SCRUTINY TOPIC GROUP MEETING

SCRUTINY TOPIC GROUP MEETING Presentation to the TG ‘Parents Evidence Meeting’ on Wednesday 7th June Speaker 1: Graham Carr Subject : Supply vs Demand Speaker 2 : Peter Hart Subject : Mitigation/Contingency and Forward Planning ** Please can the TG be aware that this presentation is supported by more detail on an accompanying ‘E’ mail **

Supply vs DemandGraham CarrYear 5 ParentSpeaking on-behalf of 40+ South Harpenden Families

Forecasting and Planning • Key Points • Critical to get forecasting and planning right to ensure Supply meets Demand. • Lack of confidence from parents that all factors are considered in current forecasting/planning model. • Demand for places in Harpenden Secondary School exceeds current supply and the size of the priority area is the key driver of this demand. • Only 2 Harpenden Secondary Schools (Sir John Lawes and Roundwood Park) serve the general community (St George’s has it’s own specific admission policy and has 20 borders !). • Harpenden town is a growth area, there will continue to be a growing demand for it’s secondary schools : • Over-Subscription is a ‘Fixture’ not a ‘Blip’ – wecannot be complacent in relying on expected birth rate downward trend to resolve this issue

Forecasting and Planning Model – ‘Shortfalls’ • Does planning/forecasting model adequately consider/handle the following ? • Planning and Priority areas • Clear understanding of planning and priority areas and the application/allocation ‘dynamics’ this creates (requested stats for years 2002/2006 would help with transparency). • Late Applications (‘Opportunists’ and Just Late Admissions !) • Short Term Rentals, Buy to Rent Out – confirmed this practice is on the up - measures urgently required to reduce ‘opportunists’ who take advantage of the ‘slack’ admission controls to get a favourable Harpenden address. • Late applications (pre and post admission application date) – confirmation required that additional demand created through late applications is factored and fairly handled i.e. go to end of queue !

Forecasting and Planning Model – ‘Shortfalls’ • Independent Sector/External Authorities Feedback • Are independent sector school transfers to state sector factored into forecasts ? • Soliciting of feedback from external authorities on transfers to schools within our priority area – does it happen ? • PAN/Actual Admissions • A number of stats reports show allocations in line with PAN effectively ‘hiding’ additional numbers taken in by schools to absorb forecasting shortfalls.

Forecasting and Planning Model – ‘Shortfalls’ Admission Rules Impact to Forecasting and Planning of Route Anomalies (e.g. Redbourn ‘Nicky Line’ ruling) and other rules (e.g. 6 and 7) should be understood at time of approval and not adjusted only after the impact feeds through. Adjustment to ‘Previous year’s Harpenden Primaries Year 6 NOR’ based on previous trend Clearly this ‘adjustment’ has been in error in the past, need to ensure that current trend information is factored including rule changes or other factors which influence forward trends.

Forecasting and Planning Model – ‘Shortfalls’ New Developments Are new developments adequately factored ? Correct sourcing of this type of information. Planning permission approved. Planning permission not yet approved. Children ratio per household – has anyone done an actual vs forecast to confirm validity of ratio used ? Projection Time-frame How many years projected ahead – especially relevant to forward planning ?

Planning Areas – ‘Late info from Jim Dalton’ • Harpenden Planning Area includes Redbourn, Harpenden, Wheathampstead, Kimpton, Breachwood Green, St Paul's Walden, Markyate and Flamstead. • St Albans Planning Area includes St Albans, Colney Heath, Sandridge, Mount Pleasant Lane, Park St, London Colney and Shenley. • These two Planning Areas are joined together to create the Harpenden and St Albans Priority Area. • Hemel Hempstead Planning Area includes Hemel Hempstead, Kings Langley, Bovingdon and The Gaddesdens. • This Planning Area is part of a larger Prority Area covering Tring, Berkhamstead, Hemel Hempstead, Watford, Chorley Wood and Rickmansworth.

Conclusion • Current priority area coverage is large but Harpenden Secondary Schools ability to meet the demand from this large priority area is severely limited. • Parents of children residing in South Harpenden areas have been seriously impacted by the shortfall of Harpenden Secondary School places in 2006. • All the factors detailed influence the forecasting and planning model and we would request that there is clear transparency and visibility to prove that all factors are considered and handled fairly. • Admission Rules cannot be conveniently ignored – they directly influence the Forecasting and Planning model and Supply vs Demand forward ‘picture’. • We must generate accurate forecasting figures to get the forecasting and planning strategy right and understand the true scale of the problem. - I respectfully ask the TG to take on board our comments and concerns and make the necessary recommendations for involving the appropriate parties to get an URGENT resolution

FINAL MESSAGE TO LEAVE YOU WITH……. - We agree that, along with Harpenden, the outlying villages in the priority area have a right to good quality schooling but NOT at the direct expense of Harpenden children in their own logical ‘catchment’ area. We feel that the authorities carry the greatest responsibility for this distasteful situation which effectively pits ‘parent/child against parent/child’.

Mitigation/Contingencyand Forward PlanningPeter HartYear 5 ParentSpeaking on-behalf of 40+ South Harpenden Families

Problem • No evidence to-date that the 2 critical elements Mitigation/Contingency and Forward Planning have been high on the planning agenda. • A shortfall was predicted in 2006, albeit, the actual shortfall was greater than expected, but with no obvious mitigation/contingency strategy in evidence. • Shortfall already predicted for 2007 (13 ?) • Need to ensure forecast is accurate. • Need an effective mitigation/contingency strategy to cover expected shortfall.

Focus Areas • 2 time-frames for our focus • Short Term –2007-2008 – but with admission period only 3 months away a ‘Wait and See’, ‘Hope it Sorts Itself Out’ strategy is NOT ACCEPTABLE to our Parent Community ! • Longer Term

Short Term (2007 - 2008) • The Harpenden Secondary Schools • Roundwood Park, Sir John Lawes and Sandringham agreed to increase their 2006 intake over the PAN to absorb most of the shortfall. • St George’s cannot be considered as serving the whole of the community (90%+ = Christian faith and siblings, 70% Harpenden, 20% Villages, 10% Outside Priority Area + 20 Borders). • Roundwood Park provides circa. 45% less places to Harpenden children under Rules 6/7 than does SJL. • Serious concerns that Roundwood Park and SJL can absorb further additional numbers for 2007-2008 over their PAN (they are stretched to the limit !).

Short Term (2007 - 2008) • The South Harpenden ‘Boundary’ Problem • 16 children living in South Harpenden Areas and attending Grove Junior School did not get ranked allocation in first round in 2006. • Estimated 23 children (may be more !) who could find themselves in a similar situation for 2007 – 2008 intake. • Application of Rules 6/7 means that any South Harpenden child who does not get into SJL as nearest school under Rule 6 will have little chance of entry into Roundwood Park under Rule 7.

Short Term (2007 – 2008) • The Admission Rules and changes in Rules • 2004/2005 stats show that the introduction of the Shortest Designated Route Redbourn ‘Nicky Line’ Ruling means virtually all Redbourn children gain a place at Roundwood Park under Rule 6/7, thereby reducing the overall pool of Harpenden places. • Sibling rule accounts for a massive (45% – 50%) of available places at both SJL and Roundwood Park.

Forward Planning • Need a ‘plan’ or ’blue print’ for the effective utilisation of current secondary school capacity, mapped to sensible demographic priority areas and allocation criteria. • With consideration to :- • Re-alignment of priority areas to achieve a more equitable Supply vs Demand model. • Possible re-opening of closed schools. • Possible new schools. • Re-allocation of spare primary school capacity in ‘hot spot’ areas. • The creation and agreement of a new Forward Plan takes considerable time and so serious thinking on this needs to start NOW !

Proposed Mitigation and Contingency Measures • Control ‘Volatile’ Demand Elements • Implement measures to ‘opportunist’applicationsto ensure that those more deserving get the available places and late applications should go to back of queue. • Ensure accurate statistics are sought from both the independent sector and external authorities to ensure demand from these sources is adequately factored. • Check applicants’ addresses. • Admission Rules • The sibling rule (massive demand driver !) should be reviewed on the following basis :- • Why is it still valid for outside priority area applications ? • Why are applications at admission time allowed when the older child will have moved on when the younger sibling actually starts school ? • Shortest Designated Route ‘Nicky Line Ruling’ should be reviewed in the event of it benefiting one set of parents/children at the direct expense of others without a planned mitigation strategy.

Proposed Mitigation and Contingency Measures • Schools • Solicit feedback from heads and/or education authorities for the oversubscribed schools to confirm whether they have capacity for additional numbers over their PAN for 2007-2008 intake as they have done in 2006. e.g. Do any of these schools have any more mobile classroom capability/capacity ? • Priority Area • Need last 5 years of stats (2002-2006) to show that the correct trend of applications/allocations is as expected and that there are no surprises ! • Priority area is large – can this really be considered a sustainable proposition with such a growing community and large priority area to service ? • 3 months to go, the ‘Clock is Ticking’, we respectfully ask the TG to appreciate the urgency of the problem and of recommending effective measures to mitigate !

SCRUTINY TOPIC GROUP MEETING