|
Bath & North East Somerset Council | |||
|
COUNCIL EXECUTIVE |
AGENDA | |
MEETING DATE: |
10th DECEMBER 2003 | ||
TITLE: |
|||
WARD: |
KEYNSHAM EAST, KEYNSHAM NORTH, KEYNSHAM SOUTH AND SALTFORD | ||
AN OPEN PUBLIC ITEM | |||
List of attachments to this report: Consultation Document "A Review of Primary Schools in the Keynsham Area" | |||
1 THE ISSUE
1.1 Reviews of the way in which schools are organised are an important element of the Council's strategic management role. Regular examination of the supply of, and demand for, school places is essential in order to ensure that education provision is being delivered in the most effective way.
1.2 At September 2003 the Keynsham/Saltford area has, depending on method of calculation, 130 or 198 unfilled places representing approximately 8% or 12% of capacity. The fall in the birth rate in the locality (reflecting general national trends), and the absence of significant new housing developments in the area mean that the situation is likely to deteriorate further.
2 RECOMMENDATION
2.1 The Executive is recommended to note the work of the Education, Youth, Culture & Leisure Overview and Scrutiny Panel (EYCL OSP) and to consider their views which are included at paragraphs 4.9 to 4.16
2.2 The Executive is recommended to approve a second phase of the Review and agree that the aims of the Review remain a) improving educational standards, b) ensuring that resources (land, buildings, funding and people) are used in the most effective way and c) attempting to deliver improved access to high quality facilities to children, school staff and the wider community.
2.3 The Executive is recommended to authorise the Education Director to initiate a consultation exercise during the Spring term incorporating the proposals set out in Section 5.
Printed on recycled paper
3 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
3.1 The costs of the Review and related activities can be met from existing resources.
3.2 There are significant costs of taking, or not taking action. These will only be quantifiable after further work. There are potential capital costs if proposals emerge which lead to the creation of one or more new or replacement schools. There are potential capital receipts if existing sites are vacated.
3.3 It is a legal requirement that any capital funding required for the implementation of a proposal must be in place prior to a decision being taken to implement the proposal.
4 THE REPORT
4.1 At its meeting on 9 July 2003 the Council Executive adopted a School Organisation Plan (the Plan) for the period 2003-2008. At a meeting of the full Council on 17 July the Plan also received unanimous support and the Plan was finally approved by the School Organisation Committee (a body independent of the Council) on 22 July 2003.
4.2 The Plan included a new process for undertaking reviews of schools. This process was developed through work undertaken by the EYCL OSP who consulted widely and heard from a number of key stakeholders during this process.
4.3 The Plan stated that those areas most in need of a review were those which presented the highest number of unfilled places. This includes Keynsham / Saltford.
4.4 Members are invited to note that the method used by the Department for Education & Skills for calculating the numbers of unfilled places only takes into account the number of places unfilled at schools where capacity exceeds the number of children on roll. It does not take account of the deficit of places at schools.
4.5 An initial document was prepared and distributed to key stakeholders for `fact-checking' on September 29th. Following responses a number of corrections and clarifications were made and a further document was issued on October 16th. A third document was published on November 10th. This document contained all the agreed facts, requests for clarification and correction, the LEA response to those requests and some draft conclusions drawn up by Officers.
4.6 The November 10th document was discussed at a specially arranged public meeting of the EYCL OSP, held on November 12th at Broadlands School, Keynsham. The notes of the meeting (attached as Appendix 2) show that all speakers at the meeting recognised that action was required in order to address the current and projected numbers of unfilled places. There was no clear opinion about how this might be achieved but it was acknowledged, with regret, that school closures may form part of the solution.
4.7 All speakers and Panel members stated explicitly that whatever changes were planned the key outcome must be better provision for children (and by logical extension, staff and the wider community).
4.8 The OSP organised a visit to each of the schools covered by this review. This took place on 24th November 2003. Following this tour Panel members arrived at certain conclusions. Members are invited to note the work of the Panel and to consider their recommendations.
