SCHOOL

ORGANISATION

PLAN

2003-2008

Draft Published: 14 April 2003

Draft to Executive 09 July 2003

Contents Page

Introduction 4

School Organisation Plan 2003 - 2008 5

DfES Guidance

Timescales 7

School Organisation Committee 7

Role, Responsibilities and Membership

Part A Context and Demographic Information 10

Part B National Policies 21

Part C Conclusions 25

The School Review Process 29

Strategic Framework: September 2002 37

Primary Planning Areas 41

Financial Information 42

Changes to the Regulatory Framework 42

Bathavon 43

Central B&NES - Area 1 44

Central B&NES - Area 2 45

South West B&NES 46

North West B&NES 47

Peasedown 48

Midsomer Norton 49

Radstock 50

Keynsham 51

Norton & Central Bath 52

South & Central Bath 53

North West Bath 54

South East Bath 55

Surplus Places, Additional Places and the `Acceptable' Range 57

Greater Bath Consortium 59

Chew Valley 60

Norton Radstock 61

Keynsham 62

Appendix One: The effectiveness of the LEA in relation to the provision of school places

Appendix Two: Unit Costs per pupil

Appendix Three: Defining a Rural School in Bath & North East Somerset

1. Introduction

The Future of School Organisation Plans

1.1 On June 1 2003 new Regulations governing School Organisation Plans and statutory proposals came into effect. These Regulations make a number of changes to the process and content of School Organisation Plans and these are summarised later in the document. Bath & North East Somerset are somewhat advanced in the process of producing the Plan but, following DfES advice, we have taken what were pending changes into account in the process of drafting and consultation.

1.2 The DfES rationale for these changes is "to ensure that local planning supports educational transformation, encourages the expansion of popular and successful schools, makes it easier for a diverse range of providers to set up new schools and promotes community cohesion." This statement must be used to influence the future direction of school organisation in Bath & North East Somerset.

1.3 After 2003 it will only be necessary to produce a School Organisation Plan once every three years. In the intervening years the LEA is `strongly advised' to produce demographic information. The exception to this new process is that it will be necessary to produce a new Plan on 1 June of any other year where there is a change of policy, strategy or local circumstances relating to organisation of schools in the LEA. The Council wishes to avoid the need to produce a new Plan except triennially so this Plan will, therefore, need to specify the direction of school organisation for the medium-term future.

1.4 The new regulations are more specific about the content of a School Organisation Plan. The School Organisation Committee approved a list of proposed headings at the SOC meeting in September 2002 and, as far as is possible, reference will be made to those proposed sections whilst adhering strictly to sections proposed by DfES.

1.5 It is clear that the DfES expect school organisation planning to make a greater contribution to the transformation agenda. Therefore, the DfES suggests that the Plan include elements which hitherto may not have been regarded as having anything more than a mere association with the process of providing sufficient and suitable school places.

However, of even greater significance than these changes to the legislative and regulatory framework, is the publication of two documents by the Department for Education & Skills. The first is entitled "Investment for Reform" This can be viewed at www.dfes.gov.uk/2002spending review. The document is a statement of intent. The second, and most important, is called, "Building Schools for the Future". This is available at www.teachernet.gov.uk/docbank/index.cfm?id=3611

This latter document sets out the Government view that the increasing amount of capital funding available (£5.1 billion per year, for schools in England, from 2005-06) offers those involved in the school organisation process an historic opportunity to undertake significant reorganisations, especially in the secondary sector, with the weight of capital funding behind them.

2. School Organisation Plan 2003-2008

DfES Guidance suggests the following information should be included.

Part A

Demographic Information

Part B

The extent to which the Authority's plans reflect and give expression to the national education policies for early years, primary and secondary education and post-16 provision.

Part C

Conclusions

Conclusions, drawn from the demographic information and policy principles, about the need to add, remove, relocate or re-organise places in a particular district or part of the Local Education Authority area.

3.1 The Plan was compiled between February and April 2003. The draft Plan was published on 14 April 2003 and a copy was sent to:

3.2 In addition copies were deposited in all public libraries and at the Council Reception points at Bath, Keynsham and Midsomer Norton. The statutory notice appeared in the Bath Chronicle, the Bristol Evening Post and the Somerset Guardian. The notice drew attention to the fact that the document could be viewed on the Council website.

3.3 The period for comments and objections expired on 14 June 2003.

3.4 Consultees were advised to send responses to Bruce Austen, School Organisation Manager.

3.5 On 22 July 2003 the Plan was submitted to the School Organisation Committee (SOC). These papers incorporated amendments agreed during the consultation period. All comments were made publicly available unless specifically requested otherwise. All comments, including any which were not made public, were available to members of the SOC. The SOC received fourteen responses with the LEA's observations on these responses.

4. School Organisation Committee - Role, Responsibilities and Membership

4.1 The School Organisation Committee is an independent statutory body which is responsible for approving the School Organisation Plan and making decisions regarding statutory proposals brought forward by the LEA or other promoters.

4.2 The Bath and North East Somerset School Organisation Committee is made up of five representative groups:

· The Council Group - elected members of the Council

· The Church of England - representatives of the Bath & Wells Diocesan Board of Education

· The Roman Catholic Church - representatives of the Clifton Diocesan Schools Commission

· The Learning & Skills Council - the statutory body responsible for post-16 education

· The Schools Group - school governors from a representative selection of Community and Foundation schools

4.3 At the time of publication of the initial draft Plan, the School Organisation Committee membership was as follows:

Readers should note that the composition of the Council Group for the coming years to be determined following the Council Executive on 9 July 2003.

Part A

5. Context and Demographic Information

5.1 Bath and North East Somerset is a unitary authority with the full range of

5.2 Early Years Provision

The Council has no maintained nursery schools but nine primary schools admit children to a LEA nursery class.

The numbers of applications for September 2003 in the table represent the latest information available to the LEA. The process of allocating places is ongoing.

In addition to nursery classes in schools the Authority supports a small number of children in a public day nursery and a large number of children in the private, voluntary or independent sector. The figures represent the number of children in receipt of Nursery Education Grant in the private, voluntary or independent sectors.

5.3 Special Educational Needs

The Council maintains five special schools. The table below shows the nature of the provision.

Planned places fluctuate slightly each year after analysis by the LEA and consultation with schools. Numbers of places are adjusted to take account of known demand for the coming year, past placement history and current trends in placement due, for example, to new legislation.

