A REVIEW OF SECONDARY EDUCATION IN

RADSTOCK & MIDSOMER NORTON

Why are we publishing this paper?

The national picture

Changes to the way in which secondary education is delivered are part of the national education agenda. In recent years central Government have published “Transforming Secondary Education” (DfES 2003) and this was followed by “The Five Year Strategy for Children & Learners” (DfES 2004) which developed the themes for secondary education along with all other phases of education.

Both documents set out Government aspirations and set a framework for these changes.

Allied to these documents is the announcement of the “Building Schools for the Future” initiative. Building Schools for the Future (BSF) is a programme covering all secondary schools in England and offers the potential for the rebuilding or upgrading of all secondary schools over a fifteen year period from 2005.

These are the national drivers behind this document.

The local picture

The Norton Radstock area appears in the penultimate wave of BSF. The Greater Bath area has been placed in the final wave of the BSF Programme along with Keynsham / Chew Valley. The building of new / replacement / refurbished secondary schools in Bath & North East Somerset is unlikely to receive any Government funding until 2015. Bath & North East Somerset as an authority produces very high standards in secondary schools and this, combined with the overall absence of high levels of economic deprivation, is the principal reason for the lengthy period prior to allocation of BSF funding.

However, the Council have been informed that funding will be provided for the renewal of one secondary school by 2009. Notification of our allocation was received in June 2006. The school will be selected by Council Executive on 11 October 2006. It is therefore necessary for us to consider the future in Bath & North East Somerset in light of this in order to ensure that the expenditure achieves its aims but is “future-friendly” and fits in with our longer term plans for secondary renewal.

Locally, the Council considers that, despite the eventual implementation of the full BSF Programme in Bath & North East Somerset, a number of issues require examination in order to establish a suitable pattern of provision for the period leading up to the development of improved school buildings.

The Council has also been carrying out area reviews of primary education and believes that the time is right to move onto a consideration of our secondary school provision so that the effects of these primary reviews can be built into our thinking at secondary level.

Aims

The aims of this Review are:

·        To promote high educational standards, improved attendance and improved standards of behaviour

Rationale

It is a statutory responsibility of the Council to promote high standards.

Good attendance and behaviour are a prerequisite to achievement.

·        To promote the effective use of resources (money, buildings, land and people)

Rationale

This aims to ensure that finite resources are focussed on learning and

teaching.

·        To seek to provide high quality facilities for young people, staff and communities

Rationale

This incorporates the extended school concept and aims to ensure that secondary school sites and buildings become the centre of services in each area regardless of whether users have school-aged children or not.

·        To make the choice of a local school the natural and easy choice for parents / carers whilst recognising the wider area served by Church schools.

Rationale

This aims to increase the number of young people entering their first

preference school, improves community cohesion and reduces travel

by car

·        To ensure that a school is within reasonable walking / cycling distance of home and /or reasonably accessible by public transport.

Rationale

This aims to ensure that the negative effects of travel to school are

mitigated

Content and process

This paper sets out information and contains no proposals for change or recommendations for further action. It is intended to inform the debate. It does, however, include some initial views compiled by Officers which are intended to take the debate forward.  The Education, Youth, Culture & Leisure Overview & Scrutiny Panel (EYCL OSP) will play a leading role in this review exercise.

Sequence and Process

 

Factual Data Pack Issued w/c 26/06/06

 

Initial Headteacher and Chairs Briefing 13/07/06

 

Ward Member Briefing 20/7/06

 

Summer Break

 

Second updated data set issued  w/c 04/09/06

 

Visit to Schools by O&S  Panel 15/09/06

 

Contributor Session  Monday 25/09/06 5.30 p.m. Victoria Hall, Radstock

Report presented to O&S Panel Meeting Monday 16/10/06

A final report to the Council Executive will not be produced until all areas have been through a review process. The anticipated date for a report to the Executive is July 2007.

No changes to the organisation of schools are anticipated for several years.

Background Information

Planned Development

The Inspector’s Report of the Local Plan Inquiry considers that Midsomer Norton and Radstock provide a sustainable location for further residential development, and there is potential for residential development on the brownfield sites.  She recommends the allocation of sites in Midsomer Norton and Radstock to meet the Council's overall housing requirement which should be increased by 10% (from 6,200 to 6,855 homes) up to 2011.

The Council is still to make a formal response to the findings of the Inspector but has initially accepted the need to make additional housing allocations in the south of the District.

A number of developments of local significance (c.100 houses) are likely in the area over the medium and longer term. However, there is little likelihood of major housing development to such an extent that additional schools will be required.

General Information

Norton Hill

Norton Hill is a community comprehensive school for students aged 11 to 18. All the land and buildings are owned by the Council. The school is located in the centre of Midsomer Norton. Norton Hill is a specialist school in

Technology and has a second specialism in Languages. Norton Hill have been awarded “Training School” status by DfES and is also a “Leading Edge Partnership” school.

Norton Hill has places for 1243 students and is usually oversubscribed. There are currently 1355 students on roll. Pupils from the surrounding area attend the school and approximately 100 students attend from outside Bath & North East Somerset, principally from the County of Somerset.

The school serves pupils from widely different backgrounds. At January 2006 151 students (11%) were recorded as having special educational needs. Of these, 30 students (2%) had a statement. The intake each year is of broadly average ability.

The school has the third largest 6th Form in the Authority with 229 students on roll at September 2005.

Norton Hill School performs well above national averages obtaining an average of 72% 5A*-C grades over the period 2003-2005. 

In terms of value-added (i.e. when compared to pupils with similar prior attainment at KS2), the progress made by these pupils is well above national averages in both 2004 and 2005.  Taking account of prior attainment and also a wider range of socio-economic factors, their progress is significantly above national averages in each of the years between 2003 and 2005.

At post 16, over the last 3 years, average points score per student of 257 points has been in line with national averages and points per entry 77.9 has been above national averages.

Somervale

Somervale is a community comprehensive school for students aged 11 to 18. All the land and buildings are owned by the Council. The school is located in the centre of Midsomer Norton. Somervale is a specialist school in Media Arts.

Somervale has places for 953 students (although this will reduce to 938 in September 2007)  and has not been oversubscribed in recent years. At September 2005, there were 796 students on roll. Pupils from the surrounding area attend the school and, at September 2005, this includes 44 pupils from the County of Somerset.

The school serves students from widely different backgrounds. At January 2006 128 students (16%) were identified as having special needs. Of these, 21 students (2.5%) have a statement. Although the attainment of pupils on entry to the school varies from one year group to another, it is broadly average overall.

The school has the eighth largest 6th Form in the Authority with 97 students on roll at September 2005.

Somervale School performs below national averages obtaining an average of 40% 5A*-C grades over the last 3 years. 

In terms of value-added (i.e. when compared to pupils with similar prior attainment at KS2), the progress made by these pupils was well below national averages in 2004 and in line with national averages in 2005.  Taking account of prior attainment and also a wider range of socio-economic factors, their progress has been significantly below national averages in 2003 and 2004. In 2005 progress was in line with national averages

At post 16, over the last 3 years, average points score per student of 237.7 points has been in line with national averages and points per entry 73.2 has been in line with national averages

Writhlington

Writhlington is a community comprehensive school for students aged 11 to 18. All the land and buildings are owned by the Council. The school is located in Radstock approximately one mile from the centre of Radstock. Writhlington is a specialist school in Business & Enterprise.

Writhlington has places for 1165 students and has been oversubscribed for the last three years. At September 2005, there were 1154 students on roll. Pupils attend from the surrounding area and, at September 2005, this includes 253 pupils from the County of Somerset. It should be noted that Writhlington is the designated school for parts of Somerset.

The school serves students from widely different backgrounds. At January 2006 122 students (11%) were identified as having special educational needs. Of these, 45 students (4%) have a statement. The intake each year is of broadly average ability.

The school has the seventh largest 6th Form in the Authority with 130 students on roll at September 2005.

Writhlington School performs in line with national averages obtaining an average of 58% 5A*-C grades over the last 3 years. 

In terms of value-added (i.e. when compared to pupils with similar prior attainment at KS2), the progress made by these pupils is well above national averages in 2004 and 2005.  Taking account of prior attainment and also a wider range of socio-economic factors, their progress has been significantly above national averages in 2003 and 2004 and in line with national averages in 2005.

At post 16, over the last 3 years, average points score per student of 282.6 points has been above national averages and points per entry 77.8 has been above national averages.

Historical Numbers on Roll

School	Capacity 2005	2001	2001 16+	2002	2002 16+	2003	2003 16+	2004	2004 16+	Avge NOR 01-05	2005	2005 16+	Total NOR 2005	Unfilled Places 2005 Gross / Net	PROVISIONAL September 2006 NOR
Norton Hill	1243	1073	213	1073	226	1100	197	1097	191	1293	1126	229	1355	-112	1356
Somervale	953	834	126	838	117	800	117	793	104	932	699	97	796	157	709
Writhlington	1165	777	86	800	110	875	94	880	91	928	1024	130	1154	11	1191
Totals	3361	2684	425	2711	453	2775	408	2770	386		2849	456	3305	168	3256
Average	1120	895	142	904	151	925	136	923	127		950	152	1102

Provisional 2006 figures are based on

a)     The incoming Year 7 being the total of first preferences (incl. outcomes of appeals) as at 21 July 2006.

b)     The numbers of leavers being the number in Year 11 as recorded on PLASC 2006 (January 19 2006)

c)     It is also assumed that post-16 numbers will remain as for 2005.

Intake against Standard Number / Planned Admission Number

 

School	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	Average % of SN	2006 PROVISIONAL
	SN	Intake	%	SN	Intake	%	SN	Intake	%	PAN	Intake	%	PAN	Intake	%	PAN	Intake	%
Norton Hill	208	215	103	208	214	103	208	224	108	208	215	103	216	250	116	107	216	215	99.5
Somervale	188	182	97	188	166	88	188	147	78	168	125	74	168	113	67	81	168	83	49
Writhlington	180	180	100	180	174	97	180	202	112	196	212	108	216	226	105	104	216	225	104
	576	577	100	576	554	96	576	573	99	572	552	97	600	589	98		600	523	87

Provisional 2006 figures are based on the total of first preferences (incl. outcomes of appeals) as at 21 July 2006.

Demographic Data

Combined size of Year 6 at primary schools in Midsomer Norton & Radstock 1998-2005

Year	Norton Radstock
1998	480
1999	539
2000	548
2001	519
2002	533
2003	529
2004	528
2005	464
Average	518

Combined size of Reception at primary schools in Midsomer Norton & Radstock and date of entry to Year 7

Year 7 in..?	MSN/ Radstock
2006 (2005 Year 6)	464
2007 (2005 Year 5)	513
2008 (2005 Year 4)	527
2009 (2005 Year 3)	487
2010 (2005 Year 2)	496
2011 (2005 Year 1)	479
2012 (2005 Year R)	456

Information is being sought from Somerset County Council regarding the position in Kilmersdon and Coleford

Age Profile in Area Covered by Midsomer Norton & Radstock Secondary Schools

The electoral wards chosen broadly cover the area served by these three schools.

Ages at 31.03.04

 

Ward	<1	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11
Clutton	21	27	18	29	30	42	30	28	45	38	46	41
Farmborough	12	24	25	26	23	28	30	21	32	25	34	38
High Littleton	23	23	26	35	27	39	36	33	36	32	41	38
Mendip	24	27	27	30	46	26	50	38	31	43	41	46
Midsomer Norton North	46	65	55	63	72	68	72	63	82	69	61	82
Midsomer Norton Redfield	28	37	47	51	59	70	53	51	47	68	59	63
Paulton	56	53	65	61	53	56	72	59	53	52	63	61
Peasedown	80	97	85	80	91	95	103	106	100	104	112	112
Radstock	55	74	69	80	72	61	83	77	82	72	69	66
Timsbury	19	27	32	23	29	26	31	23	26	26	30	31
Westfield	54	75	68	73	65	80	87	86	95	77	84	83
Total	418	529	517	551	567	591	647	585	629	606	640	661

As mentioned above each of the three schools in the area have students from Somerset on roll.

The population data for those parts of Somerset from which the schools have historically drawn children are not included above. Information is being sought from Somerset County Council.

Levels of Achievement 2003-2005

 

	2003	2004	2005	Average 03-05
	L1	L2	L3	L1	L2	L3	L1	L2	L3	L1	L2	L3
Authority Average	92	60	232	92	60	250	92	64	257	92	61	246
National Average	89	53	259	89	54	269	90	57	278	89	55	261
Norton Hill	99	70	254	98	72	233	99	73	284	99	72	257
Somervale	92	38	227	93	33	239	94	50	247	93	40	238
Writhlington	87	59	261	94	54	315	91	62	285	91	58	287

Key

Level 1 – 5 or more A* to G at GCSE

Level 2 – 5 or more A* to C at GCSE

Level 3 – Post-16

N.B. In 2002 changes were made to the post-16 scoring system and also to the area for which averages are calculated. An A equates to 120 points, a B, 100, a C, 80, a D 60 and an E, 40. The totals for each school are then divided by the number of entries to derive the points score per student.

Value Added Measure

A relatively new measure which is designed to reflect the progress made at a school when compared with the results achieved by students in their Key Stage 2 tests (known as SATs). Measures above 1000 represent schools where pupils on average made more progress than similar pupils nationally, while measures below 1000 represent schools where pupils made less progress. Details of pupil mobility (coverage) are also collected in order to assess the extent to which the Year Group taking GCSEs (Year 11) is comprised of those students who entered the school at Year 7. All secondary schools in Bath & North East Somerset have a pupil mobility score in the mid to high nineties which indicates that there is very little mobility.

Value Added Data 2005 KS2-KS4

		Coverage
Authority Average	997.6
Norton Hill	1014.6	97%
Somervale	989.1	98%
Writhlington	990.8	99%

This does not take into account the prior attainment and socio-economic backgrounds of students. See Contextual Value Added table below.

 

Key Stage 2 to Key Stage 4 Value Added Measure
Value Added Measures	Percentiles
1057.9 and above	Top 5% of schools nationally
1019.4 - 1057.8	Next 20% of schools nationally
1003.4 - 1019.3	Next 15% of schools nationally
985.7 - 1003.3	Middle 20% of schools nationally
971.1 - 985.6	Next 15% of schools nationally
937.4 - 971.0	Next 20% of schools nationally
937.3 and below	Bottom 5% of schools nationally

Contextual Value Added Data KS2-4

This takes into account the prior attainment and socio-economic background of students. This information is released by agreement with schools. The baseline is 100 for 2003 and 1000 for 2004 and 2005.

Schools exceeding or falling below 1000 by a particular level will be regarded as having achieved significantly higher / lower contextual added value.

 

	2003	2004	2005
Norton Hill	102.2	Significantly above	1018.0	Significantly above	1020.8	Significantly above
Somervale	95.4	Significantly below	969.4	Significantly below	993.7	In line
Writhlington	102.1	Significantly above	1013.2	Significantly above	1006.4	In line

* This comparison takes account of prior attainment, and also a wider range of socio-economic factors and judges the progress of pupils from Key Stage 2 to Key Stage 4

N.B. In 2003 scores were based around 100.  Since then scores have been based around 1000

 

Site & Building Areas   School	Site Area M2	Recommended Site Area based on planned size / NOR	Site Area %	Building Area	Recommended MINIMUM Building Area based on planned size	Building Area %	REQUIRED Team Games Playing Field M2	Team Games Playing Field	Team Games Playing Field %
Norton Hill	119,770	90,200	133	9,957	9,810	101	50,000	84,820	170
Somervale	107,650	81,181	133	7,029	8,130	86	40,000	60,400	151
Writhlington	143,360	84,977	169	10,339	9,810	105	50,000	60,900	122

Notes

• Assessment of the areas available to a school represents good asset management practice.

 

• Recommended site and building areas are set out in the DfES guidance document Building Bulletin 98 (BB98).

 

• Assessment of the proportion of site and building areas available is made against the mid-point of BB98 guidance. Assessment of team games playing field area is made against the School Premises Regulations 1999

 

• A site or building which is too small will make management of the school more problematic. A site or building that is oversized will require more resources in order to maintain it. Such resources will come from the school budget and thus leave less to allocate to direct delivery of the curriculum.

Outstanding Planned Maintenance (at 26 June 2006)

 

School	Outstanding Planned Maintenance   Urgent and Essential 2006-2007	Outstanding Planned Maintenance   Desirable and Long Term 2008 to 2010	Total 2006 to 2014	Urgent & Essential Planned Maintenance per head Based on average NOR
				01-05
Norton Hill	934,000	42,200	976,200	754.98
Somervale	183,000	528,000	711,000	196.35
Writhlington	911,000	651,000	1,562,000	981.68
Totals	2,028,000	1,221,200	3,249,200

Notes: DfES and Property Services define Urgent as ‘Work that will prevent immediate closure of premises, and/or address an immediate high risk to the health and safety of occupants and/or remedy a serious breach of legislation’. Essential is defined as ‘Work required within two years that will prevent serious deterioration of the fabric or services and/or address a medium risk to the health and safety of occupants and/or remedy a less serious breach of legislation’

All temporary buildings are scheduled or targeted for replacement as part of future capital programmes. Estimated costs for repairs and maintenance of such buildings are not prepared. Works required to maintain use of a building or for health and safety reasons would be carried out on temporary buildings. Figures for Norton Hill and Somervale do NOT include the capital costs of replacing temporary buildings with permanent buildings. There are no temporary buildings at Writhlington.

Financial Information

 

	Formula Allocation	FTE	Budget Share per Student	Standards Funds	Standards Grant	Total Standards Funding	Total Standards Funding per Student	Total Funding	Total Funding per Student
Norton Hill	4,545,134	1344	3382	116,564	142,712	259,276	193	4,804,410	3575
Somervale	2,575,048	802	3211	86,883	95,202	182,085	227	2,757,133	3438
Writhlington	3,914,403	1134	3452	107,640	128,537	236,177	208	4,150,579	3660
Total	11,034,585	3280		311,087	366,451	677,538		11,712,122
Area Average	3,678,195	1093	3348	103,696	122,150	225,846	209	3,904,040	3558
LEA Average	3,476,248	1040	3343	100,637	112,920	213,557	205	3,689,805	3548

 

	LSC Funding	6th Form Students	Total LSC Funding Share per Student
Norton Hill	1,156,425	222	5209
Somervale	410,554	94	4368
Writhlington	694,137	113	6143
Total	2,261,116	429
Area Average	753,705	143	5271
LEA Average	792,574	161	4945

A REVIEW OF SECONDARY EDUCATION IN

RADSTOCK & MIDSOMER NORTON

DRAFT CONCLUSIONS

“Building Schools for the Future will provide a valuable opportunity for LEAs to look radically at existing provision and make changes that they believe will contribute to the core agenda of raising standards, removing surplus places and matching school places with parental choice.”

“Local education authorities and schools now have an exciting opportunity to consider from first principles what secondary school buildings are needed, where they should be and what facilities they should each have.”

“Authorities and schools will be able to make visionary changes to school organisation, as well as investing in modernisation and renewal, so that all schools can play their part in the delivery of higher educational standards in the future.”

“…there should be a willingness to look at all options for raising educational standards, including radical strategic change and reform, to create new opportunities for all schools.”

From “Building Schools for the Future” DfES 2003

The aims of the BSF programme are clear and any initial or final conclusions will need to respond to these aims. All stakeholders need to consider how to use the funding flowing from this programme to provide the best pattern of provision in order to raise standards, and match places more closely with levels of demand and parental preference.

Numbers in the Radstock and Midsomer Norton area have increased steadily over the last school generation. To illustrate this, at September 2005 there were approximately 200 more students on roll across the three schools than there were in September 2001. The rate of increase is now slowing. Overall numbers appear to have reached their peak.

Numbers in local primary schools are declining and the effect of this will be felt in secondary schools during the remainder of this decade and into the next. Planned housing development in the area will create a small significant additional demand for school places but this will not offset the overall decline in numbers.

Evidence suggests that in future years the total number of children requiring a Year 7 place will be c.500 against a total of 600 places available each year. Consideration could therefore be given to the potential for reducing the number of  places at each school or reducing the number of schools.