4.9 Panel members agreed that taking no action was not an option.
4.10 The possibility of `mothballing' buildings at certain schools was discussed. This means the closure of parts of buildings or temporary classrooms. If demographic trends are reversed these buildings could then be taken back into use in several years time without the need to provide new accommodation. The Panel believed that this solution would reinforce a negative image of schools where `mothballing' had taken place. They rejected this as a solution.
4.11 Panel members took the view that Temple Primary, located as it is on two sites, faced difficulties and ask the Executive to consider whether Temple should be replaced on a new site in Keynsham. They asked that Officers undertake investigations into the provision of a suitable site in the town.
4.12 Consideration was also given to closing Keynsham Primary and replacing Temple Primary School on the Keynsham Primary site.
4.13 The Panel also considered the possibility of closing both Temple Primary and Keynsham Primary and establishing a new school on the Keynsham Primary site.
4.14 In relation to the options identified at 4.11 to 4.13, the Panel recognised that there were capital costs and capital benefits to each option.
4.15 Panel members considered that there was no need, at this time, to propose changes to Chandag Infant, Chandag Junior, Castle Primary, St John's CE Primary or Saltford CE Primary.
4.16 The Panel also drew the attention of Officers to specific improvements needed in schools which were raised during the public meeting on November 12th and during the site visits on 24th November.
4.17 The final Review is now attached. This document provides the basis for decision-making.
4.18 The attached paper contains references to data from the Primary Care Trust (PCT). Some stakeholders have expressed reservations about proceeding on the basis of this data. Members are asked to agree that a cautious approach should be taken in order to ensure that the outcomes of the Review, whatever they may be, are based on a clear understanding of the future needs of the area. Further discussions with the PCT will be required in order to validate the data.
4.19 Members are invited to agree that the school provision in this area remains in need of a fundamental review.
4.20 Members are invited to agree that, having taken into account the views expressed at the public meeting on 12th November, and the views of the OSP, further consultation should be undertaken during the Spring term on the basis of the options set out in sections 5.1 to 5.7
5 CONCLUSIONS
The following options will form the basis for future consultation. The Executive is invited to consider whether any of these options should not be pursued. Members are asked to note that closures of schools, establishment of new schools or significant enlargement of existing schools are subject to highly prescriptive legal processes. Representations regarding any statutory proposals will, in all likelihood, mean that proposals are referred to the School Organisation Committee (SOC). SOC is a body independent of the Council and decisions of the Committee must be unanimous. If unanimity on a decision cannot be achieved the proposal is referred to the Office of the Schools Adjudicator. OSA decisions are final.
Members are referred to paragraph 3.3 regarding the requirement for capital funding in particular circumstances.
5.1 Closure of Keynsham Primary School and redistribution of pupils to other Keynsham schools with any necessary increases in capacity at the receiving schools being funded from the Capital Programme. Disposal of the Keynsham Primary School site and any receipts that may arise to be returned to the Capital Programme.
5.2 Closure of Temple Primary School and redistribution of pupils to other Keynsham schools with any necessary increases in capacity at the receiving schools being funded from the Capital Programme. Disposal of the Temple Primary School sites and any receipts that may arise to be returned to the Capital Programme.
5.3 Closure of both Temple Primary School and Keynsham Primary School and redistribution of pupils to other Keynsham schools with any necessary increases in capacity at the receiving schools being funded from the Capital Programme. Disposal of Keynsham and Temple sites and any receipts that may arise to be returned to the Capital Programme.
5.4 Closure of both Temple Primary School and Keynsham Primary School and the creation of a new primary school on the Keynsham Primary site. Disposal of the Temple Primary School sites and any receipts that may arise be used to assist with the development of the new school.
5.5 Closure of Keynsham Primary School and the replacement of Temple Primary School on the existing Keynsham Primary site. Disposal of the Temple Primary School sites and any receipts that may arise be used to assist with the development of the new buildings.
5.6 Closure of Keynsham Primary School and the replacement of Temple Primary on a new site in Keynsham. Disposal of Keynsham Primary School site and Temple Primary School sites and any receipts used to fund development of the new Temple Primary School.
