailed proposals to be included in Strategy for Change.

Recommendation No. 3

Clearly, the major risk in going out to consultation on BSF before the DCSF announces the revised national programme is that if the Royal Borough is not moved forward in that programme, the consultation could seem to be premature. Set against this, however, there are a number of advantages to proceeding with consultation:

(a) It is clear that the DCSF are keen to bring more authorities into BSF early, albeit with smaller projects than previously. There is, therefore, a good chance that the Royal Borough will be brought forward significantly;




(b) Although the DCSF will announce a revised programme based on the expressions of interest received, not all authorities will be ready to deliver. This may provide opportunities for those authorities placed in a later wave to advance where they can demonstrate readiness to deliver. Undertaking this consultation would demonstrate commitment to the BSF programme at the highest levels, which is a prerequisite for admission to the full programme.




(c) Experience from the Holyport Manor Special School relocation/rebuild shows that it is never too early to start planning for a complex project. A £80m programme for Maidenhead would be several times bigger in financial terms than Holyport Manor. Even if the Royal Borough was not able to enter the BSF programme for a couple of years, this early work would prove invaluable.




(d) Any consultation could easily be drafted to make clear that actual entry to the BSF programme was dependent on government decisions.

The Royal Borough undertakes consultation this autumn/winter with pupils, parents, staff and other stakeholders on the pattern of secondary school provision in Maidenhead.

Capacity to deliver BSF

As demonstrated above, the BSF programme will be complex and take up a great deal of member, officer and school time as it progresses. Many parts of the Royal Borough will be expected to contribute substantial time and effort on the programme, but the initial burden will be most upon the Schools Accommodation Team and Building Services. The guidance from the DCSF suggests that every BSF project will need its own project team with sufficient expertise and resources to navigate the various project stages without delays. This is not thought to mean that there would necessarily have to be a stand-alone BSF team within the Royal Borough, but the responsibilities for the programme would have to be very clearly defined.

Taking account of the lessons learnt from the Royal Borough’s One School Pathfinder project at Holyport Manor, the initial preparatory work is key and very time-consuming. There will, for example, need to be considerable discussion with all stakeholders to work out what needs to be achieved at each school in each part of the project.

Given the existing pressures on the School Accommodation Team and Building Services, not least from delivery of the Royal Borough’s Primary Strategy for Change, implementation of Building Schools for the Future will require extra resources. The guidance from the DCSF indicates that the financial impact on the local authority of managing the programme will be equivalent to 2-3% of the total cost. Three percent of £80m is £2.4m, which would be spread over the length of the programme, possibly four to six years. Without, however, knowing exactly what any BSF programme for the Royal Borough would involve it is impossible to state at this stage what the precise revenue implications would be.

It would not be necessary to put these resources in place unless the Royal Borough knew it was officially going to enter the programme (as described at step 4, paragraph 1.4 of Appendix 1). It is likely, however, that the Schools Accommodation Service will need additional support to prepare the Readiness to Deliver documentation (step 3, paragraph 1.3 of Appendix 1). The Royal Borough could choose to either advertise and employ someone permanently (who would presumably become part of the BSF project team), or hire a consultant.

All guidance from the DCSF suggests that local authorities must invest their own resources to prepare the Expression of Interest and Readiness to Deliver documentation. A relatively small investment from the borough would, however, help to bring about £80m worth of capital investment in the borough’s secondary schools. This investment cannot be funded against future BSF monies – it will need to come from existing Council resources.

Once the Royal Borough is in the programme then elements of work, such as the design of school buildings, can be charged to the BSF programme.

The Royal Borough will also need to put in place a project board and director, or at least be able to demonstrate as part of the readiness to deliver documentation that arrangements have been made to ensure they are in place. The project board would need to include Members (possibly including a specific Lead Member for BSF), senior council officers, including representatives from Learning and Care, Finance, Planning and Legal and headteachers/governors. There would also need to be representatives from other partnership organisations, including the Diocesan authorities, and FE Colleges.

Later developments, such as putting a Local Educational Partnership in place, would happen under the guidance of Partnership for Schools (PfS). Upon entry to the programme each local authority is supported by a PfS Project Director, a DCSF Project Adviser, a 4ps Adviser and a CABE Enabler. 4ps (Public Private Partnerships Programme) are a body funded by the DCSF to provide advice and assistance in building up the required capacity to deliver in local authorities. CABE is the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment.

At a school level, each governing body of any affected school will engage with the programme at a strategic level through the project board, and at on operational level through the Schools Accommodation Team and Building Services. The DCSF guidance indicates that full engagement with BSF will require significant input from headteachers and other senior school staff. The government note that current BSF programmes have shown that these tasks “cannot simply be added to the ‘day job’ ….Governors should consider the scope for releasing relevant staff full-time, or on secondment to act on behalf of several schools”.

Recommendation No. 4

Overall, therefore, BSF will place considerable strain on the resources of both the borough and schools. As noted above there is no upfront funding for preparation for BSF and so the borough will need to find the resources for this itself. The fourth recommendation, therefore, is that:

The Royal Borough commits, from within its existing resources, additional funding to allow for the preparation of the Readiness to Deliver documentation. In due course the borough will also commit the further funding necessary to set up a fully staffed BSF Project Team.

3.3 Targeted Capital Fund Grant for 14-19 Diploma, SEN and Disabilities

In the 2009-10 and 2010-11 financial years the Royal Borough will receive grants worth £2m and £6m respectively from the government towards capital costs associated with the 14-19 Diploma, SEN and Disabilities. Unlike other recent grants, such as those made available under the Primary Capital Programme (Primary Strategy for Change), there is little guidance on how this funding should be spent. It is clear, however, that there is an expectation that the resources should be utilised for a small number of projects for greater impact

As with all grants to local authorities made through the Standards Grant, the local authority has the financial year plus four months in which to spend the money, otherwise it is lost. This means, therefore, that the Royal Borough will have to spend £2m by August 2010 and the remaining £6m by August 2011.

There is no difficulty around identifying £8m worth of capital spend at our secondary schools, or indeed on SEN provision. The 14-19 Strategy Group are being consulted on priorities for this grant and agreed at their meeting on Tuesday 16^th September that they would submit bids for the first £2m by the end of September 2008. Bids for the remainder would follow later in the year. The initial bids are likely to be focused on those schools at which the process of implementing the 14-19 Diplomas is most advanced. Nevertheless, it may be that other priorities will be identified through the borough’s prioritisation process, with the result that some or all of it could be used for condition/suitability work that is not linked specifically to diplomas.

Recommendation No. 5

3.3.1 The Royal Borough notes the 14-19 Targeted Capital Fund Grant and commits to spending this in a way that is complementary to developing BSF plans.

4. OPTIONS AVAILABLE AND RISK ASSESSMENT

4.1 Options

	Option	Comments	Financial Implications
1.	Submission of BSF Expression of Interest to the DCSF.	Submission means that the DCSF will consider bringing forward elements of the BSF programme for the borough. If it is not submitted then the borough won’t benefit from BSF until at least 2016.	Revenue - preparation for and entry to the BSF programme will require additional resources, which has revenue implications. Capital – the programme could bring investment worth £80m for the borough’s secondary schools.
2.	Focus of BSF initially on Maidenhead secondary schools.	BSF could be focused initially on any grouping of three to five secondary schools. Maidenhead contains schools with the most urgent accommodation needs.	Revenue and Capital implications as above.
3.	General consultation with parents on pattern of provision in Maidenhead.	A general consultation, not focused on specific options, will allow the borough to get a broader picture of what residents want from secondary provision in the town.	Revenue – the cost of this consultation would need to come from within existing budgets. Capital – no implications.
4.	Committing resources to run BSF programme.	It will not be possible to implement the BSF programme without considerable additional staff resources. The DCSF will not approve entry of a local authority to the programme unless they can demonstrate readiness to deliver and a commitment to the programme.	Revenue - preparation for and entry to the BSF programme will require additional resources, which has revenue implications. Capital – the programme could bring investment worth £80m for the Royal Borough’s secondary schools.
5.	TCF Grant for 14-19 Diplomas and SEN	Spending this grant in accordance with developing plans for BSF will help ensure that the monies are not wasted on projects that become redundant under BSF.	Revenue – none. Capital – £8m of TCF grant (£2m in 2009/10 and £6m in 2010/11) needs to be spent by August 2010 and 2011 respectively or it will be lost.

