|
Bath & North East Somerset Council | |||
MEETING: |
Council Executive |
PAPER |
|
DATE: |
1st December 2004 |
||
TITLE: |
A Review of Primary Schools in South & East Bath |
EXECUTIVE FORWARD PLAN REF: |
E631 |
WARD: |
All but particularly Bathavon South, Combe Down and Odd Down | ||
AN OPEN PUBLIC ITEM | |||
List of attachments to this report: Appendix 1 - Findings of the Education, Youth, Culture & Leisure Overview & Scrutiny Panel Appendix 2 Notes of EYCL OSP Public Meeting held at the Guildhall 4 November 2004 Appendix 3 A Review of Primary Schools in South & East Bath - A Discussion Paper | |||
1 THE ISSUE
1.1 Falling rolls in schools are a national issue which is reflected in Bath & North East Somerset. Examination of the number of unfilled and potentially surplus places in schools can ensure that funding is directed to where it is most needed, to the benefit of all pupils. Reviews of the way in which schools are organised are therefore 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 is being delivered in the most effective way.
1.2 At September 2004 the South & East Bath area has, using the Audit Commission method of calculation (see 4.4), 148 unfilled primary school places which represents 11.76% of capacity in the area.
2 RECOMMENDATION
The Council Executive is asked to agree that:
2.1 The work of the Education, Youth, Culture & Leisure Overview & Scrutiny Panel (EYCL OSP) has been valuable and they are to be commended for their efforts.
2.2 Consideration be given to the EYCL OSP recommendation that there be a re-examination of the area beginning in September 2006, but that due regard be taken of the ongoing programme of area reviews and the need to ensure reasonable workloads for schools, Governors, Officers, OSP and the Executive.
2.3 The level of unfilled places in this area can be reduced by the use of buildings for other purposes and that no major changes to these schools are required at present.
3 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
3.1 There are no measurable financial implications.
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 the process. The Plan is on the Council website at: www.bathnes.gov.uk/SchoolOrgPlan/SchoolOrgPlan2003-2008/ContentsPage.htm
4.3 The Plan stated that those areas most in need of review were those which presented the highest number of unfilled, and thus potentially surplus, places. This work was completed during the 2003/04 academic year. At its meeting on 6 July 2004 the School Organisation Committee agreed that the Authority should continue the review process and complete reviews in the remaining areas of Bath and the adjoining planning area of Bathavon.
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' in September 2004. Following responses a number of corrections and clarifications were made and a further document was issued in October 2004. 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 EYCL OSP organised a visit to each of the schools covered by this Review. The tour took place on 2 November 2004.
4.7 The revised document referred to in 4.5 was discussed at a specially arranged public meeting of the EYCL OSP, held on 4 November 2004. The meeting heard contributions or received written statements from schools covered by this Review plus other speakers. Notes of this meeting, prepared by Democratic Services, are attached as Appendix 2.
4.8 All speakers concurred with the aims of the Review.
4.9 The Panel reached their conclusions taking into account the views expressed at the public meeting and their observations of the schools during the tour.
4.10 The Panel presented their findings at a public session on 15th November 2004. The final report of the Panel is attached at Appendix 3.
4.11 Members are invited to note the recommendations of the Panel.
4.12 Members are invited to welcome the efforts of St Martin's Garden Primary School to reduce unfilled places by allowing other services to use classrooms that are not required and through the reduction of the planned admission number.
4.13 Members are asked to note that the Panel spent a considerable amount of time discussing the potential relocation of St John's Catholic Primary School to a site within the South & East Bath area. The issue was also raised by a number of contributors to the public meeting on 4 November.
5 RISK MANAGEMENT
A risk assessment related to the issue and recommendations has been undertaken, in compliance with the Council's decision making risk management guidance.
6 RATIONALE
6.1 The level of unfilled places is fairly high. However, this is primarily within a single school and this school has made a major effort to use their buildings effectively whilst continuing to provide a high quality education for children.
6.2 The Panel recommendation to re-examine the provision in the area has considerable merit. By September 2006 it is assumed that the St John's issue will be resolved and the likely position in the area will be clearer. However, Members must note that the programme of area reviews currently under way will not be completed prior to that date and approval of the proposed re-examination will lead to two area reviews being undertaken simultaneously with the inevitable effect on workload for schools, Governors, Officers, the Overview & Scrutiny Panel and the Executive.
7 OTHER OPTIONS CONSIDERED
7.1 The possibility of reducing either St Philip's or St Martin's Garden or both schools to 210 places was considered but rejected as, at present, this would result in there being an unacceptably low number of school places in the area.
8 CONSULTATION
8.1 Consultation is outlined in the body of the report.
Contact person |
Bruce Austen, School Organisation Manager 01225 395169 bruce_austen@bathnes.gov.uk |
Background papers |
School Organisation Plan 2003 - 2008 |
Appendix 1
EDUCATION, YOUTH, CULTURE AND LEISURE OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY PANEL
A REVIEW OF PRIMARY SCHOOLS IN THE SOUTH AND EAST BATH AREA
PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS PRESENTED TO THE PUBLIC AND TO SCHOOLS ON 15th NOVEMBER 2004 FOLLOWED BY PRESENTATION TO THE COUNCIL EXECUTIVE ON 1ST DECEMBER 2004
Aim of review
The aims of the review across all school clusters are the removal of surplus places, improving the funding per pupil across the Local Education Authority, and thereby improving the overall quality of the education environment to achieve a better education for all pupils in Bath and North East Somerset.
General
The panel has gathered a great deal of evidence, undertaken visits, listened to contributions and studied current statistics and future trends. The underlying factor recognised by the panel is that current surplus places in the cluster are 148 (September 04 against an actual take up of 1,114). All four schools in the cluster are arranged as `all through' primary schools.
During the review the panel recognised the contributions and hard work the Headteachers, teaching staff and school staff have made to the teaching environment and educational output of the schools.
The Panel were unanimously of the opinion that no radical change to primary schools within this cluster area was necessary in the short to medium term.
However, the panel felt that due to current surplus places and a recognised reduction in the number of school-age children in the area (as well as Bath & North East Somerset as a whole) then a `Review Update' should take place within two years, so that trends in this cluster can be monitored more closely. Trends show a continual reduction in primary school age children in the coming years, but it is considered that building development in the area is likely to stem this reduction.
The Panel wished it noted that their recommendations implied no negative reflection on the quality of the education provided in the schools and recognised the schools' commitment to quality for all pupils. The Panel also noted the recent new building at Freshford Primary School. St Martins Garden and St Philips Primary Schools are in overall good condition, and major refurbishment is scheduled within the next 12 months at Combe Down.
The panel have also made comment on the possible location of St Johns RC school in this cluster.
The panel made the following specific recommendations with regard to the individual schools:
1. Freshford C of E VC Primary School
The Panel considered Freshford C of E VC Primary School and made the following comments;
· That the school be commended for their play award.
· Panel were impressed by their innovative attitude and vision towards Play.
· Shows that 2-storey design can work for a primary school
· Support them in their aim to acquire land beside the school for use as a playing field.
· The school serves Freshford, Hinton Charterhouse, Midford villages. A small number of children come from Limpley Stoke and Norton St Philip.
· Noted that they are an oversubscribed school.
· The new sibling rule has not yet affected their intake levels.
· Note that they are working towards becoming an extended school
Recommendation
The Panel recommended that there should be no change to the school Planned Admission Number (currently 20) due to the school being on such a restricted site. The school should be encouraged to acquire adjoining land as a playing field. The use of the school for evening classes and further community use should be promoted.
2. Combe Down C of E VC Primary School
The Panel considered Combe Down C of E VC Primary School and made the following comments;
· Panel were pleased to see the removal of old temporary classrooms and new build in progress and welcome the creation of a separate infant department.
· Noted that the new hall is not big enough for all the children to assemble.
· Panel felt that children eating their school dinners in the classrooms is unsatisfactory.
· Panel noted that the school uses playing fields at Monkton Combe and First Field which works well.
· Panel recommend that the school adopt a green transport policy.
· Pupils attending the school broadly are 50% Combe Down and 50% Bear Flat / Southdown areas.
· Noted that they are an oversubscribed school but recommend that the PAN remains the same.
Recommendation
The Panel recommended that there should be no change to the school's Planned Admission Number (currently 56).
3. St Philips C of E VC Primary School
The Panel considered St Philips C of E VC Primary School and made the following comments;
· Noted that this year's intake was 29 and the prediction for 2005 was 27
· Refurbishment of the Victorian part of the school was thought to be excellent.
· Panel pleased that they have come out of special measures and made rapid and significant improvement - now a `good' school.
· The school may be easier to organise if there were no split age classes.
· Consideration to reduce to a 210 school in the medium term (if numbers do not increase over the next 2 years), thus having an intake level of 30 and giving the flexibility to remove temporary classrooms.
· Panel noted that they have an excellent foundation stage.
· School shows good practice in being well integrated in the community.
Recommendation
The numbers at the school should be monitored and re-evaluated in 2 years together with numbers at St Martin's Garden Primary. In the short term there is no proposal to change the PAN from the current 47 (1.5 form entry).
4. St Martin's Garden Primary School (Community)
The Panel considered St Martin's Garden Primary School and made the following comments;
· Latest intake is 42 and for 2005 projected 22+. This number may increase as the school regularly receives a number of late applications for places.
· Panel noted high turnover of children, partly caused by mobility of parents with jobs at the University
· Panel praised the school for its inclusive practice, particularly as it deals with a number of children for whom English is not their first language.
· Copes well with many children with a variety of needs, not just SEN.
· Panel wondered if a private nursery could be accommodated on the site as well as other services e.g. Sure Start? This could enable the school to become an extended school.
· Panel congratulated school on the successful merger of the infant and junior schools.
· The uses their outside space very effectively.
· Panel is informed that the school has asked to reduce its PAN to 45, and the panel supports this move.
Recommendation
Surplus places in the school are significant (121) and will be reduced with a reduction in the PAN, from 60 to 45. The numbers at the school should be monitored and re-evaluated in 2 years together with numbers at St Philip's C of E Primary School.
During the review the impact of the possible introduction of St Johns into this cluster was considered. The panel wish the Executive Member to be reminded of the Bath North Central recommendation related to St John's Catholic VA Primary School dated 25th March 2004.
The Panel considered St John's Catholic Primary School. Members were particularly concerned at the condition of the buildings at the St Alphege's site. Members agreed that the school was in urgent need of replacement on a single site and that a suitable site, available for development at the earliest opportunity, should be identified. The Panel considered that the school should be limited to a maximum of 280 to 315 places.
The Panel recognised the work the previous Education Committee undertook and also current work on finding the optimum site. The Panel recommended that the Council do all in its power to expedite a much -delayed project to replace the school. Members noted that any replacement of this school would remove a high number of unfilled places and, in all likelihood, transfer it to a different cluster.
Therefore the Executive should take due cognisance of the `St John's impact' upon this cluster, any introduction of surplus places and the need to maintain the clusters mix of CE and community schools. Pupils currently on roll are 255 (up from 237) of which 71% are Roman Catholic (181), therefore there are 74 children (non-baptised Catholic) exercising choice to attend this school. It also needs to be recognised that on current timescales a new St John's would take 3 to 4 years to be built and open.
Recommendations (with regard to the issue of St John's RC primary school)
B7 The Panel wished the Executive Member to take into account the Panel's concerns that this cluster could potentially have 3 one-and-a- half form entry schools. The Panel recommended that schools should not be forced into a 1.5 form entry whilst acknowledging that mixed-age classes can be managed very successfully.
B7 The preferred size of schools is a 1 or 2 form entry, reducing the number of mixed age classes and simplifying delivery of the curriculum.
B7 Potential sites for St John's school to show the building footprint and school entrance on the site plans
B7 A decision on the location of St John's should be achieved as soon as possible.
B7 If St John's is to be built in this cluster, it should be included in the proposed 2-year review of numbers of surplus places by this Panel.
B7 The Officers and the Executive Member should be asked to explore the problem of surplus places with the Clifton Diocese in order to create an appropriate-size Catholic primary school
Councillor Andrew Furse,
Chairman EYCL Overview & Scrutiny Panel.
10/11/2004
Appendix 2
DRAFT NOTES FOR CONFIRMATION AT THE NEXT PANEL MEETING ON 29TH NOVEMBER 2004 |
61)Education, Youth, Culture & Leisure Overview and Scrutiny Panel
A REVIEW OF PRIMARY SCHOOLS IN THE SOUTH AND EAST BATH AREA
Thursday 4th November 2004
PRESENT -: Chair 2004-2005: Councillor Andy Furse
Councillors: Sally Davis, Dine Romero, Hilary Fraser, Shirley Steel
Also in attendance: Co-opted Members and teaching unions observers: Colin Hitchin, Paul Grant, Chris Batten, Rob Henderson
Officers: Mike Young, Bruce Austen, Tony Parker, Ann Swabey
Apologies: Councillors Leila Wishart and Sarah Bevan, Tess Daly, Lyn Sammons, Mike Brownbill.
The Chair, Councillor Andy Furse welcomed everyone to the meeting and explained the Panel's role in the consultation process for this review.
4 ITEMS FROM THE PUBLIC OR COUNCILLORS
Mr R Wilkins (local resident) expressed concern about the potential impact of the siting of St John's school in the Odd Down area and the number of surplus places which would be imported. He acknowledged that the Local Education Authority was faced with some difficult decisions on this issue.
Councillor Steve Hedges informed the meeting that, at the meeting of the Council Executive on 3rd November, a further potential site within Odd Down for St John's school had been added to the current list at very late notice. He was concerned that this site was near both St Philips and St Martin's Garden schools and suggested that the review be completed before the final decision was made about the siting of St John's. The Director of Education informed Councillor Hedges and the meeting that the Executive would be conducting full consultation on all of the proposed sites and that they would be considering the issue at a special meeting at a future date to be decided.
Freshford Primary School - Mrs Forrest (Headteacher) and Mr Spencer (Governor)
Mrs Forrest gave a brief presentation about the school, its staff and accommodation. She informed the meeting that at present, there were more children entering the school than leaving and that they would be oversubscribed for the next 3 years. There were also difficulties when the number of siblings entering the school meant that there were very few places for local children who lived within the area of prime responsibility. The school was built on a very small site where there were few options for expansion, although the governors were in negotiations with local farmers to purchase a field adjacent to the site for a playing field.
Questions from the Panel
Panel - Please could you provide further information about the proposed playing field site?
Mrs Forrest - It is a piece of common land behind the school which is covered by several covenants which would need to be cleared before purchase went ahead. It would also be very costly to fence it properly.
Panel - How much would it cost?
Mrs Forrest - We could not be certain, but possibly around £12,000.
Panel -Could you explain why the KS2 results were not as consistent as those of KS1?
Mrs Forrest - The results for 3 of our KS2 children were lower than predicted and we are in the process of querying the results with the examining board. Because we have such small numbers of children, each child accounts for a larger percentage and so the results are more significantly affected by each variation than they would be in a larger school.
Panel - How does the new sibling policy affect you?
Mrs Forrest - We have not noticed the impact yet and we are aware that a significant percentage of our intake for the next few years is made up of siblings. It is a very difficult situation because, as well as Freshford, as we serve small villages which are a long way from other schools.
Panel: Is Hinton Charterhouse nearer to your school than to the Odd Down schools?
Mrs Forrest - Yes, Hinton is nearer to us and is in our Area of Prime Responsibility
Panel - Are there any schools nearer to Hinton Charterhouse?
Mrs Forrest - No, the nearest schools apart from ours are in Winsley in Wiltshire or in Somerset.
St Martin's Garden School - Mr Pope (Head) and Mr Cross (Chair of Governors)
Mr Pope gave a brief presentation on the background to St Martin's Garden School. He informed the meeting that it is the only community school in the area and educated children from a very wide range of backgrounds. The school also had a nursery and an autistic unit. St Martin's had been experiencing a falling roll in recent years, mainly due to the declining birthrate - the amalgamation of the infant and junior schools on the site had been partly aimed at addressing that issue. Mr Pope expressed concern at the proposal to place St John's RC school in an area where there were already significant numbers of surplus places.
Questions from the Panel
Panel - Are there other reasons why your intake is falling?
Mr Pope - We do have a reputation for dealing with some difficult children and some parents are concerned about the high level of SEN pupils in the school. Parents do compare the SATS results. The rise in house prices is also affecting the ability of young families to afford houses in the catchment area.
Mr Cross - The larger houses in the locality are now often rented out to students, so bigger families have to leave the area.
Panel - Do you intend to reduce your planned admission level of 60?
Mr Pope - Yes, we have requested that the LEA reduce it to 45.
St Philip's CE VC Primary School - Mr Russell (Headteacher) and Mr Bain (Governors)
The Headteacher gave a brief presentation on the background of the school and explained that they came out of special measures approximately 2 years ago which had affected the intake levels. Mr Bain then gave a presentation to the Panel, paper copies of which were circulated to the Members. The Head and governors felt that St Philip's and St Martin's could absorb the spare capacity in the area, and that if St John's school was sited locally, it could only work if no surplus places were imported.
Questions from the Panel
Panel - What is the situation regarding your playing field?
Mr Russell - The field is close to us and quite convenient. We would like to build a new changing room and facilities on the site which would be also open for community use and an after-school club.
Panel - What are the projected numbers of houses which are due to be built on the former Clarke's site?
Bruce Austen - Approximately 126, but that may change.
Panel - Are any of the after-school clubs in the area open to children from other schools?
Mr Russell - No, they are only run for their own children.
Panel - Does your school receive hot meals for the children?
Mr Russell - Yes, they are excellent and are provided by Oldfield Park Infants school.
Panel - We note there are 21 surplus places, but is that mainly because of the special measures?
Mr Russell - Yes, the rest of the school is virtually full. We have lowered our intake number and the message is getting through about the improved quality of teaching and raised standards.
Action: Bruce Austen to provide
1. Cost breakdown of the outstanding maintenance costs for each school in the cluster.
2. Information about the geographical spread of children attending each school.
3. Information about the deprivation indices.
Conclusions - The Chair thanking everyone for attending. He explained that the Panel would now consider the evidence which had been presented and make their recommendations to the Council Executive. These recommendations would be published in a report which would be presented to the public at a meeting on Monday November 15th at 4.30pm in the Brunswick Room, Guildhall.
The meeting ended at 6.50PM