5.7 Amalgamation of Chandag Infant School and Chandag Junior School, as a two form entry school, from 1 September 2008. Examine the potential for creating this new school in new buildings on one of the existing sites, disposing of any surplus site area and returning the receipts to the Capital Programme. N.B. Members are invited to note that the earliest possible date for amalgamation would be September 1 2008. Further details of the process can be found on page 31.
Contact person |
Bruce Austen School Organisation Manager 01225 395169 |
Background papers |
School Organisation Plan 2003-2008 |
|
A REVIEW OF PRIMARY SCHOOLS IN THE KEYNSHAM AREA Castle Primary School Chandag Infant School Chandag Junior School Keynsham Primary School Saltford CofE Primary School St John's CofE Primary Keynsham Temple Primary School Enquiries to: Bruce Austen School Organisation Manager Education Service Bath & North East Somerset P O Box 25 Riverside KEYNSHAM BS31 1DN Tel: 01225 395169 or e-mail: September to December 2003 |
A REVIEW OF PRIMARY SCHOOLS IN THE KEYNSHAM AREA
1. WHY ARE WE REVIEWING THIS AREA?
1.1 All primary schools in Bath & North East Somerset are to be reviewed over the next four years. Each school will 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 School Organisation Committee also approved the areas for review during the school year 2003/04. These are the areas showing the highest numbers of unfilled (sometimes referred to as surplus) places. The Keynsham area (including Saltford) is amongst these areas.
1.5 The schools named below are considered in this Review.
Castle Primary School, Newlands Road
Chandag Infant School, Chandag Road
Chandag Junior School, Chandag Road
Keynsham Primary School, Kelston Road
Saltford CofE Primary School, Bath Road, Saltford
St John's CofE Primary, Charlton Park
Temple Primary School, Bath Hill East (and also at Albert Road)
2. INTRODUCTION
2.1 The first stage of the Review has involved the gathering of information on the following:-
· current numbers on roll (September 2003)
· historical numbers on roll (1997-2002)
· anticipated numbers on roll (2004 and beyond)
· levels of recruitment against Standard Number
· unit cost per pupil
· pupil teacher ratios
· home addresses of pupils on roll
· outstanding planned maintenance
· suitability for curriculum delivery
· 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 29 September, a draft version of this document was circulated to the Headteacher and Chair of Governors of each school covered by the Review, the Headteacher and Chair of Governors of the two secondary schools serving Keynsham, senior officers of the Education Service, the Bath & Wells Diocesan Board of Education, the Roman Catholic Diocese of Clifton, Councillors representing wards in Keynsham and Saltford and Keynsham Town Council. The document was also circulated to members of the Education, Youth, Culture & Leisure Overview & Scrutiny Panel in order to prepare the Panel members for their discussion at a meeting on 3 November.
2.3 A revised version containing amendments and clarifications of facts was issued to all stakeholders on October 17th.
2.4 A further revision was published on November 10th. This document was a duplicate of the revised paper issued on October 17th with the crucial addition of initial conclusions drawn by officers.
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 Both infant and junior schools meet the minimum size and admission number criteria. All the primary schools have acceptable admission numbers. At September 2003 two of the primary schools covered by the Review have fewer than 180 children on roll.
3.3 The School Organisation Plan agreed on July 22 2003 stated the following in relation to Keynsham "At the time of publication of the original draft Plan significant housing developments were planned for Keynsham. As this Plan reaches final draft stage and approval the planned large-scale housing development for Keynsham has been deleted from the Local Plan. Therefore, there is no prospect of unfilled places in the town being taken up by residents of new housing." The housing developments that are still identified for the town will add 74 dwellings at Somerdale and at the former Cannocks garage plus an unspecified element of residential development at St John's Court.
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." Of the schools covered by this Review there is one infant school and one junior school. One primary school also operates an LEA nursery class.
