Agenda item

Local authorities were under statutory obligation to ensure that there were enough school places for the local population. The report presented outlined Slough’s predicted position for the next 5 years; however, given the changeable nature of local demographics in Slough, the plan required flexibility.

Birth rates had increased significantly from 2000 onwards (over 50% by 2010). However, sufficient forms of entry had been created to provide education for all, and (based on the latest birth rate data – 2015 – 16) this would continue to be the case. The dynamic movement of the local population also meant that (on average) 1 additional class of students had to be accommodated by local primary schools every year. This was built in to the system; however, the last year had seen an atypical reduction in primary students during the academic year. Bulge classes were also in place if required; as a result, SBC was in a good position to react quickly to any changes in demand.

A series of new Free Schools and expansion projects, plus the existing forms of entry, should allow SBC to cover demand for secondary school places until 2021 – 22. There was also a significant programme of expansion underway for Early Years, whilst Cabinet had approved projects to increase Special Education Needs and Disability (SEND) places in March 2017. The exact specifications of the project in Arbour Vale were still being defined.

In total, £60 million may be required to fund these projects over the next 5 years. Given the financial situation, a significant amount of borrowing may well be required for this. However, overall SBC was in a good position to provide education for all local children.

The Panel raised the following points in discussion:

·  The Grove Academy had opened in September 2017. At present, it was using the former Thames Valley University site, but would move to its permanent Chalvey base in 2020. The geography of the proposals (e.g. flood plain) would make planning permission complex; no date could yet be specified as to when this assent would be given.

·  Applications for local school places were monitored monthly to assess trends. Whilst both primary and secondary demand had recently reduced, it was impossible to state whether this was a permanent change in the pattern yet. Equally, the impact of developments in Slough may prove hard to predict; for example, whilst Crossrail may bring in new residents, would these tend to be young, single professionals with no children? Given this, the devised projects were designed to deal with any level of population change created by SBC’s new house building.

·  Langley Grammar school had recently redefined its catchment area; this had led to an increase in the number of local children attending. However, grammar school admissions were complex due to the admissions criteria and the number of children from outside Slough who attended.

·  Upton Court Grammar School had also received more Slough pupils in 2017 – 18 than previous years; however, whether this indicated an overall increase in the number of Slough children at grammar schools (or just a shift in the schools which were attended by a static number) would require further analysis.

·  Grammar school entry was determined by 1 test, which was universally applicable to all 4 Slough grammar schools.

·  Splitting siblings was recognised as a major issue in the admissions process; Slough’s current surplus was helping avoid this in as many cases as possible. The Admissions Team would assist parents on a case by case basis.

·  The borrowing mentioned in the introduction above would place pressure on the Capital Programme, and require eventual repayment over time.

Resolved:  That the report be noted.