A REVIEW OF PRIMARY SCHOOLS IN THE SOUTH & EAST BATH
AREA
Combe Down CE VC Primary School, Freshford CE VC Primary
School, St Martin’s Garden Primary School, St Philip’s CE VC
Primary School
1. WHY ARE WE REVIEWING THIS AREA?
1.1 All primary schools in Bath & North East
Somerset are to be reviewed over the four years between September
2003 and July 2007. Each school will initially be reviewed
alongside its partner schools in a geographical area. At the end of
each Area Review elected Councillors may decide that some changes
(school closures, new schools, enlarging schools etc.) appear to be
necessary and initiate a further consultation process focussing on
the school(s) affected. It is equally possible that Councillors may
simply acknowledge that the pattern of school provision is working
effectively and that no changes are required in the short or
medium-term.
1.2 The process to be followed when undertaking
an Area Review has been the subject of wide and lengthy
consultation. It was finally approved by the School Organisation
Committee (a body independent of the Council) on 22 July 2003.
1.3 A document entitled “The School Review
Process” can be found on the Council website at:
www.bathnes.gov.uk/Committee_Papers/OandSEYCL/EYCL021202/10SchoolReviewProcess.htm
Paper copies are available on request.
1.4 The schools named below are considered in this
Review.
- Combe Down CE VC Primary School, Summer Lane
- Freshford CE VC Primary School, Freshford
- St Martin’s Garden Primary School, Lympsham Green, Odd
Down
- St Philip’s CE VC Primary School, Bloomfield Rise, Odd
Down
2. INTRODUCTION
2.1 The first stage of the
Review involves the gathering of information on the following:-
- current numbers on roll (September 2004)
- historical numbers on roll (1999-2003)
- anticipated numbers of children in the area (2005 and
beyond)
- levels of recruitment against Standard Number / Planned
Admission Number
- unit cost per pupil
- home addresses of pupils on roll
- level of surplus or deficit of places
- levels of educational achievement
- levels of educational deprivation and multiple deprivation in
the ward in which the school is located (and more detailed
information on the level of educational and economic deprivation
amongst children at each school).
2.2 On 24 September 2004, a draft version of
this document was circulated to the Headteacher of each school
covered by the Review.
2.3 On 8 October 2004 a revised version
containing amendments, clarifications of facts and some initial
conclusions was issued to the Headteacher and Chair of Governors of
each school covered by the Review, the Headteacher and Chair of
Governors of the secondary schools serving Bath, senior officers of
the Education Service, the Bath & Wells Diocesan Board of
Education, the Roman Catholic Diocese of Clifton and Councillors
representing the wards in which the schools are located. The
document was also circulated to members of the Education, Youth,
Culture & Leisure Overview & Scrutiny Panel in order to
inform their discussions prior to the public meeting to be held on
4 November 2004.
3. School Organisation Plan
3.1 Each school has been
assessed against policies, established through the School
Organisation Plan, regarding school size. The School Organisation
Plan states that;
- Infant and junior schools should be at least one form of entry
and a maximum of three with a standard number between 30 and
90.
- No infant school should have 60 or fewer children on roll.
- No junior school should have 90 or fewer children on roll.
- Urban/suburban primary schools should be at least one form of
entry and a maximum of two with a standard number between 30 and
60.
- No urban/suburban primary school should have fewer than 180
children on roll.
- The maximum desirable size for an all through primary school is
420 pupils.
3.2 At September 2004 all schools meet
the criteria regarding planned admission number and size.
3.3 The School Organisation Plan agreed
on July 22 2003 stated the following in relation to South &
East Bath “The level of surplus places is fractionally above the
desirable maximum. Almost 90% of (this) surplus exists in one
school. A review prior to the commencement of the Foxhill scheme
will take place and should identify options for reducing surplus to
acceptable levels.” In July 2004 an update of demographic
information was published and this noted a deteriorating situation
in terms of an increase in the percentage of unfilled places but
noted that the vast majority of this surplus still existed within
one school.
3.4 The School Organisation Plan agreed
on 17 July 2001 stated that “the LEA’s preferred option for school
organisation at Key Stages 1 and 2 is all-through primary schools.
This also includes the Foundation Stage in nursery and reception
classes.” All the schools covered by this Review are all-through
primary schools, one of which operates a nursery class.
3.5 Of the four schools covered by
this Review three are Church schools. Any changes in the area may
result in a change in the proportion of denominational places in
Bath & North East Somerset and if such changes reduced the
proportion of denominational places this would require the support
of the relevant Diocese, in this case the Diocese of Bath &
Wells. At present, approximately 54% of primary school places in
Bath & North East Somerset are in Church schools. In the South
& Central Bath area the percentage is 68%.
3.6 All schools have also been
assessed under the Authority’s Asset Management Plan (AMP). The AMP
is concerned with the Condition, Suitability and Sufficiency of
schools. The Key Data sheets at the back of the document show the
position at these schools in relation to the AMP
headings.
4. The Context
4.1 A map showing the location of the
schools is attached. An wide area map showing where pupils live is
also attached. For legal reasons it is necessary to state that the
maps have been reproduced from the Ordnance Survey with the
permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office Ó
Crown Copyright under License Number 100023334.
4.2 Population data from the
Primary Care Trust shows the position at April 2003 in the wards in
which these schools are located.
5. Levels of Educational Achievement
5.1 There are various measures of
educational performance. Simple examination of headline results may
not reveal the success (or otherwise) of a school.
5.2 Care must be taken when analysing
results of small year groups and making comparisons with schools
that are significantly different in size. In small schools
one pupil can have a very marked effect on the percentage figures.
OFSTED makes the following statement:
|
Care should be taken when analysing the results of small year
groups and small schools. The effect of one additional pupil
on, for example, a school percentage measure can be considerable,
whereas in larger schools the effect will be less marked.
This does not mean that analysing the performance of small cohorts
is invalid. Rather it means that the findings from such
analyses should be interpreted carefully, and may need to be
augmented with other information or considered over more than one
year. |
6. Levels of Educational and Multiple
Deprivation
In previous Reviews we have used data based on the Indices of
Multiple Deprivation (IMD) 2000. This year the IMD have been
updated. The data is broken down into areas much more specific than
the previous method which relied on electoral ward. The data for
Bath & North East Somerset is to be supplied during mid / late
October and will be included in later versions of this paper.
7 Timescales and
Consultation
7.1 The Overview & Scrutiny Panel held a
public meeting to hear contributions from invited stakeholders.
This took place on 4 November 2004 at the Guildhall, Bath at 5.30
p.m.
7.2 The document was further
considered by the Overview & Scrutiny Panel (OSP) at its
meeting on 15 November 2004.
7.3 A meeting for Bath &
North East Somerset Councillors representing the relevant wards was
arranged for 12 October.
7.4 The final paper will be
considered by the Council Executive which meets at 10 a.m. on 1
December 2004 at the Guildhall, Bath.
KEY DATA (to view these figures, please click on link at
top right of page)
- Numbers on Roll
- Level of recruitment against Standard Number
- Financial Information
- Outstanding Planned Maintenance
- Site & Building Areas
- Educational Standards
- Suitability Assessments
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Aims and Objectives
The aims of the Review are to:
· Maintain and improve
educational standards
· Maximise the use of
existing resources (land, buildings and funding)
· Increase access to
high quality facilities for children, staff and the community
· Make the choice of a
local school the natural and easy choice for parents
Combe Down CE VC Primary School and Freshford CE VC
Primary School are both almost full. Educational outcomes
are above the LEA and national average across both Key
Stages. A major project to remodel Freshford was completed in
2001 and significant capital investment has been made at Combe Down
in order to remove temporary buildings and provide a new school
hall. The total absence of a playing field for either school
is a concern but, in the case of Combe Down, no prospect exists to
create such a space. An allocation in the Deposit Local Plan
has been made for a playing field at Freshford although there are
differences of view as to whether this allocation should be
maintained or replaced by another potential site. No funding
exists to provide a playing field for Freshford CE Primary
School.
No organisational changes are recommended at either of these
schools.
St Martin’s Garden Primary School exists as a result of
an amalgamation of Fosseway Infant and Fosseway Junior schools
which took effect in September 2000. The amalgamation arose
as a result of the clear understanding of both Governing Bodies
that the future could best be secured by coming together as a
single school. Falling birth rates and the reduction in pupil
numbers at St Martin’s Garden Primary continues to exercise the
Governors and the Authority. A planned reduction in capacity
at this school is necessary in order to remove surplus
places. The intake levels at the school have fallen markedly
over the last few years. The potential to reduce the school
capacity to 210 places should be examined during this Review.
Similarly, St Philip’s CE VC Primary School has
experienced falls in the level of intake. Examination of the
potential to reduce capacity at this school to 210 places should be
undertaken during this Review but it needs to be borne in mind that
it is necessary to maintain some unfilled places in an area to
allow flexibility and for occasional admissions outside the normal
admissions timescale.
Another issue affecting this Review is the potential relocation
of St John’s Catholic Primary School to a site within the
area. A final decision on site selection is due to be taken
on 15th December 2004.