3.5 Readers will note that two of the seven schools covered by this Review are Church of England schools (both are Voluntary Controlled). Any changes in the area may result in a change in the proportion of denominational places in Bath & North East Somerset. At present, 47% of primary school places in Bath & North East Somerset are in Church of England schools. In Keynsham this percentage is 33%.
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. Keynsham - The Context
4.1 A map showing the location of the schools is attached.
4.2 Keynsham/Saltford has a population of approximately 19,500 of which, at the date of the 2001 National Census, 2860 were between the ages of 0-10.
4.3 Data from the Primary Care Trust was received on October 22nd. This shows the position at April 2003.
4 Levels of Educational Achievement
4.1 There are various measures of educational performance. Simple examination of headline results may not reveal the success (or otherwise) of a school.
4.2 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
6.1 All wards in England have been assessed under a range of headings in order to determine, not only the overall levels of deprivation in a given community, but to compile an elemental breakdown of the type of deprivation. The headings are Income, Employment, Health, Education, Housing, Geographical Access to Services and Child Poverty. The results of this survey were published by central Government in August 2000.
6.2 The measure of educational deprivation is compiled by considering the following data:-
· the number of working age adults with no qualifications
· the number of children aged 16 and over who are not in full-time education
· the proportion of 17-19 year olds who have not successfully applied for university
· KS2 primary school performance data
· primary school children with English as an additional language for 1998
· absenteeism (authorised and unauthorised) at primary level for 1998.
6.3 8414 wards were assessed. The lower the score the higher the level of educational deprivation. For comparison purposes readers will wish to know that the wards with the highest and lowest scores in the Bath & North East Somerset area are Peasedown (728) and Combe Down (8015)
6.4 In terms of multiple deprivation, the comparison should be made with Twerton which is ranked at 1111. Saltford, at 8135, is the least deprived ward in Bath & North East Somerset and is within the `top' 5% of wards in England.
6.5 Information regarding the extent of child poverty is also included as an illustration of the economic deprivation in the area. For comparison purposes, Twerton scores 286 placing it within the `bottom' 5% of wards in England. The former ward of Chew Valley West scores 8056.
6.6 Information has also been gathered showing the numbers and proportion of pupils from each ward attending each school. This is shown on the Key Data Sheet.
7 Timescales
7.1 The document was considered by the Overview & Scrutiny Panel (OSP) at its meeting at 5.30 on November 3 2003 at the Guildhall, Bath. The OSP is holding a public session in Keynsham to hear contributions from invited stakeholders. This has been arranged for 4 p.m. on 12th November at Broadlands School.
7.2 A meeting for Bath & North East Somerset Councillors representing the wards in Keynsham and Saltford took place on October 27th.
7.3 The final paper will be considered by the Council Executive which meets at 10.00 on 10 December 2003 at Keynsham Town Hall.
KEY DATA
Numbers on Roll, Forecasts & Surplus Places (Sufficiency 1)
Level of Recruitment against Standard Number
Financial Information
Outstanding Planned Maintenance (Condition)
Site and Building Areas (Sufficiency 2)
Deprivation Data
Educational Standards
Suitability
Numbers on Roll, Forecasts & Surplus Places School |
Category |
PAN Sept 2004 |
Net Capacity |
Sep 97 Actual |
Sep 98 Actual |
Sep 99 Actual |
Sep 00 Actual |
Sep 01 Actual |
Sep 02 Actual |
Surplus Places Sep 02 |
Average NOR 97-02 |
Sep 03 Actual |
Surplus Places Sep 03 |
Sep 06 Forecast |
Surplus Places Forecast Sept 06 |
Castle Primary |
Community |
40 |
240 |
224 |
243 |
241 |
231 |
220 |
233 |
7 |
232 |
221 |
19 |
||
Chandag Infants |
Community |
60 |
180 |
161 |
150 |
155 |
171 |
178 |
180 |
0 |
166 |
177 |
3 |
||
Chandag Junior |
Community |
68 |
240 |
256 |
260 |
261 |
271 |
280 |
275 |
-35 |
267 |
288 |
-48 |
||
Keynsham Primary |
Community |
30 |
243 |
246 |
229 |
224 |
206 |
179 |
156 |
87 |
207 |
122 |
121 |
||
Saltford CofE Primary |
Controlled |
50 |
350 |
352 |
348 |
353 |
346 |
347 |
344 |
6 |
348 |
335 |
15 |
||
St.John's CofE Primary, Keynsham |
Controlled |
30 |
210 |
235 |
235 |
229 |
230 |
229 |
230 |
-20 |
231 |
227 |
-17 |
||
Temple Primary |
Community |
30 |
210 |
125 |
128 |
127 |
121 |
142 |
148 |
62 |
132 |
170 |
40 |
||
Totals |
308 |
1,673 |
1,599 |
1,593 |
1,590 |
1,576 |
1,575 |
1,566 |
162 |
1,583 |
1,543 |
198* |
1,457 |
216 | |
Average |
N/A |
239 |
228 |
228 |
227 |
225 |
225 |
224 |
226 |
225 |
Notes
PAN means Planned Admission Number. This figure equates to the number of pupils the school must admit if demand exists. PAN has replaced Standard Number for admissions from September 2004.