The main risk identified arising from the recommendations in this report is that the Royal Borough undertakes preparatory work, and specifically public consultation, on BSF that could be premature if the authority is still placed in a later wave for the programme. The mitigation measures are to ensure that the consultation is framed in such a way as to make it clear that BSF is dependent on government decisions on timescales. It should also be recognised that any work undertaken now will assist with the strategic planning of secondary school provision in Maidenhead, even if the Royal Borough does not enter the programme for several years.

5. CONSULTATIONS CARRIED OUT

No consultation has yet been carried out with schools and other stakeholders on Building Schools for the Future. This report makes recommendations for consultation in Maidenhead on this issue, and other areas of the Royal Borough will be consulted as the follow on projects are developed.

The 14-19 Strategy Group, which includes headteachers, representatives from the colleges and other 14-19 partners, is currently being consulted on the TCF grant for 14-19 Diplomas and SEN.

6. COMMENTS FROM THE OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY PANEL

To be inserted.

7. IMPLICATIONS

The following implications have been addressed where indicated below.

1. THE BSF Programme – approval stages

1.1 Step 1 (30^th November 2008) – submit revised expression of interest

When the DCSF initially launched the BSF programme, submissions of interest were invited from all local authorities. These were considered and prioritised by the department on the basis of average social and economic need and authorities were then informed where they lay in the overall programme. RBWM did submit an expression of interest, and was subsequently allocated to Waves 13 to15 (2016).

The DCSF are now inviting revised expressions of interest from local authorities on initial and follow-on projects, as per the new guidance. These short expressions of interest, which need to set out details of the groupings of schools and the reasons for prioritisation, will need to be submitted by 30^th November 2008.

1.2 Step 2 (early 2009) - DCSF announce a revised national programme for BSF

Following scrutiny of the submissions, the DCSF will announce a new national programme, with the various projects from local authorities across the country allocated to a new set of waves. It is quite possible that the Royal Borough will still be in a late wave, but it is hoped not. Certainly the intention of the DCSF is that authorities not already in the programme should be given an opportunity to present an initial project for earlier implementation. These projects would be started gradually over the next few years.

1.3 Step 3 (early 2009) - Local authorities provide evidence of ‘readiness to deliver’

Having announced the revised national programme the DCSF will then ask local authorities at the front of the new queue to provide evidence of ‘readiness to deliver’.

In order to access this investment local authorities have to be able to demonstrate ‘readiness to deliver’, as part of an onerous approval process to ensure that there is the capacity and vision to bring about transformation of learning. The readiness to deliver criteria include demonstrating that the authority:

understands its key education challenges/objectives and how these will be met via BSF;
has identified improvements required to the secondary school estate;
is committed to the BSF model, including funding and procurement arrangements. This includes, in most circumstances, setting up a LEP (see below);
has a project board, director and team in place, or at least arrangements made to ensure that they will be in place;
has the corporate capacity to undertake major strategic investment projects; and
has and will continue to consult key stakeholders at appropriate stages.

1.4 Step 4 (Spring 2009) – DCSF announces next authorities to enter BSF programme

Authorities will not be admitted to the BSF programme unless the DCSF is “content that it can start immediately and strongly” on the basis of the evidence provided. An announcement about the next set of authorities is expected in Spring 2009, but from that point forward there will then be a rolling programme. The government have found that starting large numbers of projects at different authorities at the same time to be inefficient, and so it will be seeking to start small groups of authorities off at a time.

1.5 Step 5 – Strategy for Change (once entry to programme is announced)

Once a local authority is admitted to the BSF programme the DCSF will prepare a Remit for Change, providing the authority with locally specific objectives and challenges to be addressed through BSF.

The local authority must then prepare a Strategy for Change (SfC), which is the first formal component of the BSF approvals process. The SfC is in two parts, each of which must be completed and approved by the government before the authority can proceed to the next stage. They are:

SfC Part 1 – key challenges and objectives (to be completed in 8 weeks);
SfC Part 2 – detail and delivery proposals (to be completed in 20 weeks);

1.6 Step 6 – Outline Business Case (OBC)

Following approval of the SfC the local authority has to complete an Outline Business Case, which gives much more detailed specifics about the project. This 22 week process is the last pre-procurement stage of the BSF programme and is again subject to ministerial approval.

The whole approval stage, from entry to the programme to endorsement of the OBC, would take about a year.

1.7 Procurement and beyond

This report does not go into any detail about the procurement process, which would be subject to the usual OJEU processes and could be expected to take another one-and-a-half to two years. Only then would construction begin. If, therefore, the Royal Borough were to enter the programme at the earliest stage next spring, it would be at least Autumn 2011 before any construction work started.

REPORT TO CABINET

Title: SECONDARY SCHOOL DESIGNATED AREAS

Date: 23^rd October 2008

Member Reporting: Cllr Quick, Lead Member for Children’s Services

Contact Officer(s): Ben Wright, Education Planning Officer, ext 6572

Wards affected: All wards

1. SUMMARY

This report considers the case for changing the Royal Borough’s secondary school designated areas: this is a manifesto commitment. The conclusion is that there is a case for action in the Maidenhead secondary schools and that consultation on the issue should take place at the same time as the consultation on the Building Schools for the Future programme (BSF).

2. RECOMMENDATIONS

(1) The Royal Borough should include consideration of the school designated areas within its wider consultation on secondary school provision and Building Schools for the Future in Maidenhead.

3.1 The current admissions arrangements

The local authority is the admissions authority for all community and voluntary controlled secondary, middle and upper schools in the Royal Borough. As such, it sets the rules that determine how places are allocated at those schools when there are more applicants than places available. The three voluntary aided schools in the Royal Borough set their own admissions rules via their admissions authorities, the governing bodies.

For ease of reading ‘secondary’ is assumed to refer to middle, secondary and upper schools throughout this report unless specifically noted otherwise.

All schools operate under the Royal Borough’s co-ordinated admissions scheme, which, through formal co-operation and sharing of information, seeks to ensure that the administration of the process is easier, more transparent and less stressful for parents.

The admissions arrangements for community and voluntary controlled secondary schools are published each year in the ‘Guide to Secondary Schools’, following formal consultation over the Christmas period and their adoption by Cabinet in spring.

These rules are given in full at Appendix 1. In summary, children with a Statement of Special Educational Needs naming a specific school must, by law, be admitted to that school. After this priority is given (in descending order) to:

A - Looked After Children;
B - designated area children;
C - children with strong medical/social reasons for attending;
D - children with older siblings at the school;
E - children at a feeder primary school;
F - children with a preference for co-ed/single-sex provision;
G - all other applicants

Where there are more children eligible under a particular category than there are places remaining (as is often the case) a tiebreaker is used. This gives priority to those children living closest to the school (“as the crow flies”).

Changing admissions arrangements for middle, secondary and upper schools

These admissions rules are fully in line with the requirements of the government’s School Admissions Code.

It should be noted here that it is not legal to devise admissions arrangements that prioritise children simply on the basis that they live in the Royal Borough. Counsel’s opinion has been sought on whether it is possible to ensure that RBWM pupils will be able to secure a place within schools in the Royal Borough. The salient points are that:

The Royal Borough has a duty to comply with the parental preference of both residents and non-residents. The preferences of resident parents cannot trump those of non-resident parents; and
designated areas may be comprised wholly within the Royal Borough but should not be designed with a view to excluding non-resident children.

There are, nevertheless, discrepancies with the Royal Borough’s admissions arrangements for community and voluntary controlled primary schools (which are included here as Appendix 2).

Firstly, in the arrangements for primary schools, the rule relating to children with strong medical or social grounds for admission comes after, rather than before, the sibling rule. This rule only ever applies to a very small number of children (1 in the 2007 allocation for secondary schools, for instance) as it intended to give priority to those with serious social problems in the family, or any chronic medical condition affecting the pupil that only the preferred school can deal with. It would be better to either entirely abolish the rule, or place it after the sibling rule in both the primary and secondary arrangements. This would ensure that the two policies match each other and should reduce the number of cases to be considered under the rule as some medical/social needs applicants will presumably have siblings at their preferred school.

Secondly, the tiebreaker used in the Royal Borough’s admissions arrangements for community and voluntary controlled primary schools is different to that for secondary schools. For the former, where there are more children living in the designated area than there are places, priority is first given to those with older siblings attending the school. Proximity to school is then used as a tiebreaker (a) if there are more children with older siblings than places available; or (b) where there are still places (but not enough) once all the designated area siblings have been admitted. The proximity measure alone is then used as a tiebreaker on all subsequent rules (as all non-designated area siblings are considered under the next rule). As mentioned above, the tiebreaker for secondary schools is the proximity measure alone.

This tiebreaker for primary schools ensures that a child living in the designated area for a school and having an elder sibling there will always have priority for a place over other designated area children, even if the latter live closer to the school. This minimises the risk, as far as possible, that two primary age siblings might be sent to different schools. It should be noted that the sibling rule applies only where the elder sibling will still be on roll at the time that the applicant is expected to start.

Tiebreakers are necessary in order to decide between children whose applications might otherwise be identical. The existing tiebreak has been in place without difficulty for primary schools for several years.

This report recommends, therefore, that this tiebreaker is introduced for the secondary school arrangements as well.

The Maidenhead secondary school designated areas

The majority of children and young people admitted into secondary schools are offered places under rule B: they are “living in the designated area of the school”. Sometimes known as a ‘catchment areas’, designated areas divide the Royal Borough geographically. The Windsor middle and upper schools share one designated area and Datchet/Wraysbury and Ascot are covered by the designated areas of Churchmead and Charters Schools respectively.

There are five secondary schools in the Maidenhead area, including two single-sex schools and a Church of England controlled school. All five schools are in Maidenhead itself, although they also serve the outlying areas, including the Cookhams, Bisham, Knowl Hill, the Walthams and Holyport. For clarity in the rest of this report ‘Maidenhead’ is taken to mean the town and the surrounding areas as described above unless specifically noted otherwise.

The schools are:

Altwood CE Secondary School (Co-ed/Voluntary Controlled/CoE);
Cox Green School (Co-ed/Community);
Desborough School (Boys/Community);
Furze Platt Senior School (Co-ed/Community)
Newlands Girls’ School (Girls/Community).

Altwood – the built up area west of the town centre, south of the A4 and north of the A404 motorway, and then most of the rural area to the west of the town and north of the Paddington railway line, including Burchetts Green and Bisham. It also shares much of the rural area to the south of the town (Holyport and south east of the motorway), with Cox Green School.
Cox Green School – the built up area to the south west of the A404 motorway and most of the rural area to the south of the town and the railway, including the Walthams/Woodlands Park and that area shared with Altwood as described above.
Desborough School – has two designated areas, one covering the area of town roughly west of St Mark’s Hospital and north of the A4 (including a small rural area), and the other on the east of the town between the Thames and Braywick Road/Marlow railway line, as far south as Bray.
Furze Platt Senior School – the built up area west of the Marlow railway line, north of the A4 and east of the St Marks Hospital and Courthouse CE Junior School, stretching up into the Cookhams
Newlands Girls’ School – identical to Desborough’s above.

Nevertheless, despite these oddities it is worth noting that there is no major problem with secondary school admissions in Maidenhead. For the September 2007 intake, for example, 94% of Maidenhead applicants had a place at their highest ranked school by 1^st September. No Maidenhead applicants were left without a place in school.

Proposed changes to the Maidenhead secondary school designated areas

Option 1

One option would be to retain most of the boundaries as they are, but to have different tiers of designated area, so that a pupil living in the first tier would have a greater priority for a place at the relevant school over those living in the second tier.

1. Desborough and Newlands Girls’ would be given a new two-tier designated area. The existing designated area would become the first tier and children living there would have the highest priority for places at both schools, bar pupils with a statement naming the school and Looked After Children. The rest of Maidenhead would become the second tier, and priority would be given to these children following the consideration of the first tier children.
2. Altwood, Cox Green and Furze Platt would also be given two-tier designated areas. They would retain their existing designated areas as first tier (except for the change made at 3 below). The current Desborough/Newlands Girls’ designated area would become the second tier designated area for all three co-ed schools, so that children living in those areas would be given priority for places at the co-ed schools following the consideration of the first tier children.
3. Altwood and Cox Green would no longer share the area to the south of town around Holyport – this would become Cox Green’s (first tier) designated area.

Option 2

An alternative option would be to extend the designated areas of the single-sex schools and of Altwood to cover the whole of the Maidenhead area. Cox Green would then serve Maidenhead south of the A4, whilst Furze Platt serves the northern part. The rationale for Altwood serving the whole area is that it is a Church of England School and so could expect to attract children from all Church of England Voluntary Aided and Controlled schools in Maidenhead.

Where there are more applicants than places under the designated area criteria, then the tiebreak would first be siblings, and then distance, as proposed above in paragraphs 3.1.12 to 3.1.16.

These options have a number of advantages and disadvantages, examined in the table below.

	Status Quo	Option 1 Two-tiered designated areas	Option 2 Desborough/Newlands/Altwood cover whole area, Cox Green/Furze Platt half each
Scale of change	No change	Relatively small. The designated area boundaries themselves will not change, although first and second tier designated areas could be confusing to some. The impact of the changes should be minimal, with little effect on parental preference.	Relatively large. The designated areas of all five schools change, although they should be relatively easy to understand. The impact of the changes is very significant and likely to bring large shifts in parental preference.
Maidenhead residents	The overwhelming majority of Maidenhead children obtain a place at their highest ranked secondary school, and all are offered a Maidenhead school. A small number of children from Maidenhead do not get into Newlands Girls School and/or Furze Platt School in some years. Children living outside the designated area for Newlands in particular feel disadvantaged when they live closer to the school than those living in the designated area on the east of the town.	The number of children not obtaining a place at their highest ranked secondary school should fall, with slightly more Maidenhead residents obtaining places at Newlands/Furze Platt. Children living in the current designated areas for oversubscribed schools are not disadvantaged by the change, as they remain in the first-tier designated area, and so have priority.	Although all Maidenhead children would continue to be offered a place in a local school, without proper modelling it is difficult to make any firm judgements. Large shifts in parental preference could mean that there would be a significant fall in the proportion of children offered their highest ranked school. Many children living in the current designated areas for oversubscribed schools are disadvantaged as many other Maidenhead children are now much closer to the school.
Out of area applicants	Children living outside the area can easily obtain places at schools that are not oversubscribed. Out of area children can have priority for places over Maidenhead children not living in the designated area who live further away, particularly if the out of area child (a) has siblings in attendance or (b) is on roll at a feeder school.	Children living outside the area can easily obtain places at schools that are not oversubscribed. Maidenhead residents have priority over all out of area children at all five schools (disregarding SEN and Looked After Children).	Children living outside the area can easily obtain places at schools that are not oversubscribed. Maidenhead residents have priority over all out of area children at Desborough, Newlands and Altwood Schools. Some out of area children, however, continue to have priority for places at Cox Green and Furze Platt over Maidenhead residents who are outside the designated area and live further away.

