Catchment Changes - the figures are not clear enough to make the change!

A week before the meeting at Maes-Yr-Haul, the following questions were posed by Arfon Hughes of the residents association to the officers responsible for reporting to cabinet.  There is still no formal response.

This proposal was first presented to committee with a scenario of the school pupil numbers at 2011 (excluding nursery) reaching 621. Your latest data puts the figure for 2011 at 532. This is a material difference that begs the question as to whether change is necessary at all. Can you please explain?

On a related point, the actual intake for Reception at MYH fell from 80 in September 2009 to 68 in September 2010. Again, this is a material change that suggests that your earlier forecasts were incorrect. Again, are you able to explain?

We would also note that the latest forecasts expect the number of Year 1 pupils to increase from 68 to 96 between 2010 and 2011, a 41% increase over a single year, and for similarly high levels to be sustained every year until 2018. What is the justification for this? 

You have indicated that your forecasts are predicated on the numbers of live births in Broadlands. The figure for 2007 was cited in the August 2008 officer report as 106. The most recent report (consultation letter of 1 February, para 4.2) simply states an average of over 100 live births over the past four years. Both the Residents’ Association and the Governors have asked for this evidence base to be explained but no such explanation has been forthcoming. Can you please supply this information?

The assumptions made in the most recent forecasts of school place demand which you kindly supplied to me by email this week present what I think is the nub of the issue: You forecast an intake over a sustained period of 87 pupils against a PAN of 69.

In simple terms, the ‘over subscription’ of MYH is predicated on 87% of all births on the estate translating into demands for school places. Yet in both the Option B and Option C reports prepared by your department, between 31% and 33% of all children in Broadlands attend other schools, for reasons including language and religion. Applying this, existing ratio of children to pupils to future growth would yield a demand of 67-69, matching exactly the PAN figure for the school.

It is the adoption of a higher ‘take up’ rate of places at MYH from new births than trend data indicates which forms the basis for change. Please can you explain why you have adopted such a take up rate?The assumptions made in the most recent forecasts of school place demand which you kindly supplied to me by email this week present what I think is the nub of the issue: You forecast an intake over a sustained period of 87 pupils against a PAN of 69.


It is the adoption of a higher ‘take up’ rate of places at MYH from new births than trend data indicates which forms the basis for change. Please can you explain why you have adopted such a take up rate?In simple terms, the ‘over subscription’ of MYH is predicated on 87% of all births on the estate translating into demands for school places. Yet in both the Option B and Option C reports prepared by your department, between 31% and 33% of all children in Broadlands attend other schools, for reasons including language and religion. Applying this, existing ratio of children to pupils to future growth would yield a demand of 67-69, matching exactly the PAN figure for the school. 

It is the adoption of a higher ‘take up’ rate of places at MYH from new births than trend data indicates which forms the basis for change. Please can you explain why you have adopted such a take up rate?