Net Capacity is the physical capacity of the school and shows the number of places available. It is derived from a DfES formula.
*Surplus places means unfilled places. Not all unfilled places are surplus. The calculation of the number of unfilled places takes account only of those schools where the number of pupils is fewer than the number of places available. Shortfalls of places in schools are not counted. Therefore, although the difference between total numbers on roll and total capacity is 130 (1673 - 1543) there are in fact 198 unfilled places using the Audit Commission / DfES methodology.
The purpose of showing the average number on roll over the five years previous to 2003/04 is to ensure that an unusual variation in admissions in one year does not provide a distorted picture.
Levels of Recruitment against Standard Number
School |
1997 |
1998 |
1999 |
2000 |
2001 |
2002 |
2003 |
Average | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
SN |
Intake |
% |
SN |
Intake |
% |
SN |
Intake |
% |
SN |
Intake |
% |
SN |
Intake |
% |
SN |
Intake |
% |
SN |
Intake |
% |
% of SN | |||||||||||||||||||
Castle Primary |
38 |
36 |
95% |
38 |
40 |
105% |
38 |
31 |
82% |
38 |
30 |
79% |
40 |
23 |
58% |
40 |
37 |
93% |
40 |
27 |
68% |
82% | ||||||||||||||||||
Chandag Infant |
60 |
59 |
98% |
60 |
38 |
63% |
60 |
46 |
77% |
60 |
60 |
100% |
60 |
58 |
97% |
60 |
60 |
100% |
60 |
58 |
97% |
90% | ||||||||||||||||||
Chandag Junior |
75 |
51 |
68% |
75 |
56 |
75% |
75 |
65 |
87% |
75 |
66 |
88% |
75 |
57 |
76% |
75 |
63 |
84% |
75 |
69 |
92% |
81% | ||||||||||||||||||
Keynsham Primary |
45 |
35 |
78% |
45 |
33 |
73% |
45 |
32 |
71% |
45 |
18 |
40% |
45 |
19 |
42% |
45 |
14 |
31% |
45 |
4 |
9% |
49% | ||||||||||||||||||
Saltford CofE Primary |
50 |
51 |
102% |
50 |
35 |
70% |
50 |
42 |
84% |
50 |
48 |
96% |
50 |
49 |
98% |
50 |
45 |
90% |
50 |
36 |
72% |
87% | ||||||||||||||||||
St John's CofE Primary, Keynsham |
34 |
34 |
100% |
34 |
34 |
100% |
34 |
31 |
91% |
34 |
34 |
100% |
34 |
34 |
100% |
34 |
32 |
94% |
34 |
34 |
100% |
98% | ||||||||||||||||||
Temple Primary |
35 |
14 |
40% |
35 |
15 |
43% |
35 |
9 |
26% |
35 |
15 |
43% |
35 |
22 |
63% |
35 |
16 |
46% |
35 |
24 |
69% |
47% | ||||||||||||||||||
Totals |
337 |
280 |
83% |
337 |
251 |
74% |
337 |
256 |
76% |
337 |
271 |
80% |
339 |
262 |
77% |
339 |
267 |
79% |
339 |
252 |
74% |
78% | ||||||||||||||||||
Intake figures are compiled from analysis of the September Pupil Count undertaken by the LEA on the 3rd Thursday of each September |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Notes
Levels of recruitment are shown as percentages as changes to Standard Number were implemented at several schools
over the period September 1997 to September 2002. This was often as a result of the infant class size legislation.