Option 1 would have a much less drastic effect and should result in minor improvements to the proportion of Maidenhead applicants obtaining their highest ranked school. One issue is that having two levels of designated area is potentially more difficult to understand than the current system.

One concern, applying to both options, is that change could lead to fewer children and young people on roll at the five schools. Making it harder for out of area children to obtain places at Maidenhead schools could result in a perception amongst parents in Fifeld, Marlow, Bourne End and Slough that it is not worth applying for places here. If this were to be the case then Desborough and Altwood schools, which currently have high proportions of out of area children on roll, could suffer. Questions over viability would then affect the broad spread of secondary school provision that Maidenhead currently enjoys.

This concern can be overplayed, particularly with regard to Option 1 as this will have only a marginal impact in any case. Out of area families will continue to apply for places at schools they wish to attend until such time as places do not become available in actuality, rather than theoretically. Even then, as the ongoing popularity of Charters School with Bracknell residents shows, parents will often continue to apply for places at schools they have little realistic chance of getting into. Other factors, therefore, such as Ofsted reports, changes to secondary provision in Slough and changing demographics are likely to have a more significant role in determining the future level of demand for places in each of the five schools in Maidenhead.

A second concern is that no detailed modelling of the effect of these options has been undertaken. The likely impact of the options above has been assessed on the basis of experience of the admissions system and local knowledge. It has not been possible to properly model the impact of these changes as this would, at the very least, require the whole secondary transfer process for the past three years to be run again to show what would have happened if the proposed arrangements had been in place then. It has been estimated that this would require up to 16 weeks work for a consultant, at a cost of up to £20k. In addition, many of the children applying for places live outside the Royal Borough and these files would need to be duplicated in such a way that they matched the way the new rules were being applied, which would be very difficult, if not impossible. In any case, given the volatility of parental preference there is no guarantee that this more detailed modelling would result in a better understanding of the impact of any changes.

It is quite possible, therefore, that implementation of any one of these options could have unintended effects, but it is hoped that any public consultation on the proposed changes would help identify any remaining issues.

Views of the schools on proposed designated area changes in Maidenhead

A meeting was held with the five heads of the secondary schools in Maidenhead on Wednesday 2^nd July to explain possible changes to the designated areas of their schools. Only Option 1 was discussed at the meeting, and the heads did not support it on a number of grounds, most of which are covered in the table above.

Whilst it was agreed that there were some issues with the current arrangements, the proposals merely ‘tinkered’ with the designated areas without addressing any of the wider issues facing secondary school provision in the town. It was felt, for instance, that there were questions about the number and size of secondary schools in the town that could only be realistically addressed through the BSF programme. A more fundamental review would be necessary, rendering any interim changes pointless.

The biggest concern was that it was not clear what impact the proposals would have on the numbers of children attending the five schools. In particular, the heads felt that the proposals risked creating an impression that out-of-borough children would not be able to obtain places at the schools. This was of importance to Desborough and Altwood schools, given the high proportion of out-of-borough children on roll at both. The proposals could therefore lead to fewer pupils on roll at a time when there was already a surplus of provision.

Building Schools for the Future (BSF)

Of all of the concerns raised above about the options for change the most important is how any changes would fit with a BSF programme for the town. A separate report to Cabinet – ‘Building Schools for the Future’, 23^rd October 2008 - addresses BSF and recommends that the Royal Borough develop plans for rethinking secondary school provision in Maidenhead.

Assuming the recommendations in that report are agreed then there is now an opportunity to tie up a consultation on the designated areas with the proposed wider consultation with secondary schools in general. Clearly, the timescales around BSF are quite lengthy and so, following consultation, it would be possible to put in place either some interim changes or to maintain the status quo and change the designated areas as part of the BSF programme proper.

Recommendation

The Royal Borough should include within its wider consultation on secondary school provision and BSF in Maidenhead specific questions about designated areas, thereby avoiding the need to run two separate consultation exercises. This would then allow the Royal Borough to either proceed with interim changes to the designated areas or to delay any changes until they could be incorporated into BSF, following consideration of the outcome of the consultation. Any interim changes to the designated areas could be made as part of the process around the annual consultation on the Royal Borough’s admissions arrangements. The recommendation, therefore, is that:

The Royal Borough should include consideration of the school designated areas within its wider consultation on secondary school provision and BSF in Maidenhead.

Ascot – Charters Schools’ designated area

Ascot - including Sunninghill, Sunningdale, Ascot Heath and North/South Ascot - is served by Charters, a co-educational secondary school. For ease of reference in the rest of this report ‘Ascot’ is taken to mean all of the above areas unless specifically noted otherwise. On 1^st September 2008 this school became a Trust school, and so the governing body are be responsible for admissions (and appeals) to the school.

The current arrangements will apply for admission to the 2009/10 academic year (i.e. the rules already agreed upon), but the school will be able to alter their admissions arrangements (including the designated area) for the 2010/11 academic year. The school may wish, for instance, to give more prominence to the rule giving priority to children on the basis of aptitude for sports. No changes can take place, however, without formal consultation on the issue.

The governing body would also need to decide whether they wanted to add the sibling tiebreaker to the designated area rule and drop the social/medical rule as recommended by this report for community and voluntary controlled schools. The Royal Borough will retain the legal right to refer the governing body to the schools adjudicator if it has legitimate concerns about the published policy.

The designated area for Charters extends beyond the Royal Borough borders to cover North Ascot and the sparsely populated rural areas to the north of the village, including Cranbourne and Winkfield, and to the west of South Ascot in Swinley Forest. The feeder schools for Charters include all five Ascot schools, plus the Bracknell Forest schools, Ascot Heath CE Junior and Cranbourne CE Primary.

Up until recently, Charters School had been able to admit all children from the designated area who wanted a place at the school, together with a significant proportion of children from Bracknell and parts of Surrey who were not in the designated area. These children may have had siblings at the school or attended one of the feeder schools.

Pressure for places at the school from within the designated area has grown in recent years, however, so that for the September 2007 intake 227 of the 240 available places were offered on the basis residency in the designated area. This was significantly higher than the 194 admitted under the same rule for the previous year. For the September 2008 intake all places (excepting six statemented children) were taken by designated area children. A further four designated area children (living in Bracknell Forest) were not initially admitted as there were no places left. These have since been offered places through the normal ‘churn’ following allocation as children move away or take up places at other, preferred, schools. This situation is expected to be repeated over the next few years as the number of children transferring from the seven local primary schools remains high, although it is expected to only involve a small number of children each year.

The situation continues, however, to be exacerbated by relatively high levels of house building locally. In the past, the effect of this has been that children and young people moving into the area after the secondary transfer process (whether into those new houses or into dwellings vacated by local people moving into the new housing) have not been able to obtain places at the school. These places have already been taken by children - from in and out of the designated area - who went through the secondary transfer process.

In future years the risk is that not all children living in the designated area will be offered places at secondary transfer, and new housing in the area increases this risk.

Possible changes to the Charters designated area

The options for changing the designated area to address this issue are limited. Removing the area to the west of South Ascot (Swinley Forest) would have little impact as very few children (fewer than 10) live there. More children live in the Cranbourne and Winkfield areas (30-40), and a considerable number (over 200) live in North Ascot. Taking these settlements out of the Charters designated area would be extremely unpopular with families living there, particularly as the Royal Borough boundary through North Ascot is fairly arbitrary.

Taking all of these areas out of the Charters designated area would also be disproportionate to the likely level of difficulties in future years. It would most likely result in there being more than enough places at Charters for children living in the new, smaller, designated area. Anything up to 30 or 40 places could then be available to children eligible for places under other rules, such as the sibling rule or the feeder school rule. There is a very strong risk that, over time, children living in Windlesham in Surrey would have priority for places over the children living in North Ascot as Windlesham is significantly closer to Charters. In essence, therefore, removing the above settlements from the designated area could simply swap one set of out-of-borough children with another set.

Logically, the feeder schools would also need to be reviewed as Cranbourne CE Primary and Ascot Heath CE Junior schools would no longer be in the designated area. Their removal would make it much more difficult for children in those areas to obtain places at Charters, making an influx of children from Windlesham more likely.

The option most in scale with the likely problem over the next few years, therefore, would be to remove that part of Bracknell Forest to the west of South Ascot – Swinley Forest – from the designated area. The impact of this move would be minimal and, in some years if no-one was applying from the area as seems likely – non-existent. In these circumstances it is questionable whether any change to the designated area is desirable.

Bracknell Forest Borough Council will, of course, take an interest in any changes made to the admissions arrangements for Charters and have the legal right to refer the school to the schools adjudicator over any changes.

Bracknell Forest expect to be rebuilding Garth Hill College, under the Building Schools for the Future programme, with completion due in 2010/11. This could significantly affect the pattern of parental preference in the area, and could reduce the demand for places at Charters.

Recommendation on the designated area for Charters School

As Charters School became a Trust School from 1^st September 2008 it is responsible for admissions, not the Royal Borough.

Datchet and Wraysbury secondary school designated area

The villages of Datchet and Wraysbury are served by Churchmead Church of England (VA) School. This school also serves, however, a significant part of Slough, with the designated area covering the area west of Yew Tree Road and south of the A4 and then continuing eastwards south of the M4 as far as the M25, thereby covering Colnbrook and Poyle.

Unsurprisingly, most of the pupils on roll – 76.9% (May 2008) - live outside of the Royal Borough. The school would, therefore, be unsustainable without such children.

The school is a voluntary aided school, and the governing body is responsible for its own admissions policy, although the Royal Borough has the legal right to refer the governing body to the schools adjudicator if it has legitimate concerns about the published policy. The governing body would need to decide whether they wanted to add the sibling tiebreaker to the designated area rule as recommended by this report for community and voluntary controlled schools. The school does not have a social/medical rule.

Possible changes to the Churchmead designated area

The school are interested in pursuing an extension of their designated area further into Slough, to cover the area that was covered by the old Langleywood School, before it became an academy. The high popularity of that school, and the increasing shortage of secondary school places in Slough, means that it is unlikely that such an extension would prove controversial.

Slough Borough Council will, of course, take an interest in any changes made to the admissions arrangements for Churchmead and have the legal right to refer the Governing Body to the schools adjudicator over any changes.

Recommendation on the designated area for Churchmead School

The Royal Borough should offer the appropriate support and advice to the school with regard to any changes to the designated area. If, for instance, public consultation is carried out on proposals to amend the designated areas for the Maidenhead secondary schools, it may be appropriate for Churchmead’s consultation to occur at the same time.

The Windsor middle and upper school designated areas

Windsor has two upper schools, The Windsor Boys’ School and Windsor Girls’ School, which share the same designated area. This covers all of Windsor, Old Windsor and Eton. Just under three-quarters of the pupils on roll live in the designated area, with 10% living elsewhere in the Royal Borough and 17% live outside the Royal Borough boundaries. The two community middle schools (Dedworth Middle and Trevelyan Middle) both also share this designated area. St Edwards Royal Free Ecumenical Middle and St Peter’s CE Middle schools are both voluntary aided and have their own admissions criteria.

Only once since the Royal Borough came into existence has there been difficulty in getting applicants living in the designated area into either upper school, in 2003. This situation is not currently expected to repeat itself in the next few years, although there may be an issue in ten years’ time, when the high numbers of pupils entering the first schools reach upper school age.

With regard to the middle schools, there have been problems with oversubscription from designated area children at individual schools from time to time, but there have always been sufficient places overall. This may change once the high numbers of pupils entering the first schools reach middle school age in six years’ time – it may be necessary to examine whether more middle school places are necessary at this time.

Recommendation for the Windsor middle and upper school designated areas

It is recommended that there is no change to the designated areas of the upper or middle schools.

Impact on Home to School Transport

It is not thought that the recommendations in this report will have any significant impact on home to school transport arrangements.

4. OPTIONS AVAILABLE AND RISK ASSESSMENT

4.1 Options

	Option	Comments	Financial Implications
1.	Carrying out a consultation on Maidenhead secondary school designated areas separate to the BSF consultation.	Making changes to the admissions arrangements for schools legally requires consultation. Without this, therefore, no changes to school designated areas can be made.	Revenue – consultation costs would be twice the cost of a combined consultation. Capital – none
2.	Inclusion of Maidenhead designated areas consultation within the wider secondary school provision consultation	Combining the two consultations on the designated areas and the BSF will avoid the need for two separate consultations.	Revenue – a combined consultation will cost less than two separate consultations Capital – none

The recommendation in this report seeks, by combining the proposed consultation on secondary school provision and BSF with that on the Maidenhead designated areas, to reduce the risk of uncoordinated action and duplicated effort.

5. CONSULTATIONS CARRIED OUT

The Maidenhead headteachers have been consulted on changing the designated areas of the town’s secondary schools. This report makes recommendations for public consultation on the issue. Discussions have also been had with other headteachers about designated areas in the Royal Borough.

6. COMMENTS FROM THE OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY PANEL

To be inserted.

7. IMPLICATIONS

The following implications have been addressed where indicated below.

Title: SECONDARY SCHOOL DESIGNATED AREAS

Date: 23^rd October 2008

Member Reporting: Cllr Quick, Lead Member for Children’s Services

Contact Officer(s): Ben Wright, Education Planning Officer, ext 6572

Wards affected: All wards

1. SUMMARY

This report considers the case for changing the Royal Borough’s secondary school designated areas: this is a manifesto commitment. The conclusion is that there is a case for action in the Maidenhead secondary schools and that consultation on the issue should take place at the same time as the consultation on the Building Schools for the Future programme (BSF).

2. RECOMMENDATIONS

(1) The Royal Borough should include consideration of the school designated areas within its wider consultation on secondary school provision and Building Schools for the Future in Maidenhead.

3.1 The current admissions arrangements

The local authority is the admissions authority for all community and voluntary controlled secondary, middle and upper schools in the Royal Borough. As such, it sets the rules that determine how places are allocated at those schools when there are more applicants than places available. The three voluntary aided schools in the Royal Borough set their own admissions rules via their admissions authorities, the governing bodies.

For ease of reading ‘secondary’ is assumed to refer to middle, secondary and upper schools throughout this report unless specifically noted otherwise.

All schools operate under the Royal Borough’s co-ordinated admissions scheme, which, through formal co-operation and sharing of information, seeks to ensure that the administration of the process is easier, more transparent and less stressful for parents.

The admissions arrangements for community and voluntary controlled secondary schools are published each year in the ‘Guide to Secondary Schools’, following formal consultation over the Christmas period and their adoption by Cabinet in spring.

These rules are given in full at Appendix 1. In summary, children with a Statement of Special Educational Needs naming a specific school must, by law, be admitted to that school. After this priority is given (in descending order) to:

A - Looked After Children;
B - designated area children;
C - children with strong medical/social reasons for attending;
D - children with older siblings at the school;
E - children at a feeder primary school;
F - children with a preference for co-ed/single-sex provision;
G - all other applicants

Where there are more children eligible under a particular category than there are places remaining (as is often the case) a tiebreaker is used. This gives priority to those children living closest to the school (“as the crow flies”).

Changing admissions arrangements for middle, secondary and upper schools

These admissions rules are fully in line with the requirements of the government’s School Admissions Code.

It should be noted here that it is not legal to devise admissions arrangements that prioritise children simply on the basis that they live in the Royal Borough. Counsel’s opinion has been sought on whether it is possible to ensure that RBWM pupils will be able to secure a place within schools in the Royal Borough. The salient points are that:

The Royal Borough has a duty to comply with the parental preference of both residents and non-residents. The preferences of resident parents cannot trump those of non-resident parents; and
designated areas may be comprised wholly within the Royal Borough but should not be designed with a view to excluding non-resident children.

There are, nevertheless, discrepancies with the Royal Borough’s admissions arrangements for community and voluntary controlled primary schools (which are included here as Appendix 2).

Firstly, in the arrangements for primary schools, the rule relating to children with strong medical or social grounds for admission comes after, rather than before, the sibling rule. This rule only ever applies to a very small number of children (1 in the 2007 allocation for secondary schools, for instance) as it intended to give priority to those with serious social problems in the family, or any chronic medical condition affecting the pupil that only the preferred school can deal with. It would be better to either entirely abolish the rule, or place it after the sibling rule in both the primary and secondary arrangements. This would ensure that the two policies match each other and should reduce the number of cases to be considered under the rule as some medical/social needs applicants will presumably have siblings at their preferred school.

Secondly, the tiebreaker used in the Royal Borough’s admissions arrangements for community and voluntary controlled primary schools is different to that for secondary schools. For the former, where there are more children living in the designated area than there are places, priority is first given to those with older siblings attending the school. Proximity to school is then used as a tiebreaker (a) if there are more children with older siblings than places available; or (b) where there are still places (but not enough) once all the designated area siblings have been admitted. The proximity measure alone is then used as a tiebreaker on all subsequent rules (as all non-designated area siblings are considered under the next rule). As mentioned above, the tiebreaker for secondary schools is the proximity measure alone.

This tiebreaker for primary schools ensures that a child living in the designated area for a school and having an elder sibling there will always have priority for a place over other designated area children, even if the latter live closer to the school. This minimises the risk, as far as possible, that two primary age siblings might be sent to different schools. It should be noted that the sibling rule applies only where the elder sibling will still be on roll at the time that the applicant is expected to start.

Tiebreakers are necessary in order to decide between children whose applications might otherwise be identical. The existing tiebreak has been in place without difficulty for primary schools for several years.

This report recommends, therefore, that this tiebreaker is introduced for the secondary school arrangements as well.

The Maidenhead secondary school designated areas

The majority of children and young people admitted into secondary schools are offered places under rule B: they are “living in the designated area of the school”. Sometimes known as a ‘catchment areas’, designated areas divide the Royal Borough geographically. The Windsor middle and upper schools share one designated area and Datchet/Wraysbury and Ascot are covered by the designated areas of Churchmead and Charters Schools respectively.

There are five secondary schools in the Maidenhead area, including two single-sex schools and a Church of England controlled school. All five schools are in Maidenhead itself, although they also serve the outlying areas, including the Cookhams, Bisham, Knowl Hill, the Walthams and Holyport. For clarity in the rest of this report ‘Maidenhead’ is taken to mean the town and the surrounding areas as described above unless specifically noted otherwise.

The schools are:

Altwood CE Secondary School (Co-ed/Voluntary Controlled/CoE);
Cox Green School (Co-ed/Community);
Desborough School (Boys/Community);
Furze Platt Senior School (Co-ed/Community)
Newlands Girls’ School (Girls/Community).

Altwood – the built up area west of the town centre, south of the A4 and north of the A404 motorway, and then most of the rural area to the west of the town and north of the Paddington railway line, including Burchetts Green and Bisham. It also shares much of the rural area to the south of the town (Holyport and south east of the motorway), with Cox Green School.
Cox Green School – the built up area to the south west of the A404 motorway and most of the rural area to the south of the town and the railway, including the Walthams/Woodlands Park and that area shared with Altwood as described above.
Desborough School – has two designated areas, one covering the area of town roughly west of St Mark’s Hospital and north of the A4 (including a small rural area), and the other on the east of the town between the Thames and Braywick Road/Marlow railway line, as far south as Bray.
Furze Platt Senior School – the built up area west of the Marlow railway line, north of the A4 and east of the St Marks Hospital and Courthouse CE Junior School, stretching up into the Cookhams
Newlands Girls’ School – identical to Desborough’s above.

Nevertheless, despite these oddities it is worth noting that there is no major problem with secondary school admissions in Maidenhead. For the September 2007 intake, for example, 94% of Maidenhead applicants had a place at their highest ranked school by 1^st September. No Maidenhead applicants were left without a place in school.

Proposed changes to the Maidenhead secondary school designated areas

Option 1

One option would be to retain most of the boundaries as they are, but to have different tiers of designated area, so that a pupil living in the first tier would have a greater priority for a place at the relevant school over those living in the second tier.

1. Desborough and Newlands Girls’ would be given a new two-tier designated area. The existing designated area would become the first tier and children living there would have the highest priority for places at both schools, bar pupils with a statement naming the school and Looked After Children. The rest of Maidenhead would become the second tier, and priority would be given to these children following the consideration of the first tier children.
2. Altwood, Cox Green and Furze Platt would also be given two-tier designated areas. They would retain their existing designated areas as first tier (except for the change made at 3 below). The current Desborough/Newlands Girls’ designated area would become the second tier designated area for all three co-ed schools, so that children living in those areas would be given priority for places at the co-ed schools following the consideration of the first tier children.
3. Altwood and Cox Green would no longer share the area to the south of town around Holyport – this would become Cox Green’s (first tier) designated area.

Option 2

An alternative option would be to extend the designated areas of the single-sex schools and of Altwood to cover the whole of the Maidenhead area. Cox Green would then serve Maidenhead south of the A4, whilst Furze Platt serves the northern part. The rationale for Altwood serving the whole area is that it is a Church of England School and so could expect to attract children from all Church of England Voluntary Aided and Controlled schools in Maidenhead.

Where there are more applicants than places under the designated area criteria, then the tiebreak would first be siblings, and then distance, as proposed above in paragraphs 3.1.12 to 3.1.16.

These options have a number of advantages and disadvantages, examined in the table below.

	Status Quo	Option 1 Two-tiered designated areas	Option 2 Desborough/Newlands/Altwood cover whole area, Cox Green/Furze Platt half each
Scale of change	No change	Relatively small. The designated area boundaries themselves will not change, although first and second tier designated areas could be confusing to some. The impact of the changes should be minimal, with little effect on parental preference.	Relatively large. The designated areas of all five schools change, although they should be relatively easy to understand. The impact of the changes is very significant and likely to bring large shifts in parental preference.
Maidenhead residents	The overwhelming majority of Maidenhead children obtain a place at their highest ranked secondary school, and all are offered a Maidenhead school. A small number of children from Maidenhead do not get into Newlands Girls School and/or Furze Platt School in some years. Children living outside the designated area for Newlands in particular feel disadvantaged when they live closer to the school than those living in the designated area on the east of the town.	The number of children not obtaining a place at their highest ranked secondary school should fall, with slightly more Maidenhead residents obtaining places at Newlands/Furze Platt. Children living in the current designated areas for oversubscribed schools are not disadvantaged by the change, as they remain in the first-tier designated area, and so have priority.	Although all Maidenhead children would continue to be offered a place in a local school, without proper modelling it is difficult to make any firm judgements. Large shifts in parental preference could mean that there would be a significant fall in the proportion of children offered their highest ranked school. Many children living in the current designated areas for oversubscribed schools are disadvantaged as many other Maidenhead children are now much closer to the school.
Out of area applicants	Children living outside the area can easily obtain places at schools that are not oversubscribed. Out of area children can have priority for places over Maidenhead children not living in the designated area who live further away, particularly if the out of area child (a) has siblings in attendance or (b) is on roll at a feeder school.	Children living outside the area can easily obtain places at schools that are not oversubscribed. Maidenhead residents have priority over all out of area children at all five schools (disregarding SEN and Looked After Children).	Children living outside the area can easily obtain places at schools that are not oversubscribed. Maidenhead residents have priority over all out of area children at Desborough, Newlands and Altwood Schools. Some out of area children, however, continue to have priority for places at Cox Green and Furze Platt over Maidenhead residents who are outside the designated area and live further away.

Option 1 would have a much less drastic effect and should result in minor improvements to the proportion of Maidenhead applicants obtaining their highest ranked school. One issue is that having two levels of designated area is potentially more difficult to understand than the current system.

One concern, applying to both options, is that change could lead to fewer children and young people on roll at the five schools. Making it harder for out of area children to obtain places at Maidenhead schools could result in a perception amongst parents in Fifeld, Marlow, Bourne End and Slough that it is not worth applying for places here. If this were to be the case then Desborough and Altwood schools, which currently have high proportions of out of area children on roll, could suffer. Questions over viability would then affect the broad spread of secondary school provision that Maidenhead currently enjoys.

This concern can be overplayed, particularly with regard to Option 1 as this will have only a marginal impact in any case. Out of area families will continue to apply for places at schools they wish to attend until such time as places do not become available in actuality, rather than theoretically. Even then, as the ongoing popularity of Charters School with Bracknell residents shows, parents will often continue to apply for places at schools they have little realistic chance of getting into. Other factors, therefore, such as Ofsted reports, changes to secondary provision in Slough and changing demographics are likely to have a more significant role in determining the future level of demand for places in each of the five schools in Maidenhead.

A second concern is that no detailed modelling of the effect of these options has been undertaken. The likely impact of the options above has been assessed on the basis of experience of the admissions system and local knowledge. It has not been possible to properly model the impact of these changes as this would, at the very least, require the whole secondary transfer process for the past three years to be run again to show what would have happened if the proposed arrangements had been in place then. It has been estimated that this would require up to 16 weeks work for a consultant, at a cost of up to £20k. In addition, many of the children applying for places live outside the Royal Borough and these files would need to be duplicated in such a way that they matched the way the new rules were being applied, which would be very difficult, if not impossible. In any case, given the volatility of parental preference there is no guarantee that this more detailed modelling would result in a better understanding of the impact of any changes.

It is quite possible, therefore, that implementation of any one of these options could have unintended effects, but it is hoped that any public consultation on the proposed changes would help identify any remaining issues.

Views of the schools on proposed designated area changes in Maidenhead

A meeting was held with the five heads of the secondary schools in Maidenhead on Wednesday 2^nd July to explain possible changes to the designated areas of their schools. Only Option 1 was discussed at the meeting, and the heads did not support it on a number of grounds, most of which are covered in the table above.

Whilst it was agreed that there were some issues with the current arrangements, the proposals merely ‘tinkered’ with the designated areas without addressing any of the wider issues facing secondary school provision in the town. It was felt, for instance, that there were questions about the number and size of secondary schools in the town that could only be realistically addressed through the BSF programme. A more fundamental review would be necessary, rendering any interim changes pointless.

The biggest concern was that it was not clear what impact the proposals would have on the numbers of children attending the five schools. In particular, the heads felt that the proposals risked creating an impression that out-of-borough children would not be able to obtain places at the schools. This was of importance to Desborough and Altwood schools, given the high proportion of out-of-borough children on roll at both. The proposals could therefore lead to fewer pupils on roll at a time when there was already a surplus of provision.

Building Schools for the Future (BSF)

Of all of the concerns raised above about the options for change the most important is how any changes would fit with a BSF programme for the town. A separate report to Cabinet – ‘Building Schools for the Future’, 23^rd October 2008 - addresses BSF and recommends that the Royal Borough develop plans for rethinking secondary school provision in Maidenhead.

Assuming the recommendations in that report are agreed then there is now an opportunity to tie up a consultation on the designated areas with the proposed wider consultation with secondary schools in general. Clearly, the timescales around BSF are quite lengthy and so, following consultation, it would be possible to put in place either some interim changes or to maintain the status quo and change the designated areas as part of the BSF programme proper.

Recommendation

The Royal Borough should include within its wider consultation on secondary school provision and BSF in Maidenhead specific questions about designated areas, thereby avoiding the need to run two separate consultation exercises. This would then allow the Royal Borough to either proceed with interim changes to the designated areas or to delay any changes until they could be incorporated into BSF, following consideration of the outcome of the consultation. Any interim changes to the designated areas could be made as part of the process around the annual consultation on the Royal Borough’s admissions arrangements. The recommendation, therefore, is that:

The Royal Borough should include consideration of the school designated areas within its wider consultation on secondary school provision and BSF in Maidenhead.

Ascot – Charters Schools’ designated area

Ascot - including Sunninghill, Sunningdale, Ascot Heath and North/South Ascot - is served by Charters, a co-educational secondary school. For ease of reference in the rest of this report ‘Ascot’ is taken to mean all of the above areas unless specifically noted otherwise. On 1^st September 2008 this school became a Trust school, and so the governing body are be responsible for admissions (and appeals) to the school.

The current arrangements will apply for admission to the 2009/10 academic year (i.e. the rules already agreed upon), but the school will be able to alter their admissions arrangements (including the designated area) for the 2010/11 academic year. The school may wish, for instance, to give more prominence to the rule giving priority to children on the basis of aptitude for sports. No changes can take place, however, without formal consultation on the issue.

The governing body would also need to decide whether they wanted to add the sibling tiebreaker to the designated area rule and drop the social/medical rule as recommended by this report for community and voluntary controlled schools. The Royal Borough will retain the legal right to refer the governing body to the schools adjudicator if it has legitimate concerns about the published policy.

The designated area for Charters extends beyond the Royal Borough borders to cover North Ascot and the sparsely populated rural areas to the north of the village, including Cranbourne and Winkfield, and to the west of South Ascot in Swinley Forest. The feeder schools for Charters include all five Ascot schools, plus the Bracknell Forest schools, Ascot Heath CE Junior and Cranbourne CE Primary.

Up until recently, Charters School had been able to admit all children from the designated area who wanted a place at the school, together with a significant proportion of children from Bracknell and parts of Surrey who were not in the designated area. These children may have had siblings at the school or attended one of the feeder schools.

Pressure for places at the school from within the designated area has grown in recent years, however, so that for the September 2007 intake 227 of the 240 available places were offered on the basis residency in the designated area. This was significantly higher than the 194 admitted under the same rule for the previous year. For the September 2008 intake all places (excepting six statemented children) were taken by designated area children. A further four designated area children (living in Bracknell Forest) were not initially admitted as there were no places left. These have since been offered places through the normal ‘churn’ following allocation as children move away or take up places at other, preferred, schools. This situation is expected to be repeated over the next few years as the number of children transferring from the seven local primary schools remains high, although it is expected to only involve a small number of children each year.

The situation continues, however, to be exacerbated by relatively high levels of house building locally. In the past, the effect of this has been that children and young people moving into the area after the secondary transfer process (whether into those new houses or into dwellings vacated by local people moving into the new housing) have not been able to obtain places at the school. These places have already been taken by children - from in and out of the designated area - who went through the secondary transfer process.

In future years the risk is that not all children living in the designated area will be offered places at secondary transfer, and new housing in the area increases this risk.

Possible changes to the Charters designated area

The options for changing the designated area to address this issue are limited. Removing the area to the west of South Ascot (Swinley Forest) would have little impact as very few children (fewer than 10) live there. More children live in the Cranbourne and Winkfield areas (30-40), and a considerable number (over 200) live in North Ascot. Taking these settlements out of the Charters designated area would be extremely unpopular with families living there, particularly as the Royal Borough boundary through North Ascot is fairly arbitrary.

Taking all of these areas out of the Charters designated area would also be disproportionate to the likely level of difficulties in future years. It would most likely result in there being more than enough places at Charters for children living in the new, smaller, designated area. Anything up to 30 or 40 places could then be available to children eligible for places under other rules, such as the sibling rule or the feeder school rule. There is a very strong risk that, over time, children living in Windlesham in Surrey would have priority for places over the children living in North Ascot as Windlesham is significantly closer to Charters. In essence, therefore, removing the above settlements from the designated area could simply swap one set of out-of-borough children with another set.

Logically, the feeder schools would also need to be reviewed as Cranbourne CE Primary and Ascot Heath CE Junior schools would no longer be in the designated area. Their removal would make it much more difficult for children in those areas to obtain places at Charters, making an influx of children from Windlesham more likely.

The option most in scale with the likely problem over the next few years, therefore, would be to remove that part of Bracknell Forest to the west of South Ascot – Swinley Forest – from the designated area. The impact of this move would be minimal and, in some years if no-one was applying from the area as seems likely – non-existent. In these circumstances it is questionable whether any change to the designated area is desirable.

Bracknell Forest Borough Council will, of course, take an interest in any changes made to the admissions arrangements for Charters and have the legal right to refer the school to the schools adjudicator over any changes.

Bracknell Forest expect to be rebuilding Garth Hill College, under the Building Schools for the Future programme, with completion due in 2010/11. This could significantly affect the pattern of parental preference in the area, and could reduce the demand for places at Charters.

Recommendation on the designated area for Charters School

As Charters School became a Trust School from 1^st September 2008 it is responsible for admissions, not the Royal Borough.

Datchet and Wraysbury secondary school designated area

The villages of Datchet and Wraysbury are served by Churchmead Church of England (VA) School. This school also serves, however, a significant part of Slough, with the designated area covering the area west of Yew Tree Road and south of the A4 and then continuing eastwards south of the M4 as far as the M25, thereby covering Colnbrook and Poyle.

Unsurprisingly, most of the pupils on roll – 76.9% (May 2008) - live outside of the Royal Borough. The school would, therefore, be unsustainable without such children.

The school is a voluntary aided school, and the governing body is responsible for its own admissions policy, although the Royal Borough has the legal right to refer the governing body to the schools adjudicator if it has legitimate concerns about the published policy. The governing body would need to decide whether they wanted to add the sibling tiebreaker to the designated area rule as recommended by this report for community and voluntary controlled schools. The school does not have a social/medical rule.

Possible changes to the Churchmead designated area

The school are interested in pursuing an extension of their designated area further into Slough, to cover the area that was covered by the old Langleywood School, before it became an academy. The high popularity of that school, and the increasing shortage of secondary school places in Slough, means that it is unlikely that such an extension would prove controversial.

Slough Borough Council will, of course, take an interest in any changes made to the admissions arrangements for Churchmead and have the legal right to refer the Governing Body to the schools adjudicator over any changes.

Recommendation on the designated area for Churchmead School

The Royal Borough should offer the appropriate support and advice to the school with regard to any changes to the designated area. If, for instance, public consultation is carried out on proposals to amend the designated areas for the Maidenhead secondary schools, it may be appropriate for Churchmead’s consultation to occur at the same time.

The Windsor middle and upper school designated areas

Windsor has two upper schools, The Windsor Boys’ School and Windsor Girls’ School, which share the same designated area. This covers all of Windsor, Old Windsor and Eton. Just under three-quarters of the pupils on roll live in the designated area, with 10% living elsewhere in the Royal Borough and 17% live outside the Royal Borough boundaries. The two community middle schools (Dedworth Middle and Trevelyan Middle) both also share this designated area. St Edwards Royal Free Ecumenical Middle and St Peter’s CE Middle schools are both voluntary aided and have their own admissions criteria.

Only once since the Royal Borough came into existence has there been difficulty in getting applicants living in the designated area into either upper school, in 2003. This situation is not currently expected to repeat itself in the next few years, although there may be an issue in ten years’ time, when the high numbers of pupils entering the first schools reach upper school age.

With regard to the middle schools, there have been problems with oversubscription from designated area children at individual schools from time to time, but there have always been sufficient places overall. This may change once the high numbers of pupils entering the first schools reach middle school age in six years’ time – it may be necessary to examine whether more middle school places are necessary at this time.

Recommendation for the Windsor middle and upper school designated areas

It is recommended that there is no change to the designated areas of the upper or middle schools.

Impact on Home to School Transport

It is not thought that the recommendations in this report will have any significant impact on home to school transport arrangements.

4. OPTIONS AVAILABLE AND RISK ASSESSMENT

4.1 Options

	Option	Comments	Financial Implications
1.	Carrying out a consultation on Maidenhead secondary school designated areas separate to the BSF consultation.	Making changes to the admissions arrangements for schools legally requires consultation. Without this, therefore, no changes to school designated areas can be made.	Revenue – consultation costs would be twice the cost of a combined consultation. Capital – none
2.	Inclusion of Maidenhead designated areas consultation within the wider secondary school provision consultation	Combining the two consultations on the designated areas and the BSF will avoid the need for two separate consultations.	Revenue – a combined consultation will cost less than two separate consultations Capital – none

The recommendation in this report seeks, by combining the proposed consultation on secondary school provision and BSF with that on the Maidenhead designated areas, to reduce the risk of uncoordinated action and duplicated effort.

5. CONSULTATIONS CARRIED OUT

The Maidenhead headteachers have been consulted on changing the designated areas of the town’s secondary schools. This report makes recommendations for public consultation on the issue. Discussions have also been had with other headteachers about designated areas in the Royal Borough.

6. COMMENTS FROM THE OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY PANEL

To be inserted.

7. IMPLICATIONS

The following implications have been addressed where indicated below.

 Meetings 080929 Cslosp School Catchment Areas Appendix 1

 Meetings 080929 Cslosp School Catchment Areas Appendix 2

 Meetings 080929 Cslosp School Catchment Areas Appendix 3

Harnessing Technology grant devolved to schools £213k funded by DCSF grant
Increases in schools capital (Desborough, South Ascot Primary) £118k funded by S106 monies
Primary Strategy feasibility costs £20k funded by 09-10 PS grant

 Meetings 080929 Cslosp Service Monitoring Appendix 1




 Meetings 080929 Cslosp Service Monitoring Appendix 2