Day places at resource bases for primary pupils with special educational needs (SEN) are provided at:

St Martin's Garden Primary School

12 places for pupils, aged between 4 and 11, on the autistic spectrum.

St Michael's CE Junior School, Twerton

8 places for pupils aged between 7 and 11 with emotional and behavioural difficulties.

Southdown Infant School

8 places for pupils, aged between 4 and 7, requiring a Nurture Group.

N.B. The Governors have passed a motion requesting that the SOC approve closure of this base.

Weston All Saints CE Primary School

6 places for pupils aged between 4 and 11 with hearing impairments.

Day places at resource bases for secondary aged pupils are provided at:

Broadlands

12 places for students, aged between 11 and 18, with a visual impairment

Ralph Allen

16 places for students, aged between 11 and 18, with a language disorder.

A Pupil Referral Unit managed by Wansdyke School and known as the Lansdown Tuition Centre was opened in September 2002. The Centre offers 20 part-time places, principally for KS4 pupils, who have been permanently excluded from school.

5.4 Provision for SEN pupils in non-B&NES schools

Breakdown by category of school, type of provision, need met, gender and ethnicity

Maintained special schools in other LEAs

Non-maintained special schools

Independent special schools

At January 2003, 54 pupils from other LEAs were placed in our special schools or resource bases.

5.5 Primary Education

In September 2002 the Council maintained 68 primary schools. These comprise 13 infant schools (representing 19% of schools), 10 junior schools (representing 15% of schools) and 45 primary schools (representing 66% of schools).

At January 2003 1,640 children are educated in infant schools which represents 13.37% of the total number of primary pupils. Using the same base 2,169 pupils are educated in junior schools which is 17.68% of all primary pupils. The balance of 8,461 pupils, representing 68.97% of primary pupils, are educated in all-through primary schools.

Numbers on roll at schools range between 12 and 412. The capacity of schools range between 67 and 416. The average capacity is 201. The total capacity in primary schools is 13,596 with 12,270 pupils on roll.

The average number on roll is 180 although only 42% of schools reach or exceed that figure. The average infant school has 126 pupils on roll. The average junior school has 217 pupils on roll. The average number on roll at primary schools is 188.

The proportion of primary pupils educated in denominational schools is as follows:

The LEA works closely with its partners at the Diocese of Bath & Wells and the Diocese of Clifton. At September 2002 there were 7 Church of England Voluntary Aided primary schools, 2 Roman Catholic Voluntary Aided primary schools and 29 Church of England Voluntary Controlled primary schools.

5.6 Secondary Education

There are thirteen secondary schools offering a range of provision. The sector comprises:

It can be seen that all schools are designated as 11-18 schools. Whilst retaining their legal status as 11-18 schools Broadlands and St Mark's CE have alternative arrangements for post-16 students. Post-16 provision is undertaken on the Broadlands site in collaboration with Norton Radstock College. Post-16 students at St Mark's have access to St Brendan's on the same basis as students from St Gregory's Catholic College.

There is one Church of England Voluntary Aided secondary school and one Roman Catholic Voluntary Aided secondary school.

The proportion of secondary pupils educated in denominational schools is as follows:

Several secondary schools have been designated as specialist schools. Specialist status is granted for a four-year period and relates to one of ten possible specialisms. There is no commitment beyond the initial four year period, but specialist schools making good progress will be given the opportunity to bid for re-designation for a further period of four years. The figure in brackets represents the year that the school was first designated as a specialist school. Bath & North East Somerset schools are represented in five of the ten possible categories.

Arts

Somervale School (2000)

St Gregory's Catholic College (2002)

Business & Enterprise

Writhlington School (2003)

Science and Engineering

Broadlands School (2003)

Sports

Oldfield School (1997)

Technology

Beechen Cliff School (1997)

Hayesfield School (1999)

Norton Hill School (1999)

The Government has made it clear that it believes that most secondary schools will become specialist schools in the medium term. B&NES has no specialist schools in the areas of Humanities, Languages, Mathematics/Computing and Music.

There are no 6th form colleges in the LEA area although St Brendan's Catholic 6^th Form College, referred to above, lies just over the LEA border.

There are two further education colleges in the LEA area. These are Norton Radstock College and the City of Bath College.

There are no City Academies or City Technology Colleges in the LEA area.

5.7 Strategic Schools

The LEA has previously identified a number of schools as `strategic schools'. Such schools fall into categories namely: strategic rural schools and strategic schools in areas of educational deprivation.

It is proposed to change the way in which strategic rural schools are identified. The methodology and the outcomes of the application of this method are included at Appendix 3.

The second category comprises schools in the electoral wards showing the greatest relative degree of educational deprivation. The schools are:

Peasedown

Peasedown St John Primary School

Southdown

Southdown Infant

Southdown Junior

Radstock

Clandown CE VC Primary School

Radstock Infant School

St Mary's CE VC Primary School, Writhlington

St Nicholas CE VC Infant School

St Nicholas CE VC Junior School

In relation to this latter group of the schools the School Organisation Plan for 2002-2007 states the following "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"

No changes are proposed to this category of strategic school.

5.8 Numbers and Projected Numbers

Pupil numbers in the LEA area are not affected by patterns of seasonal employment, proximity to military establishments or similar factors which can cause volatility in pupil numbers at certain schools. Tables have been prepared for each planning area. The tables show numbers on roll at January 2003. These figures are taken from the Pupil-Led Annual Schools Census (PLASC) and represent the latest figures available to the Authority. It is a requirement of the Plan that the number of pupils with special educational needs (SEN) is shown against each school. Furthermore, the level of unfilled places (calculated by subtracting the number on roll from the Net Capacity figure) must also be shown. The new Regulations also require that the LEA identify the type of unfilled places, by category, denomination and gender where appropriate.

Numbers on roll in the primary sector have continued to fall.

It can be seen that there are 472 fewer pupils in primary schools today than when numbers were at their highest in January 1999. This represents a fall of approximately 4%. Projected numbers indicate that numbers will continue to decrease over the period of the Plan.

B&NES children reaching 4 at the start of academic year

Numbers on roll in the secondary sector have continued to increase although there is a further fall in the numbers of post-16 students.

Forecasts indicate that numbers in Year 7 to 11 will continue to rise reaching a peak of just over 11000 in September 2003 before falling back by 2008 to approximately 10500. Post-16 numbers are harder to predict as the changing pattern of provision means that young people have a greater choice of provider. The prospect of gaining employment also affects the choices that young people make at 16 and, at present, the relatively low levels of unemployment makes work (including the possibility of work-based training) a viable alternative for young people in a way that was not the case 10, 20 or 25 years ago.

Stakeholders should note that, whilst forecast numbers for the 11-15 age range are almost 100% correct, our projections for post-16 for September 2002 were incorrect by approximately 10%. We have not included any projections for September 2003 and the years following whilst we re-examine our methods and discuss the issues with the Learning & Skills Council.

Full-time equivalent numbers on roll in our special schools have increased marginally to 304 from 298 in January 2002. Numbers overall have fallen by approximately 4% over the five years from January 1998.

5.9 Performance Indicators

The Audit Commission is responsible for gathering and publishing performance data. The performance indicators of most relevance to this Plan are Indicator 34a which asks for the percentage of primary schools with 25% or more (and at least 30) of their places unfilled and Indicator 34b which asks for the same information for secondary schools.

This information has been published on the basis of data derived from the More Open Enrolment (MOE) method of assessing school capacities. MOE has been abandoned and replaced by Net Capacity Assessment.

However, it is possible to use net capacity as a denominator and derive performance indicators. Comparisons with previous years are not possible as one denominator has changed.

At January 2003 there were nine primary schools with 25% or more (and at least 30) unfilled places. This is 13.23%. This is above the average for the region, and in terms of our OFSTED `family' and our Audit Commission `family'.

At the same date there were two secondary schools in this position. This is 15.38%. Once again, this is above the average for the region, and in terms of our OFSTED `family' and our Audit Commission `family'.

5.10 Housing Developments and the impact on planning school places

New houses do not necessarily lead to an increase in the numbers of school aged children. A development in one area of the Authority may simply attract people from elsewhere in B&NES. Naturally this does have some effect on levels of surplus or degree of pressure in the affected areas. Other developments, particularly the larger developments, are likely to attract people from outside the Authority area.

Most housing developments in B&NES are relatively small scale. With one or two exceptions the substantial developments seen in adjoining LEAs have not yet been part of the housing development pattern in B&NES. However, over the period 2001-2011 developments of considerable size are likely. It should be noted that smaller developments in rural areas can have a significant impact on a small school.

B&NES is required to accommodate 6,200 new homes in the period 1996-2011. By 2003 approximately 2,870 homes were completed. This leaves around 3,360 houses to be built over the next eight years. These figures are updated in the Local Plan Revised Deposit Draft.

In common with many other Authorities we work on the basis that there will be 3.5 children per Year Group per 100 houses. This equates to approximately 520 primary pupils and approximately 300 secondary pupils. It should be noted that small scale developments may give rise to a higher factor than this.

The Council has included a policy in the Draft Local Plan which states that where development creates a need for additional educational provision then developers will be expected to make on-site provision or contribute to either the provision of additional or the enhancement of existing, educational facilities. This may mean the LEA providing additional places in existing schools albeit with financial or other assistance from developers. Exceptionally large developments may generate the need for an entirely new school.

The most significant housing site in Bath & North East Somerset forms part of the Western Riverside in Bath. The potential development at this location will be of such size that a new primary school will be required to accommodate children living within the new development. The Deposit Local Plan states that at least 620 dwellings will be provided on this site. However, the Executive, on 9 July was asked to endorse an increase in capacity to 900 dwellings to be provided by 2011 with the potential of providing in the region of 1500 dwellings over the life of the development. A development of 900 dwellings creates the need for a one-form entry school and 1500 dwellings, the need for a two-form entry school. The establishment of a new school, and later enlargement of the school is, of course, subject to the approval of the School Organisation Committee.

5.11 Admissions Forum

The Admissions Forum is a statutory body established by the Education Act 2002. The Admissions Forum has established its terms of reference. Amongst these there are a number of items of particular relevance to school organisation.

The Forum will

· consider how well existing and proposed admission arrangements serve the interests of children and parents within the relevant area of the authority.

· promote agreement on admission issues.

· consider the means by which admission processes might be improved and how

actual admissions relate to the admission numbers published.

· consider the effects that admission arrangements have on social inclusion.

The LEA will present annual reports to the Admissions Forum showing patterns of parental preference and the impact on levels of subscription and unfilled places. The views of the Forum on the means by which any identified problems can be resolved will be sought. The Forum will, naturally, be asked to comment on the specific area review exercises outlined below.

5.12 Asset Management Forum (AMF)

The AMF is responsible for the oversight of the Asset Management Plan (AMP).This body comprises representatives of schools, elected Members and officers. The AMF makes recommendations to the Executive and Executive Member as to the priorities for capital expenditure. Information regarding capacity and sufficiency will be supplied to the AMF on an annual basis. The AMF will also be invited to comment on the area reviews.

5.13 Net Capacity Assessment and Indicated Admission Level

The three elements of the Asset Management Plan are Condition, Suitability and Sufficiency. Sufficiency is the element most directly relevant to the planning of school places. Sufficiency assessment includes the introduction of a new method for assessing the capacity of mainstream schools. This method is known as Net Capacity Assessment. Measurements of all mainstream schools have been taken and subjected to the application of the relevant formulae and criteria prescribed by the DfES and each school was asked to confirm the accuracy of the data gathered by the LEA.

These new assessments produce an Indicated Admission Level (IAL). IAL replaces Standard Number which has been abolished. Each school has a minimum IAL and a maximum IAL and schools, in association with the LEA, need to set new planned admission numbers with reference to the IAL.

It is permissible for a school to admit a greater number of pupils than that suggested as a maximum. It is also permissible to admit fewer pupils than suggested by the minimum although this requires publication of a notice explaining the rationale for such a decision.

In February 2003 each school was advised of the relevant figures for their school and invited to state the admission number they wished to adopt for the academic year 2004/05. The net capacity figures that appear in the revised draft Plan reflect the outcome of this exercise.

5.14 Changes to School Organisation since September 2002

Radstock Primary Renaissance

Proposals to reorganise primary schools in Radstock, first mooted in the School Organisation Plan in January 2000, were approved by the School Organisation Committee on 4 February 2003. Two new Church of England Voluntary Controlled primary schools will open on September 1 2005.

`United for the Future' - The Bath Special Project

Following DfES approval of the project on 31 March 2003 notices, proposing the closure of Lime Grove School, Royal United Hospital School and Summerfield School, were published on 9 April. A notice proposing the establishment of a new community special school for 150 pupils on a site at Frome Road, Bath was also published the same day.