Financial Information
School |
Formula Allocation |
FTE pupils |
per pupil |
Standards Grant |
Standards Fund |
Devolved Capital |
Other Funding Total |
Other Funding per FTE pupil |
Total Funding |
Total Funding per FTE pupil |
Castle Primary |
458,574 |
228 |
2,011 |
30,000 |
20,895 |
21,730 |
72,848 |
320 |
531,199 |
2,330 |
Chandag Infant |
364,953 |
178 |
2,050 |
18,000 |
14,593 |
19,017 |
51,793 |
291 |
416,563 |
2,340 |
Chandag Junior |
513,989 |
281 |
1,829 |
30,000 |
17,927 |
23,002 |
71,100 |
253 |
584,918 |
2,082 |
Keynsham Primary |
466,712 |
152 |
3,070 |
18,000 |
22,170 |
19,250 |
59,684 |
393 |
526,132 |
3,461 |
Saltford CE Primary |
647,428 |
342 |
1,893 |
30,000 |
19,318 |
26,394 |
75,856 |
222 |
723,140 |
2,114 |
St John's CE Primary |
457,199 |
228 |
2,005 |
30,000 |
14,479 |
21,052 |
65,726 |
288 |
522,730 |
2,293 |
Temple Primary |
362,031 |
166 |
2,181 |
18,000 |
18,909 |
18,508 |
55,639 |
335 |
417,448 |
2,515 |
Totals |
3,270,886 |
1,575 |
174,000 |
128,291 |
148,953 |
452,647 |
3,722,130 |
|||
Average |
467,269 |
225 |
2,077 |
24,857 |
18,561 |
21,279 |
64,664 |
287 |
531,733 |
2,363 |
Outstanding Planned Maintenance
School |
Category |
Outstanding Planned Maintenance |
OPM per head Based on average NOR |
(OPM) |
97-02 | ||
Castle Primary |
Community |
13,000 |
56.03 |
Chandag Infants |
Community |
90,000 |
542.16 |
Chandag Junior |
Community |
209,500 |
784.64 |
Keynsham Primary |
Community |
7,500 |
36.23 |
Saltford CofE Primary |
Controlled |
26,350 |
75.72 |
St.John's CofE Primary, Keynsham |
Controlled |
97,000 |
419.91 |
Temple Primary |
Community |
276,000 |
2090.91 |
Totals |
719,350 |
454.42 | |
Notes
The figures showing the total costs of outstanding planned maintenance show only those works which are regarded as Urgent or Essential.
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.
Site & Building AreasSchool |
Category |
Proportion of required site area |
Proportion of required building area |
Castle Primary |
Community |
85% |
105% |
Chandag Infants |
Community |
43% |
92% |
Chandag Junior |
Community |
56% |
121% |
Keynsham Primary |
Community |
172% |
202% |
Saltford CofE Primary |
Controlled |
156% |
117% |
St.John's CofE Primary, Keynsham |
Controlled |
101% |
125% |
Temple Primary |
Community |
31% |
101% |
Totals |
|||
Notes
An assessment of these areas forms part of the Sufficiency element of the Asset Management Plan.
Building Bulletin 82 (BB82) `Area Guidelines for Schools' is a DfES guidance document which indicates total site and building areas required. Figures take account of the size of school and the age range covered. BB82 is in the process of being revised.
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.
