Agenda item
Update on School Expansion Programme to provide additional school places.
This report sets out the progress following Brent’s allocation of the best Capital Settlement in the country and includes an update on the two application bids made under the ‘Priority Schools Building Programme’ for Alperton and Copland.
Minutes:
Rik Boxer (Assistant Director, Achievement and Inclusion) presented a report updating the committee on the School expansion Programme. There remained an acute shortage of school places in Brent, despite the provision of additional places over the past 5 years, including 1800 in the primary sector, and it was expected that this would continue in the medium to long-term. Recent favourable capital settlements received by the council would help to alleviate the situation but were not sufficient to enable demand for school places to be met. In total, the council had received approximately £80m in capital settlements between October 2011 and April 2012. With reference to the table setting out the Capital Programme allocation, Rik Boxer highlighted that the £27m of resources identified for 2011/12 had been or would be spent on existing schemes that have delivered new classroom spaces for the 2011/12 academic year.
At present, the pressure was principally on primary school sector but it was recognised that this would move through the system to come to bear on the secondary sector in the near future. Despite the on-going programme of temporary and permanent expansion, there currently remained a need to create up to 16 additional Reception classes to ensure that every child has a place. This was a London-wide issue and all of the neighbouring boroughs to Brent were opening additional Reception classes for September 2012. In Brent, the expansion programme for September 2012 was largely focussed on temporary projects. The council continued to lobby central government, in conjunction with London Councils, to highlight the school places pressure. Officers in Regeneration and Major Projects were currently undertaking a review of the entire school assets portfolio to ascertain potential for further permanent and temporary expansions across the whole of Brent schools. The results of this would be reported to the Executive in August 2012 alongside plans and priorities for Phase 2 of the expansion of schools in the medium term.
Similar pressures to those faced in the primary sector were also being faced by the SEN sector and an extensive programme to expand in-borough SEN provision had been agreed and was fully incorporated into the overall capital programme.
In the subsequent discussion members raised several issues. Councillor Al-Ebadi noted that the priority must be for a child to be able to receive an education and queried whether the local authority could place pressure on parents who repeatedly refused school places due to their preference for a particular schools place. He further noted that additional pressure on school places was likely to arise as a result of changes to housing benefit which would result in more people moving into Brent. Councillor Pavey queried whether options such as virtual schools had been considered by the council. He further queried whether Section 106 funds could be used for general school expansion and development projects or were limited to use in a particular location. Councillor Choudhary commented that if infant class sizes were expanded over the limit of 30 places per class, this would enable the local authority to meet the current demand for school places.
Rik Boxer advised that unfortunately the council could not always meet parental preference or offer a school place in a convenient location and this could cause practical difficulties for a family. It was important that parents were made aware of the pressure on school places and the reduced likelihood of gaining a place in a preferred school so that they could make an appropriately informed decision regarding an offer of a school place. Subsequent reports to the committee could identify where offers had been made to parents and had been refused. If there were repeated refusals of school places the council could pass the case to the non-attendance team; however, such measures would have to be weighed against the reasonableness of the action and it was hoped that an acceptable solution could be reached before this. Councillor Arnold commented that perhaps some work could be carried out with community groups to support families in mitigating some of the practical difficulties in having a child in an inconveniently located school. Councillor Al-Ebadi advised that this issue could be raised via the Voluntary Sector Liaison Forum. Rik Boker added that with regard to the changes to housing benefit, officers were working with colleagues in housing; however it would be difficult to accurately assess the implications of these changes.
Turning to Councillor Pavey’s query regarding virtual schools, Rik Boxer advised that this was not a favoured option and was rather a useful supplementary provision in certain circumstances. The option had been explored for some young people who had been excluded or were unable to attend school. The limits on Section 106 funding were dependent on the case in question but generally the funds were restricted to use on the site being developed. With regard to the infant class size limit, this was statutory and there were only very few circumstances in which the local authority was legally allowed to exceed this figure. Furthermore there were financial implications of doing so and schools had indicated that they would not be in favour of such options due to the impact on the quality of the education that could be provided. Ms Cooper added that the individual attention that each child could receive from the qualified teacher would be reduced if class sizes were to exceed 30 pupils per class. Rajesh Sinha (Interim Programme Manager) further noted that the physical size of many classrooms prohibited such action.
Ms Cooper sought further details regarding the Free School application for a small Christian primary school for 210 pupils and particularly queried whether these places would only be open to pupils of the Christian faith. Rik Boxer advised that many faith schools had quite open admissions policies; however there were no further details known about the application for the Free School at present. These details had been passed to the local authority by the Department for Education (DfE). The council was looking at the supply and demand for faith based schools and was working with these schools to encourage more inclusive admissions policies. Work was also taking place to better understand parental preference and demand for different types of school places.
Mrs Gouldbourne noted that the council was exploring the potential for working with free school providers and queried when the Teacher’s union would be engaged in these discussions. Councillor Arnold advised that a draft set of criteria had been drawn up but that these were yet to be approved and the trade union would be involved in the process. Rik Boxer added that the criteria would need to include a commitment to raising education standards and having qualified staff. Ms Cooper commented that the Teacher’s union should be involved whilst the criteria are being formulated. Councillor Arnold advised that she would take this on board and feed this back.
RESOLVED
That the report be noted.
Supporting documents: