7 THE ISSUE

7.1 Falling rolls in schools are a national problem 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 provision is being delivered in the most effective way.

7.2 At September 2003 the North & Central Bath area has, using the Audit Commission method of calculation explained at 4.4, 364 unfilled primary school places which represents the highest absolute number of unfilled primary school places of any area in the Authority.

7.3 If the recommendations below are accepted and with them the need for a reorganisation of primary school provision in this area, then a public consultation will be held on each proposal. School reorganisation is always a sensitive issue and the public consultation allows all stakeholders to have their say on specific proposals.

8 RECOMMENDATION

The Council Executive;

8.1 Note the work of the Education, Youth, Culture & Leisure Overview and Scrutiny Panel (EYCL OSP) and to consider their views and recommendations which are included at Section 4.11- 4.32 inclusive.

8.2 Confirm 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, c) delivering improved access to high quality facilities to children, school staff and the wider community and d) make the choice of a local school a natural and easy choice for parents.

8.3 Agree that a fundamental reorganisation of primary school provision is required in this area.

8.4 Agree that no action is necessary in relation to Bathwick St Mary's CE Primary School, St Andrew's CE Primary School or St Stephen's CE Primary School.

8.5 Authorise the Education Director to initiate a consultation exercise during the Summer Term regarding the closure of Parkside Infant School and the closure of St Swithin's CE Infant School.

8.6 Instruct Officers to examine the viability of Swainswick CE Primary School focussing on the extent to which the school serves its local community and the extent to which the local community can sustain a school in the medium to longer term in order to assess whether formal consultation regarding closure should be undertaken. Members are asked to note that this recommendation is at variance with the views of the EYCL OSP. See 4.31 for further detail.

8.7 Instruct Officers to seek to identify a site in the general locality of Larkhall in Bath which might serve as a location for a new all-through primary school as a replacement of St Saviour's CE Infant School and St Saviour's CE Junior School and to bring a report to a future meeting when this has been achieved or by December 31 2004 whichever is the earlier.

8.8 Agree that discussions should take place with the Diocese of Bath & Wells Board of Education regarding the desirability and practicality of creating a new Voluntary Aided all-through primary school from the `amalgamation' of Widcombe Infant School and Widcombe CE Junior School and to report the outcome of these discussions to the Executive by March 31 2005.

8.9 Confirm that the replacement on a single site of St John's Catholic Primary School is essential in order to ensure that pupils are taught in satisfactory buildings with access to all necessary and desirable educational facilities and that the replacement school should offer no more than 315 places.

9 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

9.1 The costs of the Review and related activities including the preparation and publishing of consultation documents and the holding of public meetings can be met from existing resources.

9.2 There are costs of taking, or not taking, action. The maintenance of surplus places means that resources cannot be directed to core functions of the Service or the Council. The precise costs of maintaining such places can only be quantified after further detailed work.

9.3 There are potential capital costs if proposals emerge which lead to the construction of one or more new or replacement schools. There are potential capital receipts if existing sites or buildings are vacated although this will depend on the actual assets that the Council have available for disposal.

9.4 It is a legal requirement that, if any capital funding is required for the implementation of a proposal, the promoters of the proposal must confirm that such funding is in place at the point of a decision being taken to implement the proposal.

9.5 The costs of undertaking a search for a site for an all-through primary school in the Larkhall area of Bath can be met from existing resources.

10 THE REPORT

10.1 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.

10.2 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. The Plan is on the Council website at: www.bathnes.gov.uk/SchoolOrgPlan/SchoolOrgPlan2003-2008/ContentsPage.htm

10.3 The Plan stated that those areas most in need of a review were those which carried the highest number of unfilled places. This includes North & Central Bath.

10.4 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.

10.5 An initial document was prepared and distributed to key stakeholders for `fact-checking' on 28 January 2004. Following responses a number of corrections and clarifications were made and a further document was issued on 13 February 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.

10.6 The Panel organised a visit to each of the schools covered by this Review. The tour took place on 1^st March 2004. Members are recommended to note the work of the Panel and to consider their recommendations.

10.7 The agreed document referred to in 4.5 was discussed at a specially arranged public meeting of the EYCL OSP, held on March 9^th 2004. The meeting heard contributions or received written statements from each of the schools covered by this Review plus other speakers. Notes of this meeting, prepared by Democratic Services, are attached.

10.8 All speakers concurred with the aims of the Review.

10.9 The Panel reached their conclusions taking into account the views expressed at the public meeting and their observations of the schools during the tour.

10.10 The Panel presented their findings at a public session on 24^th March 2004 and have incorporated some views expressed by members of the public who attended that meeting in their findings.

10.11 The Panel were unanimously of the opinion that a major re-organisation of the primary schools within this cluster area was needed. They wished it noted that their recommendations implied no reflection on the quality of the education provided in the schools. In fact many of the schools within the cluster are seen as good or excellent in their Ofsted reports.

10.12 In addition the Panel recognised the contributions the head teacher and teaching staff have made to the teaching environment and educational output of the schools.

10.13 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 the current level of unfilled places in the cluster and trends showing a further reduction in primary school age children in the coming years.

10.14 The Panel considered that the quality of buildings available to some schools was excellent. They noted that three of these schools had been built in the fairly recent past and were pleased to observe the major remodelling being undertaken at another of the schools within the area.

10.15 The Panel felt it important that parents and children be encouraged to attend their local school.

10.16 The Panel recommended that if schools which currently offer children hot dinners were closed, the schools to which the pupils were transferred should ensure that that meal choice was still made available.

10.17 The present poor condition of buildings at St Saviours Juniors was noted and the Panel recommends that attention be given to the condition issues faced by the school through the asset management planning process.

10.18 The Panel stated that the Executive needs to recognise that if there are fewer vacancies in the cluster, there will be a `tightening' on schools' admissions policies and the Panel has stated a clear preference that local children should be able to attend their local school.

10.19 The Panel noted the deficiencies at both Bathwick St Mary's and St Andrews regarding access to a playing field.

10.20 The issue of working parents was raised by both Panel members and members of the public and it is thought that the LEA should undertake further research into what the needs and requirements are for parents of primary age children travelling into the main centres of work in Bath & North East Somerset.

10.21 The Panel requested that further studies and costs are required to quantify the numbers and extent of other LEA pupils travelling into and out of Bath & North East Somerset.

10.22 The Panel agreed that Bathwick St Mary CE Primary, St Andrew's CE Primary and, St Stephen's CE Primary did not need any further consideration.

10.23 The Panel agreed that the potential to amalgamate Widcombe Infant and Widcombe CE VA Junior was an option requiring further investigation and recommended that a report be prepared in the near future to examine the advantages and disadvantages of such a proposal.

10.24 The Panel recommended that, subject to statutory consultation, Parkside Infants School be closed. The fact that the school has a significant proportion of unfilled places, serves only a limited number of local children, provides education at a relatively high unit cost, is located on a site with significant suitability issues and offers no natural partner junior school were key determinants. The Panel noted that 50% (31 children) of the children walked to the school. The Panel considered that a significant number of children attending Parkside may require transitional transport. Children who live further away would attend their nearest school, some of which would be outside the North & Central Bath cluster.

10.25 The Panel recommended that any school which is built in the future to serve the new development at Western Riverside should also include the community around Parkside Infants.

10.26 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 had carried out and also the 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.

10.27 In relation to St Saviour's Infant and St Saviour's Junior Schools, the Panel noted the draft conclusion prepared by Officers and considered this at some length. It was decided that an amalgamation of these two schools within existing buildings and on existing sites was only acceptable if the Council were able to offer a prospect in the medium term of providing new buildings on a new site in the area. Panel members noted with concern the poor quality of some of the Junior school buildings.

10.28 Panel members welcomed the fact that contributors from both the Infant and Junior schools had emphasised the willingness of both schools to engage positively in an `amalgamation' once the objective of new buildings on a new site were set and had a reasonable chance of being met.

10.29 The Panel recommended that St Swithin's School be closed, subject to statutory consultation. Key determinants in this case, were the very small numbers of full-time pupils and the exceptionally high unit cost of the school. St Saviour's Infants School would be the nominated school as it is the geographically nearest. Transitional transport therefore would be provided to this school. The Panel considered that appropriate arrangements be made to meet the needs of those children with special educational needs. This covers both statemented and non-statemented children recognised by the school as having this need.

10.30 In relation to Swainswick Primary School the Panel considered that numbers attending the school from the local community were insufficient to sustain the school, that it serves only a limited number of local children, provides education at a high unit cost and is located on a site with significant suitability issues and, in view of this, recommended (by a majority) that the school be closed, subject to statutory consultation. Transitional transport arrangements from the immediate B&NES villages of Upper/Lower Swainswick, Tadwick, Langridge etc be put in place to take the children to the nominated school.

10.31 The Panel wished the Executive Member to consider using any proceeds which come from the transfer of the Parkside and St Swithin's CE Infant premises to other Council services to be viewed as a capital receipt which could be re-invested in education to help the backlog of maintenance and building works. This was not currently Council policy, but the Panel felt it should be strongly considered within this review.

10.32 The final Review is attached. This document provides the basis for decision-making.

10.33 Members are invited to agree that the school provision in this area remains in need of a fundamental review.

10.34 Members are invited to agree that, having taken into account the views expressed at the public meeting on 9^th March and the views of the OSP, further consultation should be undertaken in the Summer Term. The matters for consultation are shown at Section 2.5.

10.35 In relation to Swainswick CE Primary School, Members are particularly asked to note the difference between the recommendations of the EYCL OSP (see 4.26) and the recommendations of Officers. Officers consider that, whilst there is prima facie evidence to suggest that a) the school draws from well outside its local area and b) the community is insufficient to sustain a school in the medium and longer term, it is necessary to examine this evidence in greater detail.

11 RATIONALE

11.1 The process through which further consultation options have been identified is a robust and transparent process.

11.2 Examination of the potential to create all-through primary schools is consistent with the stated aims of the Council.

11.3 The relatively high number and proportion of potentially surplus places and the relatively high unit costs at Parkside Infant, St Swithin's CE Infant and Swainswick CE Primary School requires examination.

11.4 The Council supports the efforts of the Governors of St John's Catholic Primary School and the Clifton Catholic Diocesan Schools Commission to replace and relocate the school to a single site.

12 OTHER OPTIONS CONSIDERED

12.1 The option to take no action has been considered. However, this would be inconsistent with the declared objectives of the Council and may breach the general requirement to use resources in an effective way.

13 CONSULTATION

13.1 See 4.5 and 4.6 above. This process does not envisage the involvement of a wider group of stakeholders at this stage. Consultation on specific options will involve a far wider group and a far greater number of consultees consistent with the statutory guidance published by the Department for Education & Skills.