Levels of Educational and Social Deprivation
School |
Category |
Ward |
Ward Score |
Educational |
Ward Score |
Child |
Educational Deprivation |
Deprivation |
Child Poverty |
Poverty | |||
Proportion of |
Proportion of | |||||
pupils from |
pupils from | |||||
lowest quartile |
Lowest quartile | |||||
Castle Primary |
Community |
Keynsham South |
2214 |
96.4% |
4242 |
21.3% |
Chandag Infants |
Community |
Keynsham East |
7743 |
19.5% |
6643 |
6.7% |
Chandag Junior |
Community |
Keynsham East |
7743 |
16.5% |
6643 |
3.9% |
Keynsham Primary |
Community |
Keynsham North |
1783 |
92.5% |
3429 |
42.2% |
Saltford CofE Primary |
Controlled |
Saltford |
7447 |
4.0% |
7617 |
0.9% |
St.John's CofE Primary, Keynsham |
Controlled |
Keynsham South |
2214 |
90.1% |
4242 |
19.3% |
Temple Primary |
Community |
Keynsham North |
1783 |
92.5% |
3429 |
15.5% |
Notes
These figures are taken from the Indices of Multiple Deprivation published by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister in 2000.
The extent of educational deprivation in a ward is assessed by considering the following;
The number of working age adults with no qualifications
The number of children aged 16 and over who are not in full-time education
The proportion of 17-19 year olds who have not successfully applied for Higher Education
KS2 primary school performance data
Primary school children with English as an additional language for 1998
Absenteeism (authorised and unauthorised) at primary level for 1998
School |
Category |
KS1 % of children Level 2c+ |
Key Stage 1 Comparison with other similar Schools nationally |
Key Stage 2 |
Key Stage 2 Comparison with other similar Schools nationally | ||||||||
% Level 4+ |
|||||||||||||
Reading |
Writing |
Maths |
Reading |
Writing |
Maths |
English |
Maths |
Science |
English |
Maths |
Science | ||
Castle Primary |
Community |
71 |
66 |
74 |
well below E |
very low E* |
very low E* |
70 |
77 |
80 |
below D |
in line C |
well below E |
Chandag Infants |
Community |
98 |
100 |
97 |
well above A |
very high A* |
in line C |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
Chandag Junior |
Community |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
93 |
92 |
99 |
well above A |
well above A |
above B |
Keynsham Primary |
Community |
81 |
63 |
70 |
in line C |
well below E |
very low E* |
77 |
73 |
85 |
above B |
above B |
in line C |
Saltford CofE Primary |
Controlled |
94 |
90 |
98 |
in line C |
below D |
in line C |
98 |
98 |
100 |
well above A |
well above A |
very high A* |
St.John's CofE Primary, Keynsham |
Controlled |
100 |
100 |
100 |
Very high A* |
very high A* |
very high A* |
87 |
94 |
94 |
in line C |
well above A |
in line C |
Temple Primary |
Community |
79 |
79 |
79 |
well below E |
well below E |
well below E |
72 |
88 |
100 |
below D |
well above A |
very high A* |
LEA Average |
88 |
86 |
93 |
78 |
78 |
89 |
|||||||
KEY
A* - E* grades are based on Ofsted comparison with similar schools.
A* = Top 5% to E* = Bottom 5%
In conjunction with sufficiency and condition assessments, suitability assessments help in the targeting of resources where they can have the greatest effect in raising standards and maximising value for money. The assessments help in identifying any need for additional accommodation and for improvements to, or removal of, existing accommodation.
The definitions below will assist readers in assessing the scale of the suitability problems faced by the schools within this Review.
All data is based on assessments undertaken during the Autumn Term 2002-2003
Category A - Unable to teach curriculum.
This is most likely to be associated with numbers and types of teaching spaces available. There
should be enough appropriate spaces to accommodate all pupils for the whole of the curriculum
Category B - Teaching methods inhibited. Unsuitability of spaces may mean that schools' preferred teaching methods are inhibited. This may be associated with numbers and types of teaching spaces, or with the size and other aspects of spaces
MEETING: