1 THE ISSUE

1.1 The Council is obliged to produce a School Organisation Plan (Appendix 1) setting out the need to add or remove school places in view of demographic information also included in the Plan. The Plan is to be presented to the School Organisation Committee (SOC) for approval.

1.2 The School Organisation Committee is an independent statutory body comprising Governors of Community and Foundation Schools, Elected Members (representing the Council), the Church of England, the Roman Catholic Church and the Learning & Skills Council.

1.3 The SOC will approve, modify or reject the Council's Plan at a meeting on July 22 2003.

1.4 Membership of the Council Group (i.e. elected Members) on the Committee is yet to be agreed.

2 RECOMMENDATION

2.1 The Executive is recommended to determine what changes, if any, they wish to make to the draft Plan.

2.2 Arrange for the formation of the Council Group, comprising an uneven number of members up to a maximum of seven, in sufficient time for the SOC meeting on 22 July.

Printed on recycled paper

3 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

3.1 There are no financial implications arising directly from this report. There will be financial implications arising from any action taken, or not taken, on the issues contained in the Plan. Such actions will be subject to separate consultation and decision making processes.

4 THE REPORT

4.1 Under the School Standards & Framework Act 1998 the Council is required to publish a draft School Organisation Plan. Statutory notices must be published and there is a two month period for objections. The Council must then agree that the draft Plan is submitted to the School Organisation Committee (SOC).

4.2 The School Organisation Plan is a contextual document which must draw conclusions about the need to add or remove school places within Bath & North East Somerset. The Plan does not propose changes at named schools.

4.3 It is the responsibility of the SOC to approve the Plan. Once approved, the Council is not legally obliged to undertake any of the action contained in the Plan. The Plan simply provides the basis against which the School Organisation Committee can consider subsequent proposals for changes to specific schools.

4.4 Recent changes to legislation mean that instead of producing a Plan each year, as has hitherto been the case, the Council is now only obliged to produce a full Plan every three years.

4.5 Members are invited to note that the Plan to be presented to the SOC in 2003 will not be revised until 2006. Therefore this Plan, the fifth produced by the Council, sets out the medium-term framework for the consideration of changes to school organisation.

4.6 Members' attention is drawn particularly to the section entitled "The School Review Process". This section arose from detailed work undertaken by the Education, Youth Culture & Leisure Overview & Scrutiny Panel and will be of critical importance in determining the Council's approach to reviews of primary school provision over the lifetime of the Plan.

4.7 The draft Plan was published on 14 April 2003. The period for objections and comments expired on 14 June 2003.

4.8 Fourteen comments have been received. These comments are attached as Appendix 2. Appendix 2 also contains responses to these comments and Members are asked to approve these comments.

4.9 The Executive will note that the Governors of Marksbury Primary School have suggested that the school be reallocated to the Keynsham planning area as there are some strong connections with the town. Officers recommend that the school continue to be considered as part of the Central B&NES Area 2 as it tends to serve Marksbury itself and smaller villages with very few primary aged children from Keynsham attending the school.

4.10 The Executive is asked to note that the Plan needs to be read and understood in conjunction with the large number of other statutory plans produced by the LEA. These would include, for example, the Education Development Plan, the Asset Management Plan and the Early Years & Childcare Development Plan.

4.11 In considering the formation of the Council Group on the SOC, Members are reminded that decisions of the School Organisation Committee must be unanimous and that each Group has only one vote. However, decisions on how to cast the Group vote is based on majority voting.

4.12 Each Group on the SOC is permitted to contain a maximum of seven members. The Executive is recommended to form a Group with an uneven number of members in order to ensure that majority voting is possible within the Group.

4.13 The Executive is also asked to note that some issues raised by consultees are better addressed in other statutory forums such as the Admissions Forum and the Schools Forum. Such issues will be forwarded to the relevant bodies for their consideration. The School Organisation Plan is not, nor can it be, as comprehensive as some respondents desire.

CONSULTATION

5.1 The draft Plan is widely circulated for comment as well as formal objections. The full list of consultees can be found in Sections 3.1 and 3.2 of the draft Plan.

Document3

This version was printed 30-Jun-03 12:04

Appendix 2

THE SCHOOL ORGANISATION PLAN 2003-2008

RESPONSES TO CONSULTATION

Suggested responses appear in italics below each comment

Admissions Forum

The Admissions Forum requested that Officers examine the definition of a rural school and bring forward some criteria that will assist in this definition.

Appendix 3 "Defining Rural Schools in Bath & North East Somerset" is the result of work undertaken in response to this request. It is the subject of a separate ongoing consultation process.

Farrington Gurney Primary School

Having had a brief look at the attachments, I feel we should be considered a strategic school - as far as I can see we fulfil all the criteria.

Noted. Appendix 3 identifies the new criteria for defining a rural school.

Temple Primary School

I agree with the planning area (to) which we have been allocated.

Noted

Anita Burford (transcribed from hand-written response)

Adrienne Hughes (Headteacher, Temple Primary) and I would like to comment on the draft SOP 2003-08 as follows:

· Page 23. Marksbury joining the Keynsham cluster seems ill advised. The Plan states that Central B&NES Area 2 is not showing a pressing need for review so Marksbury is safe in that group.

It is assumed that the reference to Marksbury being "safe" in the Central Area 2 is a comment on the perceived vulnerability of schools when area reviews take place. The LEA does not consider that an area review makes a school more or less safe.

· All primaries in Keynsham feed different secondaries

Some primary schools in Keynsham tend to feed Wellsway, others tend to feed Broadlands. Thus the statement that "all primaries in Keynsham feed different secondary schools" is somewhat misleading

· Whitchurch is in the Headteacher group, SENCO and sports development too, but is not in the cluster!

Noted, but the primary planning areas are arranged specifically to assist in school organisation as stated in the Strategic Framework

· Adding Marksbury is going to create more surplus places in the Keynsham cluster.

Noted as correct.

· Page 40. The criteria for a popular school seems very low. For a one form entry primary school that represents 1.5 pupils over the standard number.

The criteria for a popular school are set by DfES.

· Appendix 2. What is `other funding'? If it is matrix funding that seems inappropriate.

`Other funding' is simply a sum of Standards Fund and School Standards Grant. Matrix funding (i.e. funding allocated to schools for children with Statements of Special Educational Needs) is not included. Appendix 2 of the Plan has been amended to make this clearer.

Marksbury Primary School

Our concerns with current Primary Planning Areas and issues concerning us as a governing body are:

· We are grouped with two schools which do not feed the same secondary school as us

Noted. It might be argued that primary planning areas should be based in future Plans on secondary

Schools Areas of Prime Responsibility. However, primary planning areas are intended to identify the need for numbers of places in a given geographical area. Inevitably, in rural areas, some of these planning areas will be fairly large and more likely to cross the borders of Areas of Prime Responsibility. It is also the case that many children in the Authority attend schools which are a considerable distance from their home address.

· We are currently very involved with the Keynsham cluster of schools e.g. Headteachers' Group, SENCO, sports development

The connection between Marksbury and the Keynsham cluster, in relation to professional and curriculum development, is noted. This is not regarded by the LEA as a compelling reason to allocate Marksbury Primary School to the Keynsham cluster.

· All of our children attend Wellsway

Noted. See point 1 above in relation to the connection between secondary schools and primary planning areas.

· Finally, long term, will it have implications of which secondary school our children go to ?

No. Areas of Prime Responsibility are not affected by this School Organisation Plan.

Councillor Andrew Furse

My comment on the proposed sections was the need to include commentary within the SOP on how and what progress is being achieved in delivering this councils equalities policy. The Plan will also need to state how it is going to deliver equality of access and opportunity.

Since sending the email below I have received from you an email circulated to all Councillors requesting their comments. The statements in the strategy do not challenge the fact that having 1/3 denominational schools in B&NES causes a problem with regard to entry and accessibility when comparing the individual allocations policies. Particularly at primary level where access for our multiracial/ multicultural society can be restrictive. I would welcome your comments and to see some dialogue in the forthcoming SOP. Reducing the number of schools which place a high allocation on religious belief can only benefit society as a whole, and not perpetuate an old fashion structure. When comparing the proportion to other authorities, 1/3 is high.

I attach my set of comments on the school Org plan. As I always go on to say - where is the 'plan'? From all the work you have done on this I would have then hoped that a set of scenarios could be mapped out, so decisions could be made to move the plan forward. Correct me if I am wrong but the two decisions are whether to accept a three year plan, and whether Marksbury should move into the Keynsham grouping. Or will SOC make other decisions from this paper?

Many thanks for all your work on this, and sorry for all my comments.

· 1.3 Note that triennial changes would miss whole school sectors for example reception/Yr1/Yr2 at the infants stage. I am unaware where it has been stated that it is the wish of Council to do this? I suggest that it should be every two years.

The move to triennial production of a Plan arises from a change to legislation. Demographic information will still be produced each year and it will be possible to identify any unexpected trends in Reception, Year 1 and Year 2 from that data.

· 1.5 This discusses the availability of capital funding to enable the council to re-organise. How much government money is available and what will this sum enable B&NES to do?

From 2005-06, DfES will support £5.1 billion in capital expenditure per year for schools in England. This will be allocated by DfES in the form of grants, borrowing approvals and PFI credits principally to support the premises element of the secondary transformation agenda . DfES has stated that additional funds will be available for primary schools. It is impossible to state at this stage how much money B&NES could obtain as this will depend on the extent of changes proposed by the Council and supported by DfES. DfES has made it clear that innovation and sustainability will be amongst the key criteria when assessing LEA proposals.

· 2.PartA. When discussing the sufficiency and distribution of school places locally it is necessary to factor the proportionality of church based schools and the exclusion of these schools by the discrimination of individual religions. The LEA should make rapid progress on removing religious discrimination.

Denominational places in Bath & North East Somerset contribute to diversity. Reduction in the proportion of denominational places requires the support of the relevant Diocese. Our diocesan partners have agreed that schemes to reduce this proportion will be looked at on the merits of each case. It is true that there is discrimination on grounds of religion in the non-pejorative sense of that

but the restrictions on admissions to schools on religious grounds apply only to Aided schools and not to Controlled schools. Aided schools provide only 12% of primary places and 4% of secondary places. Issues related to the admission of children on religious grounds should be referred to the Admissions Forum. It must be noted that, if proposals are brought forward to reduce the proportion of denominational places, then without the support of the relevant Diocese, such a proposal cannot be approved.

· 2.PartB. The simplistic approach of increasing provision at popular schools and at the same time remove places at `unpopular' schools is a not practical since no consideration is taken of the Transport plan within B&NES. Every effort should be made to attract local children to their local school. The concept of being able to adjust supply to suit demand is not achievable and this plan does not offer any practical solution. See 6.2 below. B&NES should implement a preference entry scheme immediately, this system would still allow parents to exercise their choice by allowing application for admission to any other school but each should have its register from the local community first. All schools should have siblings and locality as their priority allocations.

Bath & North East Somerset, like all other LEAs, do operate a preference entry scheme.

The management of the supply of school places is a key Council function. The adding of places at `popular' schools and removing them from schools which have, for one reason or another, been less successful in recruiting pupils ensures that we are able to offer sufficient places whilst reducing or eliminating the need to commit resources to supporting unfilled places. DfES has introduced the requirement to presume that `popular' schools be allowed to expand. Section 6.2 refers.

The Council agrees that every effort should be made to attract local children to their local school. Provision of improved facilities through the Capital Programme, improved distribution of resources and continued dedication of staff are likely to be the most effective means by which this is achieved.

Admissions policies are consulted on regularly and can be brought to the Admissions Forum for discussion.

· The section also discusses requirements of sex, disability and race discrimination, although there clearly exists discrimination on the grounds of religion but this is not discussed.

The Council has specific obligations under UK law in relation to discrimination on the grounds of sex, race or disability. The Council recognises that it has more general obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act 1998 not to discriminate against individuals on other grounds, including religion and to respect parents' religious and philosophical convictions. It is considered that the council's policies and plans are in conformity with these general obligations.

· Early Years provision. Does the plan deliver recommendations set out in the Best Value report?

Despite limited performance information, consultation results and the reports of external bodies suggest that Bath & North East Somerset is delivering and supporting the provision of Early Years services well. The imbalance between provision and need across the Authority particularly relating to longer sessions to include education with wraparound care and places for babies and very young children in both public and non-maintained sectors has been recognised and the Implementation Plans (EYDCP) for 2002 - 03 and 2003 - 04 demonstrate the clear targets for achieving quality, affordable and accessible early education and childcare for all parents/carers who want it for their children.

· 6.2 It should be for this plan to put forward needs for school expansion. There should be a clear link to B&NES view on transportation issues.

Expansion of schools is dealt with in Section 7.8. If formal proposals were brought forward the transport implications would be assessed at that time.

· 6.3 It would be useful if the implications of the Audit Commissions position was explained with regard to B&NES schools.

The Audit Commission advises local authorities to "challenge their need to hold property". This is not unique to education services. School reorganisations may lead to the closure of a school or one site of a multiple site school. In these circumstances, sale of the building or land or both would release funds which can be recycled into the Education Service Capital Programme.

· 6.4 LEA nursery provision is under utilised because it does not provide what parents need. This was discussed in the Best Value review. Reallocating this nursery provision is not the solution to the under utilised provision discussed.

LEA nursery provision is underused in Bath. The LEA recognises that there is a shortage of early years provision in other parts of the Authority. Reconfiguration or relocation of early years provision in order to make it more accessible and suitable for parents is a sensible solution to under-utilisation of existing services.

· 6.5 The type of provision is important as discussed above.

Noted

· 6.7 If the concept of providing nursery provision will assist in reducing unemployment, the appropriate care should be targeted where there is highest unemployment in B&NES and figures need to be available to support this. Within supposedly affluent wards there are areas of high unemployment and deprivation. Again the type of nursery care is important, discussed above.

Noted. The only nursery class established by this Authority since 1996 has been in Peasedown St John. Peasedown St John is the most educationally deprived ward in Bath & North East Somerset. The Indices of Deprivation 2000 produced by the former Department of Transport, Local Government & the Regions (DTLR) represent a strong base for decisions based on levels of need in a given community.

· 6.12 There is no mention that discrimination is experienced over religion and that working families need `all day' nursery care for it to be beneficial and help people get into the work place.

The Council has specific obligations under UK law in relation to discrimination on the grounds of sex, race or disability. The Council recognises that it has more general obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act 1998 not to discriminate against individuals on other grounds, including religion and to respect parents' religious and philosophical convictions. It is considered that the council's policies and plans are in conformity with these general obligations.

Extension and reconfiguration of early years provision to meet parental needs is desirable.

· 7.5 If Marksbury was to move out of the group then it is logical that the `group ` is too small, therefore their should be a recommendation for Timsbury and Farmborough to move into adjacent areas. Equally, the original grouping of 3 could be seen to be too small. What is the rationale for the current grouping - number of schools, number of places, proximity?

The original rationale for inclusion in Central B&NES Area 2 was that these three schools had been linked by DfES in relation to a Basic Need bid. Proximity (or more accurately, the absence of proximity to other schools) also played a part in the original decision. The question of whether Marksbury should be moved out of this planning area is addressed elsewhere.

· 7.10 I agree that a through review of post 16 provision is urgently required, with recommendations able to be supported financially.

Support for a post-16 review is noted. The performance of pupils at A/AS level within Bath & North East Somerset continues to be below the national average. This is a contrast with all other Key Stage results which are above or well above the national averages.

The Learning Skills Council is required to carry out a Strategic Area Review of Provision starting in the Autumn 2003. This will start with identifying the needs of learners and will contribute to the process to raise standards. It will result in an action plan that is intended to `ensure that learners ..... have high quality, safe and accessible leaning opportunities capable of meeting their ambitions and those of employers and local communities'. This will seek to provide learners with a wide choice of high quality provision. Diversity is a critical component.

Strategic Area Reviews have to be conducted within the government's commitment to offer `14-19 learners greater choice and higher standards with clear academic and vocational progression routes'

This will have inescapable consequences for provision throughout the secondary phase.

· Page 35. Primary school sizes: It would seem logical that as there are different class size criteria for rural schools as opposed to urban, thus urban schools should have reduced accessibility criteria thus encouraging children to walk to school and reduce urban car congestion during school term time. This would support B&NES safe routes to school policy.

Noted. The criteria referred to are shown in the Strategic Framework.

· Page 35. Surplus places: There is no robust argument to support the acceptability of under utilised places in rural areas but not urban.

Agreed. The draft Plan proposes removal of this differentiation. Section 7.4 refers.

Councillor Gitte Dawson

· One aspect that I am concerned about in school organisation is the admissions policy for the nine strategic rural schools. I cannot tell - without going through all these documents in detail - whether this is covered at all? We define our strategic rural schools as those whose children would be difficult to accommodate elsewhere - yet we have an absolute siblings-first admissions policy for them - and local children can miss out at the expense of children travelling from further afield. I believe the two are incompatible, and would propose changing siblings rule for those schools to apply to a radius of 2 miles only. They do this in South Glos. I have also raised this as part of the Best Value review process. I hope it can be taken on board!

Appendix 3 refers to rural schools. Admissions policies are not strictly part of the School Organisation Plan. Proposed changes to admissions policies can be discussed at the Admissions Forum.

Castle Primary School

· Thank you for the two copies of the plan, one of which I have passed to my Chair of Governors. With reference to page 49 of the plan, may I request an amendment in order to rectify an error regarding SEN pupils? There are 6 pupils at Castle Primary with a statement of SEN (not 5) and 47 pupils with SEN but without a statement (instead of 18). Would you kindly correct these errors?

The data regarding numbers of pupils with special educational needs was obtained from the PLASC (Pupil Led Annual Schools Census) undertaken in January 2003. The Performance Data Unit has confirmed that the figures, as originally stated, are correct.

Fosse Way

· The section "The planning of school places ...." omits reference to special schools. I raised the issue at a Director's meeting earlier in the year and was told that a reference would be added. Cannot see how a review can be conducted without any criteria. Mike Young is as we know soon to lead a review into the future of Fosse Way, it would be helpful if draft criteria could be made available/piloted in time.

The section entitled "The School Review Process" contains a brief reference to the fact that reviews of special provision will be undertaken once within a five year period. Terms of reference have not been established and will be the subject of separate consultation. The Director of Education is to lead a Project Group which will have a wide remit.

St Andrews

A few comments about the new draft SOP before it gets buried under more paper!

· para 6.5 - re Number of Nursery class places to be provided - " subject to fluctuation as levels of parental demand changes". This is a nightmare for schools with Nursery classes because of the implications for staffing - and I speak from experience. When a Nursery class is cut to one session staffing has to be reduced with possible redundancy. The redundancy affects all staff in the school. If the Nursery returns to 2 sessions the following year then staff have to be appointed for the extra session. It is possible that in subsequent years the staffing would have to change again. This is an untenable situation for all staff in a school with a Nursery class as there is no security of employment. I don't know what the answer is as I acknowledge that numbers do fluctuate, but to change the number of sessions each year is a recipe for mega stress and low staff morale.

Noted. The fluctuation in the number of funded nursery places each year is a reflection of a fluctuating level of demand. The Council considers that changing the nature of provision in order to make provision more suited to the needs of parents and carers offers the only realistic prospect of mitigating annual fluctuations.

· 2. Please could the impact of the proposed Western Riverside development on several areas in the city of Bath be acknowledged earlier in the plan? There are several schools in N & Central Bath that are within walking distance of the proposed development but acknowledgement isn't made of this until page 51.

The proposed development of the Western Riverside is first mentioned in Section 5.10. This section states explicitly that the impact of the development on other schools in the surrounding area will need to be examined in the context of area reviews of North & Central Bath and South & Central Bath.

· 3. p50 I am intrigued by the sentence "Plans to relocate this school to another area are in hand". Are you going to crane it out and put it by the river? How about closing it as totally unviable and sharing out the children between St Saviour's Infants and this school? This is a more practical solution!

The school referred to on page 50 is St John's Catholic Primary School. It is hoped that this school will be relocated to a site in South & Central Bath. It is planned to reduce the number of places at the school from 416 to 315. Sharing the pupils at St John's Catholic Primary School between St Saviour's CE Infant and St Andrew's CE Primary is impractical. It is possible that the respondent has incorrectly identified the school to which the Plan refers.

· The overall plan is interesting and surprisingly readable! My main concern is about the proposal to continue to allocate Nursery class sessions on an annual basis.

Noted

St Marks

· Reading through the SOP you will recall that at the last meeting or whenever, I mentioned the confusion between 4 forms of entry and 600 students. 600 students presumes an intake of 120 with 4 classes of 30. As a result of the recent calculation of space, you and I had a discussion about reducing standard no. In picking a number between 104 and 115 we chose 108, giving 4 forms of entry of 27 in each class. This takes our maximum size in relation to buildings to 540. Where does this sit with the SOP? As I explained before, we would meet the criteria of 4 forms but not the 600. Where does this place us?

The comment from St Mark's is correct. The Strategic Framework was amended to state that the minimum intake should be four forms of entry without specifying the size of those teaching groups. When this change was made it was implied that a form of entry might be as few as 26 pupils thus leading to a minimum size of 520 pupils for a school without a sixth form. However, no amendment was made to the Plan regarding recommended minimum size of a secondary school. Clearly these two conditions are incompatible. However, given a potential review of secondary provision in the Greater Bath Consortium, it is highly unlikely that proposals affecting the school will be brought forward by the LEA outside the review process.

Parkside Infant

Some corrections and queries about the figures on Parkside that you have presented in this draft:

· Page 9 Number of nursery pupils on roll January 2003 34 (not 49)

· Page 50 January 2003 actual infants 61 (not 46) Surplus places 29 , 32% (not 44, 49%)

These mistakes may have arisen from errors in our original PLASC return which we had problems with. The correct version is now with the data processing team so you can check these figures.

Performance Data Unit has checked PLASC data. Amendments have been made.

· Please can you explain how you arrived at the per pupil cost on appendix 2 page 1. These figures may also be incorrect owing to the mistakes elsewhere. Please ensure that these figures are correct before the final version is drawn up as they may cause a lot of confusion about our position.

The Education Finance Manager has checked the basis of the information in Appendix 2 of the Plan. A number of inaccuracies regarding numbers of full-time equivalent pupils were identified at schools operating nursery classes. These have been corrected and now reflect accurately the higher unit costs at these schools as a result of this change.

St Swithin's CE Infant School

5.2 Early Years Provision.

· What does the column headed Number of Places mean? Should it read number of Funded places? (i.e. additional funding for nursery class places). St. Swithin's Infant School should appear here as we are admitting nursery age children into our Foundation Class. We do not receive additional funding for this provision, because, as I understand the position(p.37) we do not have 23 applicants per session. Our provision is for 20 places. Looking at the table it appears other nursery classes do not have 23 applicants for each of the two sessions they are being funded. St. Andrew's is funded for 14 more places than applicants, Southdown 7 more places than applicants, St. Martin's 10 more places than applicants, Twerton 11 more places than applicants. None of these have enough applicants for two funded sessions according to this criteria (p.37) St. Swithin's has received 0 funding and has 10 applicants.

Part B 6.5 Nursery and Early Years

· This makes it very difficult for schools to plan ahead and to retain the best qualified and experienced practitioners in the sector. Nursery classes cannot be opened and closed on a yearly basis. The Authority needs to develop a clear, transparent policy for funding nursery provision in LEA schools. This needs to take into account that some schools wish to have a Foundation Class or Unit where the whole stage (Nursery and Reception age children) is provided for in one class or unit.

See response to St Andrew's CE Primary regarding fluctuations in numbers of nursery places.

Page 27 The School Review Process. Paragraph 4.

· I disagree with the Overview and Scrutiny Panel's view that a large amount of money was being wasted on supporting surplus places. Many children with high levels of need have benefited enormously from high adult/child ratios. These children would almost certainly have required higher levels of support in subsequent years if they had not received it in the early years of their education.

Disagreement with the comments of the Overview & Scrutiny Panel is noted. The phrase "...a large amount of money was being wasted on supporting surplus places..." is taken from the minutes of the Education, Youth, Culture & Leisure Overview & Scrutiny Panel meeting on 2 December 2002.

Page 30 The School Review Process Paragraph 4

· A `Family of Schools' should consist of all sizes. Repeated, frequent reviews weaken parents' and prospective parents' confidence in their schools consequently numbers on roll have little chance of rising. `Developments' need the support, usually financial, of the LEA.

The Council agrees that frequent, repeated reviews can weaken confidence in a school. This was one of the reasons for a revision to the school review process.

Page 31 Information to be included in an Area School Organisation Plan.

· Bullet point 15 Wards contain pockets of deprivation. Needy children in these localities miss out on support when this method is used.

Section 5.7 of the Plan contains a quote from the School Organisation Plan 2002-2007. This states "Recognising the key role that schools will play in reducing and eliminating educational deprivation over the coming years the LEA considers that the schools in the wards of Peasedown, Southdown and Radstock are of strategic importance in tackling such deprivation and promoting social inclusion. Therefore, should any of the above schools present itself as a candidate for potential review, the educational outcomes and the value for money at those schools will be given particular consideration. In addition, consideration will be given to the place of the school in the community and an assessment made of whether the pattern of provision is actively helping in the tackling of educational deprivation and the promotion of social inclusion" The original Plan goes on to say "The corollary of this is that , in order to ensure that sufficient resources are released for deployment in these areas, it is necessary to renew our efforts to reduce surplus places."

It is undoubtedly correct to state that there are individual children facing educational deprivation in wards which otherwise show relatively low levels of educational deprivation but it is reasonable to assume that schools will identify such individuals and focus particular attention on addressing their needs.

Next paragraph

· As stated earlier `families' naturally consist of many different types. Comparing all to an average weakens diversity and suitability for individual children.

This was proposed by Headteachers. Comparisons between schools do not, in themselves, lead to less diversity. Plotting schools against an average is simply a tool to aid the assessment process.

Next paragraph (External Evaluator)

· An external evaluator should be objective providing the ASOP is written objectively.

Agreed.

The Planning of School Places - Position Statement:: September 2002

Primary School Sizes

· `standard number' has been replaced by net capacity this has implications for the stated numbers on roll.

The Statement reflects the position at September 2002. Standard Number was abolished on June 1 2003. Admission levels and capacities are now assessed using the Net Capacity methodology. Numbers of places offered each year and the number of overall places at a school are affected by implementation of the new system. Numbers on roll are not affected. Section 5.13 refers.

Rural, urban/suburban schools.

· Many rural schools take children who travel from urban/suburban areas to attend these schools. It would be useful to know what proportion of places in rural schools are taken up by children from urban/suburban areas.

The Council believes that the area review process will identify such patterns of movement.

Nursery Provision

· When and how are these nurseries to be reviewed? What is the funding policy in the meantime?

(See also comments on 5.2)

A review of nursery provision is likely to be combined with an area review. The funding policy remains as it is at present with annual decisions on the numbers of places to be funded.

Primary Planning Areas Page 50

· If Net Capacity includes the building for our Foundation Stage why are the nursery age children not included in the figure Jan 2003 Actual? If they were it would read 18 not 12.

The Net Capacity Assessment of St Swithin's was undertaken on 17 March 2002 and reflects the position at that date. The mobile classroom in the playground is recorded as being available to the school but does not contribute to the teaching capacity of the school. It was excluded on the grounds that it was in use for an LEA designated early years / childcare provision. Given that it no longer has such a designation, the classroom has been included in the revised Net Capacity Assessment of the school. This has increased the capacity of the school from 41 to 67.

Appendix 2 Unit Costs Per Pupil

· If FTE means all full time pupils half of part time pupils this should read 15 for St. Swithin's. Are the other schools' figures accurate?

Please find below some comments regarding the Draft School Organisation Plan. I am a Parent Governor of Clutton Primary

1. Decrease of Primary age children - The guidance notes a fall of 4% in primary intake since 1999 and that this is expected to continue. It should be noted that Clutton's intake has continually risen in that period and is still rising

Noted. The decrease in pupil numbers is not uniform across all schools.

2. Accessibility - It states that no school journey for a primary school child should exceed 45 minutes. 45 minutes is obscenely excessive for a primary school aged child. The journey should be no more than a maximum of 20 minutes.

The maximum journey times form part of the School Transport policy. It should also be noted that, in order to ensure children attending special schools, are educated in the most appropriate setting, it may be necessary for the child to travel distances which are less than desirable.

3. Housing Developments - For Central B&NES Area 1 - The Bromilows development of a potential 38 dwellings has been omitted. This development has been in planning twice in the past 2 years and is likely to happen in the next 1 to 2 years

The Plan does not include details of every planning application submitted. It includes only the sites that are listed in the Local Plan as contributing to the Authority target of providing sites for 6200 homes between 1996-2011.

4. Effect of New Housing Developments - The guide notes that a new development of 100 dwellings is likely to only create the need for 3.5 places per year group. From experience in Clutton, the true number is likely to be 6-7 places per year group.

It is certainly the case that some smaller developments will give rise to a larger number of children than 3.5 per Year Group. However, the pattern across Authorities who have experienced very large developments indicates that a figure between 3.1 and 3.9 children per Year Group is generally correct. Section 5.10 of the Plan has been amended to reflect this.

5.Strategic Schools. Clutton Primary is not recognised as being a strategic rural school. I assume therefore, that there most be a plan available that will explain with whom Clutton would merge, if this was deemed a requirement in the future, Visibility of this plan should be part of the Organisation plan to allow proper reflection and comment.

Appendix 3 refers to rural schools.