Question: I am chair of governors at an infants school and we are currently undergoing consultation on the future size and shape of the cluster of feeder primaries. This exercise is supposedly to remove surplus but actually goes beyond that to leave a shortage over the current and forecast demand. We are actively opposing some of the recommended sizing supported by many parents.

During the parents consultation Q&A session it was announced that the secondary school that we feed had set a new intake number for September 2007 (350 down to 258), this being significantly below their published capacity. This would leave the feeder schools with a higher capacity than the secondary (at least two schools are opposing the new intake proposals) and an even higher number of pupils in the feeder schools without provision.

Since this meeting many questions have arisen from parents which I cannot answer:

- 1. Should we not have been formally consulted on this issue as it affects us directly?
- 2. Can out-of-catchment parents officially oppose the proposal (they do not live in the relevant area)?
- 3. Should the proposal not be linked to the primary rationalisation and therefore be consulted on as a 'package'?
- 4. Should a popular and successful school be allowed to reduce its intake numbers? (There is ongoing demand for more than the suggested intake numbers).

It seems ludicrous that the secondary school can just decide its size and fetter the primary feeder schools. We feel as though the results of our consultation were predetermined as a result of an earlier decision that we were not consulted on. It seems as if we as governors do not have a voice as the LA are the admission authority for all of the schools in question. Do you have any advice as to how we could raise this as an issue and to whom?

Joan Sallis replies: As you clearly know, the LEA is the Admissions Authority for its area and has the duty to plan the accommodation in the best interests of all the children concerned. I do not know the considerations which have led it to reduce the intake of a secondary school below the level needed to accommodate those primary-age children whose families traditionally used it, and I can’t help feeling there must be factors I don’t know such as an under-subscribed secondary school within easy reach of some of the primary schools involved, some major population trend affecting demand, or some serious and incurable space/facilities deficiency in the secondary school for the numbers in question. I’m not saying any of these apply, but the LEA’s plan must surely include some clear proposals for all the 11 year-olds in its care, otherwise it is not facing its obligations.

If none of these things apply, your concern is totally reasonable, and you have a right to be consulted and to object. You can also appeal to the Secretary of State on the ground that your LEA’s plans are unreasonable, and if many schools and individuals do so he or she will have to take notice. The answer to your first three questions is ‘Yes’ and the answer to the fourth is ‘not without good reason’ though I strongly suspect that there are reasons we may not know, good or otherwise.