The need to plan for the future of special schools in Bath & North East Somerset has been explicit in every previous Plan. Following a lengthy consultation exercise the Council Executive, at its meeting on 4 December 2002, approved the submission of a bid under the Targeted Capital Fund in order to provide the majority of the funding for the proposals now published.

As mentioned previously, a Pupil Referral Unit managed by Wansdyke School was opened in September 2002. The statutory process for establishment of such provision does not require the involvement of the School Organisation Committee. Establishment of this provision has not been mentioned in previous Plans.

Part B

6. How do the LEA's plans reflect and express national policies regarding early years, primary, secondary and post-16 education?

6.1 The factors that the LEA will take into account when considering making proposals to add, remove, relocate (in such a way as to require statutory proposals), or reorganise school places are described in the section headed "The School Review Process"

6.2 DfES guidance states that there should be a presumption that popular schools are permitted to expand. This may not be sustainable and outside the area review process it will be for Governors to bring forward such proposals. It may, of course, be the case that the area review process will identify such expansion as a desirable outcome from a given review but regard will still be given to the maximum school sizes set out in the Strategic Framework.

6.3 Places will be removed when the LEA considers that provision at such a level is no longer required. Historical evidence of under-subscription, a falling number of children in the area, combined with the absence of any other suitable educational use for a building (or parts of a building) may lead the LEA to conclude that the physical removal of places is required. Disposal of an asset will be considered in light of Audit Commission guidance regarding the property holdings of local authorities but the LEA may seek opportunities to facilitate use by other service providers in the context of the Extended Schools Programme.

6.4 The relocation of places will be considered in light of expressed parental demand for a particular type of provision. For example, LEA nursery provision in some parts of the Authority area is under-utilised. Relocating this provision to areas where there is little or no LEA nursery provision may be considered and especially so where such a relocation will link with other early years provision or priorities. Relocation of other types of provision, such as a voluntary aided school, will be considered where the condition, suitability or sufficiency data suggests that relocation is the optimum solution and the relevant Diocese has identified it as a priority.

6.5 Nursery and Early Years

6.6 In July 2002 Bath and North East Somerset was awarded a Sure Start Local Programme. Sure Start Local Programmes forms part of the Government's drive to tackle child poverty and social exclusion by improving services for families with children under the age of four and ultimately spreading good practice learned from local programmes to everyone involved in providing services for young children across the whole authority. The area that has been chosen for the Sure Start Local Programme includes the wards of Twerton, Southdown, Oldfield and Westmoreland and parts of Odd Down, Lyncombe and Widcombe wards. The programme will run for approximately ten years in total and it is envisaged that it will reach its peak year of operation, with the maximum number of services being provided reaching the maximum number of parents and children, in year three. The aim of a Sure Start Local Programme is to improve the health and well being of families and children before and from birth, so children flourish at home and when they go to school. It is based around four objectives, which are; improving children's social and emotional development, improving health, improving children's ability to learn and strengthening families and communities.

6.7 A Neighbourhood Nursery is to be established in Keynsham. The Neighbourhood Nurseries Initiative (NNI) is a programme established by the DfES. The initiative has two aims. The first is to reduce unemployment in the most disadvantaged areas by offering childcare services that help parents return to work and ensure that, by 2004, there should be a childcare place in the most disadvantaged areas for every lone parent entering employment.

6.8 The second aim is to help improve the life chances of children through offering quality childcare and early learning in good environments.

6.9 Post-16 Education

6.10 Proposals for reorganisation may arise from school or area reviews undertaken by the LEA. Such reviews will be undertaken on a rolling programme covering each primary planning area over the period of the Plan. A document entitled "The School Review Process" is included in Part C of the Plan.

6.11 The LEA has an Access Strategy which aims to provide an `accessible' secondary school in each of the 3 major areas of population, i.e. Keynsham, Norton Radstock and Bath and the provision of a "barrier free" primary school in each of the 13 primary planning areas.

6.12 The LEA ensures that no pupil is discriminated against on grounds of race, gender or disability through issuing advice and guidance to schools to ensure that equalities legislation is complied with and that no pupil is subject to discrimination in any form. Schools are required to monitor and report on any incidents of racial discrimination and how these have been addressed. LEA plans and strategies are developed, implemented, monitored and reviewed with schools to ensure the needs of vulnerable and underachieving pupils are addressed.

6.13 The proposed admissions criteria for September 2004 and subsequent years will ensure that looked after children are able to obtain a place at a school suitable to their social, pastoral and educational needs. This should offer them the best opportunity to improve their average low levels of attainment. The criteria will set, as the first priority, Children in Public Care where the carers have named the school as first preference.

6.14 Ofsted/Audit Commission Inspection

Officers' evaluation suggests that further work is required in areas listed below.

3. Support to and training for the SOC.

4. An analysis of performance in schools with different ages of transfer.

5. The relationship with the LSC in terms of planning school provision.

6. The integration of the SOP and the EDP.

7. The strategic awareness of Members.

6.15 Diversity

6.16 Community Cohesion

Part C

7. Conclusions

7.1 Early Years Education

7.2 Early years provision must be included in the new schools to be opened in Radstock in September 2005. The LEA believes that making such provision is consistent with the development of strategic schools in areas of educational deprivation.

7.3 Primary Education

7.4 Previous Plans have identified a percentage of surplus places that are deemed to be tolerable in each area. In urban / suburban areas the tolerance level was stated as lying between 3 and 7% of capacity. In rural areas the tolerance level was stated as lying between 3 and 10%. It is now suggested that there is no reason to tolerate explicitly a different percentage rate of surplus places in different areas of the Authority. The rationale for the previous policy was based on the practicality of removing places at schools in rural areas. However, the challenge of removing surplus places in certain schools should not, in itself, prevent a proper review of schools in a given area. Such challenges and ways of meeting these challenges will emerge during the area review process. The Council now believes that a range of 3 to 5% is sufficient. This allows some flexibility in an area and offers parents some element of real choice without continuing to commit resources to maintaining places that have no prospect of being filled.

7.5 For the purposes of planning primary places the Council area has been split into thirteen groups. These primary planning areas have been the subject of consultation prior to the issue of this draft Plan. The Governing Body of each primary school was asked whether they were in agreement with their allocation to a given planning area. Marksbury Primary School has suggested that consideration be given to reallocating the school to the Keynsham planning area. The rationale for this suggestion is that:

· The school is, at present, very involved with the Keynsham cluster of schools through the Headteachers' Group, SENCO and sports development

· All of the children from Marksbury go on to attend Wellsway in Keynsham.

The current groups are attached.

7.6 An analysis of the tables for each primary planning area indicates that, in terms of unfilled places, the areas which cause most concern are, in alphabetical order,:

Bath (North & Central)

Bath (South & Central)

Keynsham

Radstock

7.7 Given this information, issues that need to be considered are as follows:

7.8 The Council takes the view that the provision of additional primary places in given areas of the Authority should only be considered when the need for such places can be shown to exist through the strategic process of area reviews. Analysis shows that additional places may be required in the planning areas of Peasedown, Midsomer Norton, Bathavon and South East Bath.

Stakeholders were particularly requested to comment on the areas which should be reviewed during the academic year 2003/04. The intention of the LEA is to undertake a review during the course of a school term. If the outcome of a review is that further action is required it will be necessary for the Council to propose a timescale for such action. No comments have been received in relation to this point.

Comments were also invited on the order in which areas should be reviewed. Stakeholders were invited to consider whether a review of areas showing a potential need for additional places should take precedence over the resolution of unfilled places / surplus capacity issues. It was stated that stakeholders may believe that it was of paramount importance to reduce the level of unfilled places and allow resources to be freed for allocation elsewhere in the Education Service. No comments have been received in relation to this point.

Comments were invited on the principle of a review of secondary and post-16 provision in the Greater Bath Consortium. This would be a major exercise for the Council, its partners and other stakeholders. One comment referred to the need for a review of post-16 provision.

7.9 Secondary Education

a) the buildings and school layouts do not lend themselves easily to physical removal of places.

b) removal of the surplus would bring at least one school below the minimum desirable size established in previous Plans.

c) the continued demand for single-sex education set against past research findings showing parents wish there to be a greater number of co-educational places is a contradiction requiring reinvestigation.

7.10 Previous Plans have referred to the need to undertake a review of 3-19 provision in the Greater Bath Consortium. The primary area reviews referred to above will address the issues in the GBC primary sector in the fullness of time. The LEA believes that a review of secondary and post-16 provision is urgently required. The opportunity exists to address longstanding issues, within the context of the DfES transformation agenda, and to produce a pattern of secondary and post-16 provision that meets the needs of generations of young people in the City of Bath.

7.11 All other secondary planning areas are facing considerable pressure and additional capacity is expected to be required in Keynsham, Norton Radstock and the Chew Valley areas during the lifetime of the Plan.

7.12 Special Education

7.13 The School Review Process commits the LEA to reviewing provision for pupils with SEN every five years. In addition to special schools the SEN Review will include a review of Resource Bases. The timing of the Review is to be determined.

The School Review Process

and the work of the

Education, Youth, Culture & Leisure Overview & Scrutiny Panel

In September 2002 the Education, Youth, Culture & Leisure (EYCL) Overview & Scrutiny Panel (the Panel) initiated a review of the Authority's method for undertaking school reviews. The former Education Committee had adopted a school review process in March 2000. The aim of the Panel was to construct a new framework for reviews which could be recommended to the Executive for adoption.

At a session on 18 November the Panel requested that stakeholders attended and gave evidence regarding the review process. Several Headteachers and Governors gave evidence and answered questions posed by the Panel.

At a session on 2 December Panel Members discussed general issues arising from the witness sessions held on 18 November. In particular the Panel examined the problem of quantifying the community value of a school. This had proved a difficult issue on which to achieve consensus. The meeting agreed that it was sensible for the Asset Management Plan to be tied in to the school review process so that the situation at a group of schools could be looked at in totality.

The Panel took the view that it was vital for the Council to take decisive action on the reviews as there had been inaction for too long and a consequently a large amount of money was being wasted on supporting surplus places. The Members then considered the draft process and agreed amendments. The Convenor of the Panel was asked to produce an amended process in light of all comments.

The pages that follow represent the agreed view of the Overview & Scrutiny Panel. This paper was distributed to schools in January 2003 and comments were invited.

THE SCHOOL REVIEW PROCESS

A Methodology for School and Area Reviews

Principles Underpinning School Reviews

· All children and young people should enjoy a high quality learning experience which will enhance their choices for the future. This experience should be provided by well qualified and committed staff, with high expectations of every child, and delivered in buildings which are in good condition, entirely suitable for the delivery of the whole curriculum and with sufficient accommodation and facilities to maximise educational opportunities.

· The learning experiences offered should encourage children and young people to become interested and involved lifelong learners. This learning should be relevant and meet the needs of learners through a broad, balanced and enriched range of experiences.

In order to support this key principle access to LEA resources must be demonstrably equitable and fair.

· Schools should be open to and draw from their local community (acknowledging the wider community from which faith schools draw their pupils).

· The LEA welcomes diversity and choice in school provision and believes this should be maintained where it is demonstrably sustainable.

· Ideally, all schools should be:

· The outcomes of all review exercises should be informed by what is best for the children and young people in Bath & North East Somerset, both today and in the future.

· The LEA acknowledges that all schools (not just those under review) strive to provide the best for the children in their care.

· The LEA must use its resources efficiently in the interests of all children and young people in our schools and to ensure best value. Thus the framework of minimum / maximum school sizes should be applied in order to assess the efficient use of resources.

· The framework of maximum and minimum school sizes will be informed by the School Organisation Plan which will continue to distinguish between the needs of rural and urban/suburban schools.

· Relevant, accurate, factual information must inform the review and decision-making process. The review process must be transparent and undertaken with professionalism and integrity by the LEA and all stakeholders.

· Outcomes of reviews must be rational and robust and be seen to be so.

· Best practice from other LEAs should be monitored continuously and developed for Bath & North East Somerset where appropriate.

· Governing Bodies are encouraged to be proactive and examine, on an annual basis, the robustness of the school in terms of its long term future, particularly in the context of the statement in the Code of Practice on LEA-School Relations which states that "Schools work best when they recognise the value of the family of schools to which they belong locally and nationally". Schools would then begin the review process with a) a more realistic idea of likely outcomes; and b) some ideas of their own on possible developments.

The Purpose of School Reviews

· To ensure that there are sufficient school places to meet local need.

· To maximise the number of parents achieving a place for their child at their first preference school.

· To reassure stakeholders and external scrutineers that resources are being used effectively.

· To add places where population growth in the locality requires this.

· To remove surplus places.

· To ensure, as far as is possible, that teaching and learning takes place in buildings which are in good condition and fit for purpose.

· To support school improvement and to enable longer-term planning to be undertaken.

Area School Organisation Plans

· There will be a rolling programme of area reviews based on agreed school organisation planning areas.

· The aim would be for Officers to prepare the draft Area School Organisation Plan (ASOP) within 12 school weeks.

· The primary school planning areas could be covered in a five-year period.

· An Area Asset Management Plan (AAMP) would be prepared at the same time. This would enable a rolling programme of updating suitability data, net capacity and other sufficiency data, and condition data.

· Priorities for Planned Maintenance and capital projects should then emerge alongside conclusions about the long term future of each school in the area.

Information to be included in an Area School Organisation Plan

· Contextual data e.g. location, local amenities, distance from other schools.

· A short contribution from each Headteacher

· Adult/pupil ratios.

· Performance data; however, for the smallest schools, three years' data should be averaged over three years.

· Current numbers on roll.

· Historical data of numbers on roll

· Projected numbers on roll.

· Historical levels of recruitment against standard number.

· Levels of actual surplus / deficit of places

· Levels of projected surplus / deficit of places

· Unit cost per pupil.

· Location of pupils on roll and closest school.

· Outstanding planned maintenance

· Suitability assessment.

· Levels of educational deprivation and multiple deprivation in the ward in which each school is located.

It is suggested that the LEA describe the `average' primary school in terms of size, budget and performance. All schools can then be plotted against this. In relation to size it would probably be necessary to plot the average rural and the average urban/suburban school. The definition of rural and urban schools will be taken from the Strategic Framework.

The LEA may consider passing the completed ASOP to an external evaluator who has no vested interests and knows nothing of the schools except the data available in the ASOP. Objective conclusions would then be more secure.

Possible outcomes from an Area School Organisation Plan

· no change

· a new school is needed to meet local need

· existing schools expanded to meet local need

· surplus accommodation identified for removal

· two or more schools amalgamate

· a school closes

· admissions criteria are modified

· federated schools are proposed

The approach does not demand immediate action in all cases. A conclusion could be that within a specified time period certain action should be taken.

Note: Where the ASOP concludes that significant change is needed (i.e. expansion/closure), the usual programme of formal consultation, publication of notices, period for representations etc. follows. Members and others should be aware that, at this stage, the LEA could well be focusing on a single school.

Outcomes from an Area Asset Management Plan

· each school is provided with up-to-date condition, suitability and sufficiency data.

· net capacity is adjusted if appropriate.

· assistance is provided to each school in terms of reviewing the school AMP.

· priorities for capital investment are identified.

Again, this could be in the context of a five year plan.

The School and the Community

A key purpose of a school is to teach the children who attend within a holistic learning experience. Therefore all schools will be aware of the importance of the community dimension. However, there may be a difference between schools as to the extent of direct community use of the school buildings and facilities e.g. pre-school groups, adult education, local groups and societies.

The extent to which a school draws from its local community is a crucial consideration with the proviso that the intake at faith schools comes from a wider geographical area.

Exceptional Reviews

The LEA will only review a single school in exceptional circumstances.

The reasons for such a review must be clear.

· The school has been judged by OFSTED to require "special measures" or to have "serious weaknesses". In these circumstances the LEA is obliged to review the school. Furthermore, if a school is a cause of major concern to the LEA a review may be undertaken.

· Pupil numbers have changed significantly or unexpectedly over a three-year period.

· The school has 25% or more unfilled places.

· A major housing development is proposed for the area.

· New roads or transport systems have made a school more or less accessible.

· The school sustains unexpected and substantial damage.

· The Governing Body, or Bodies, request a review.

· A Diocesan Board of Education requests a review.

It is proposed that the OSP and Executive Member receive an annual report which lists those schools which have 25% surplus places and reports any action taken/proposed.

Secondary Schools

· This Review has focused on the management of primary area reviews and further work is required to provide a framework which is appropriate for secondary area reviews bearing in mind the patterns of need and provision in Bath and in North East Somerset.

· Area reviews are possible, based on existing agreed planning areas.

· The starting point should be to set out some fundamental principles and describe explicitly the pattern of provision which would seem to support those principles most effectively. For example:

· A city has the advantage of being able to provide a diversity of provision. However, diversity must reflect parental preference.

· The first step is to decide whether diversity is to be retained and celebrated as a strength, or to pursue a course of action which results in a more uniform pattern of provision.

· Progress can only be made for 11 - 18 schools in liaison with the Learning & Skills Council.

· Any new arrangements must be tested against the need for continuous improvement in students' achievements.

Special Schools

· There will be a review of provision (special schools and resource centres) for pupils with special educational needs at least once in every five-year period.

THE PLANNING OF SCHOOL PLACES

THE STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK

Position Statement: September 2002

Introduction

This document summarises the policies, guidance and structures described in the School Organisation Plan as at September 2002. The Plan, subject of extensive consultation, has been endorsed by the Council and approved by the School Organisation Committee.

The Strategic Framework will be further developed annually in future School Organisation Plans. Decisions regarding school organisation and school places should be taken within the context of the Strategic Framework.

For the purposes of planning school places, the LEA has been divided into thirteen areas for primary schools and four for secondary schools.

It must be emphasised that these planning areas exist solely to assist in the planning of school places. They have no legal significance. The fact that a school (or number of schools) are associated with one planning area does not preclude the position in adjoining areas being taken into account when one or more schools are subject to a review. Our aim in undertaking reviews is to ensure the optimum pattern of provision for the achievement of high standards and the most effective use of resources.

Secondary Provision in the Greater Bath Consortium

Primary School Sizes

· Infant and junior schools should be at least one form of entry and a maximum of three. The standard number should be 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. The standard number should be between 30 and 60. No urban/suburban primary school should have fewer than 180 children.

· Rural primary schools were identified in the Infant Class Size Plan. They should have a standard number of at least 15, at least 3 classes and an average intake of at least 10 children. 12 rural primaries have been listed as `strategic' schools because the next closest schools could not easily accommodate the children and/or the journey to the next closest schools could be deemed unreasonable. These schools should still meet the desirable minimum size.

· No infant class must exceed 30 pupils.

· The minimum intake to a secondary school should be four forms of entry. No secondary school without a sixth form should have fewer than 600 pupils.

· Ideally, the maximum intake should be 240. No secondary school should have more than 1200 students in Years 7 to 11. Some schools may need to be larger.

· School sixth forms should have a minimum of 80 pupils and a maximum of 500.

No journey to school should take a primary aged child more than 45 minutes or exceed 6 miles. For secondary aged pupils the journey should not take more than one hour 15 minutes or exceed 10 miles.

In March 2000, the Education Committee adopted a stepped approach for school reviews which specifies the reasons why a school or schools might be reviewed and the process to be followed should a review be recommended.

It can be stated with confidence that not all unfilled places are surplus. It is generally accepted that some unfilled places are maintained through necessity, in order to allow for flexibility in a school or an area. Others may be required to allow for an expected increase in pupil numbers and/or the meeting of parental preference. The Audit Commission have acknowledged this. However, once these conditions have been met it is clear that surplus places represent a waste of resources and that they should be removed. In our view, an acceptable level of surplus places, in primary schools in urban/suburban areas lies within a range between 3% and 7%. In rural areas, an acceptable level lies within a 3-10% range. A systematic review of the planning areas that exceed this range is underway.

The urban/suburban planning areas are;

There is surplus LEA nursery provision in Bath and insufficient provision in all other areas with none in some areas such as Radstock/Writhlington. At its meeting on 17 January 2000 Education Committee determined that, to be viable and cost-effective, a nursery session needs to run with at least 23 children and there should be sufficient children to run sessions in both the morning and afternoon.

Nurseries, which do not meet these criteria, are to be reviewed.

Increases in school places will be considered in the light of local need, not merely parental demand.

The broad balance of denominational and non-denominational places should be maintained. Currently approximately ¹/₃ of all places are in controlled or aided schools and any proposals that would alter this proportion require the support of the relevant Diocese.

The Education Committee and School Organisation Committee need to take account of Best Value when considering school planning. Thus, the following question must be asked;

Could an alternative pattern of provision produce:

a) higher standards at the same cost ?

b) the same standards at lower cost ?

c) higher standards at lower cost ?

Primary Planning Areas

Financial Information

The table in Appendix Two shows the unit cost per pupil in each school.

Changes to the Regulatory Framework

As stated in the Introduction changes have been made to the regulatory framework affecting school organisation plans and statutory proposals. Highlights are:

Governors of community schools will be permitted to bring forward their own proposals for enlargement or to add sixth form provision. This right was previously reserved to Governors of Aided and Foundation schools.

Decision makers are required to presume that popular and successful schools should be permitted to expand. A popular school may appeal to the Adjudicator if the SOC rejects proposals to expand. A popular school is defined as one where the number of unsuccessful appeals exceeds the admission number of a school by more than 10% at secondary schools, or 5% at primary schools.

The LEA may refer a decision to the SOC even if there have been no objections.

The SOC may refer a decision to the Office of the Schools Adjudicator if at least two of the constituent groups disqualify themselves from voting on a proposal because they have an interest in the case.

All comments (rather than just objections) must be taken into account when the SOC considers the Plan.

The full list of changes can be found at www.dfes.gov.uk/schoolorg

LEA Officers will make a presentation to a future School Organisation Committee outlining these changes in more detail and identifying the impact the new framework will have on the process of school place planning.

Bathavon

The area has a relatively small number of unfilled places. A planned housing development of over 100 homes is likely to be deleted from the Local Plan. The possibility of this development had led the LEA to conclude that it may be necessary to provide additional capacity during the lifetime of the Plan. Although this is still possible, it is unlikely.

Housing Developments

Land West of Swainswick Bypass 20 dwellings

Bannerdown Road, Batheaston 6 dwellings

Central B&NES-Area 1

The area has a significant number of surplus places. However, these are distributed amongst four schools in a fairly wide area. Over 40% of the unfilled places in the area exist at one school. The potential to reduce or eliminate this surplus will be investigated during the area review. Housing development in the area may perform this task prior to a review.

Housing Developments

Paulton Printing Factory 100 dwellings 2001-2006

Goosard Lane, High Littleton 16 dwellings 2006-2011

Central B&NES-Area 2

The area has a significant number of surplus places. Approximately 45% of these places are in one school. However, the planning area covers a considerable geographical area and the elimination or reduction of surplus may be difficult to achieve. An area review will identify options but the need for a review is not pressing.

Housing Developments

Greenvale Drive Timsbury 28 dwellings 2001-2006

South West B&NES

Summary

This area presents no significant problem in relation to surplus places. The planning area covers a wide geographical area. An ongoing housing development in Bishop Sutton may create additional pressure too such an extent that additional capacity may be required during the lifetime of the Plan.

Housing Developments

North West B&NES

Summary

This area presents no significant problem in relation to surplus places. Existing capacity should be sufficient to absorb additional pupils arising from housing developments.

Housing Developments

Former Radford Retail Systems, Chew Stoke 30 dwellings 2001-2006

Peasedown

Summary

Peasedown St John has experienced significant growth in population as a result of a major housing development in the village. The last phase of development is expected to be complete by 2006. One school has a high percentage of surplus capacity but it is possible that additional capacity may be required during the lifetime of the Plan.

Housing Developments

Belle Vue Farm, Peasedown St John 29 dwellings 2001-2006

Midsomer Norton

The town is experiencing significant pressure on places. Two schools have numbers on roll that exceed capacity and no individual school has significant surplus. Additional capacity may be required during the lifetime of the Plan.

Housing Developments

Folly Hill, Chilcompton Road, Midsomer Norton 45 dwellings

Land at Hazel Terrace/Old Pit Road 20 dwellings

Radstock

The town has a very high level of surplus places. This is due to the fact that parents / carers in the town are not choosing existing local schools. The LEA expects that the reorganisation scheme known as the Radstock Primary Renaissance, the effects of a regeneration scheme supported by the Authority and the Regional Development Agency and new housing will make local schools more attractive to local parents and that surplus places, whilst they may still exist throughout the lifetime of the Plan, will gradually be reduced to tolerable levels.

Housing Developments

Radstock Railway Land 100 dwellings

Mount Pleasant Hostel, Writhlington 10 dwellings

Keynsham

The town has a high number of surplus places. 93% of this surplus exists at two schools. The major housing development proposed for the town is located adjacent to Castle Primary School where there is a negligible number of surplus places. The Education Service has included a statement in the Deposit Local Plan requiring additional provision at this school as the development takes place. This major site is not to be released prior to 2006 and there are no other prospects for the filling of surplus places. The area requires a review at the earliest opportunity.

Housing Developments

Somerdale 50 dwellings

Former Cannocks Garage 24 dwellings

An unspecified element of residential development is proposed at St John's Court

North & Central Bath

The area has the highest number of surplus places in the Authority. This is boosted by a large number of surplus places at one school. Plans to relocate this school to another area are in hand. If these places are removed the area still has a substantial level of unfilled capacity. The vast majority of provision is in controlled or aided schools. A review took place between February and October 2002. No formal consultation was undertaken. A review that sets out to reduce surplus places to a tolerable level is urgently required.

Housing Developments Southgate 90 dwellings

South & Central Bath

The area has a very high number of surplus places. Almost all provision is within community schools. There are no all-through primary schools. The development of the Western Riverside will have a significant effect on parts of this planning area and, due to the massive scale of the scheme, the effect will also be felt in the North & Central Bath and North West Bath planning areas. A review, taking into account the changes likely in the area, and addressing the lack of diversity and the absence of all-through primary schools should be undertaken.

Housing Developments

Western Riverside 900 dwellings

Rush Hill 100 dwellings

Windsor Castle Site, Upper Bristol Road 24 dwellings

Lower Bristol Road 75 dwellings

237 Englishcombe Lane 10 dwellings

North West Bath

Summary

The number of surplus places is significant with over 40% of the unfilled places existing at one school. The effect of the Western Riverside development are likely to be felt in two of the schools and these places may fill as the development takes place. A review prior to the commencement of the Western Riverside scheme is necessary but the timing of this review will depend on the progress of the redevelopment.

Housing Developments

None are identified in this area

South East Bath

The level of surplus places is fractionally above the desirable maximum. Almost 90% of the surplus exists in one school. A review prior to the commencement of the Foxhill scheme will take place and should identify options for reducing surplus to acceptable levels.

Housing Developments

MoD Foxhill 200 dwellings

Land at St Martin's Hospital 70 dwellings

Secondary Education

Greater Bath Consortium

Numbers in secondary schools continue to rise year on year. Numbers in September 2002 were around 5% higher than five years ago and this steady increase is likely to continue at least until the middle of the decade. The precise effects of substantial housing development, in various locations across the City of Bath, remain to be seen but will certainly bring more secondary aged pupils to the schools in the GBC. Ensuring sufficient places are available should not present any difficulty. The problem in the GBC is providing places of the right type. Two schools carry very high levels of surplus capacity whilst the remaining five schools operate at capacity or are overcrowded to some degree. An organisational change in the GBC appears to present the best opportunity for resolving these problems and will be the subject of consultation during 2003/04.

Chew Valley

The area is served by a single school. The school is regularly oversubscribed and experiences considerable cross-border movement from both City of Bristol and North Somerset. Significant capital expenditure at the school over the last ten years has enabled admission numbers to be protected and the new net capacity assessment indicates the potential for increasing the number of places offered each year.

Norton Radstock

Growth in the area is placing extreme pressure on places. Two of the three schools are oversubscribed for the 2003 admission year and the other is almost full. Numbers are likely to continue to rise towards the middle of the decade by which time the new housing in the towns of Midsomer Norton and Radstock may have begun to have an effect. It may be necessary to add capacity in the lifetime of the Plan.

Keynsham

The level of surplus is negligible and gives no flexibility. Both schools are oversubscribed.

Appendix 1

REQUIRED INSPECTION JUDGEMENT 34: THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE LEA IN RELATION TO THE PROVISION OF SCHOOL PLACES

1. BACKGROUND

i Description

This judgement is in the Social Inclusion section of the Inspection Framework and is reported on in that section of an organisational LEA inspection report. Some aspects of an LEA's work on the provision of places make an implicit or explicit contribution to social inclusion, and these should be considered by the inspection team in coming to the overall judgement on social inclusion. However, other aspects of place provision (such as efficiency, monitoring etc) are an aspect of strategic management not directly relevant to social inclusion, and for that reason the JRS awarded on the provision of places should be based on full consideration of the function, not just on the social inclusion aspects.

LEA's have a statutory duty to secure sufficient school places, and publish details of this within a School Organisation Plan (SOP). This is the only statutory plan that does not require DfES agreement - instead the local School Organisation Committee (SOC) agrees it. The SOC must be convened by the LEA, but is independent of it. If the SOC is unable to agree on the SOP, a decision is made by the Adjudicator, appointed by the Secretary of State (see below).

The LEA is responsible for planning and reviewing the supply of school places to ensure the needs of the community are met and that good quality education is provided in the most cost-effective way. The authority proposes, in the light of its own circumstances, what action can be taken to remove surplus places, or increase places and support schools to improve standards.

School Organisation and place provision is a key issue in most LEAs. This is a very context-specific issue, lacking national triggers. For instance the demographic context ranges between LEAs facing 20% fall in school rolls in the next five years, mainly in the Northeast, and those facing a 20% rise, mainly in the South and new towns. A few LEAs experience high levels of in-year mobility. Some LEAs have a historic pattern of provision that is significant to school performance; e.g. a selective or three-tier system, high proportion of small, single sex or church schools. Some have more CTCs and City Academies (independent of LEA but publicly funded), some inner London and unitary LEAs have inherited provision which does not match their population, and serves large numbers of pupils resident elsewhere. In some cities there is a pattern of racial polarisation with different schools tending to recruit from different ethnic groups. In all of these cases place planning will be a key inspection enquiry, closely linked to strategic planning and policy, and to the direction given by senior officers and Members.

ii Current practice

Examples of good practice can be seen in LEA inspection reports (www.ofsted.gov.uk) on: Shropshire (paras 134-136) and Hartlepool (paras 119-121).

2. CONTEXT

i. Description of statutory duties

1996 Education Act (sections 13 and 14) and the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (section 5): LEA duty to secure sufficient and suitable school places for children living in the LEA and so far as possible ensure that their functions are exercised to promote high standards

School Standards and Framework Act 1998: Set out a new framework and role for LEAs, requiring partnership working, including a duty to produce a School Organisation Plan (SOP) and establish a School Organisation Committee (SOC). See Circular 6/99 (15/99 for special schools) http://www.dfee.gov.uk/circulars/9_99/9_99.htm

Also set a new duty on LEAs to secure the infant class size limit of 30 in a class, one reception year at a time, with the `pledge' to be achieved by September 2001 for all infant pupils (later brought forward to 2000). LEAs were required to set out how this will be achieved, including the use of additional funding for teachers and buildings, in an Infant Class Size Plan (ICSP).

Statutory Framework behind the SOP and the SOC

The School Organisation Plan (SOP) sets the context in which the LEA will plan the supply of sufficient school places for their area and the provision of education appropriate to different pupils' ages, abilities and aptitudes. It provides basic demographic and other relevant information and sets out the general policy and principles that the LEA intends to adopt for school planning. The plan covers all phases, primary, secondary and special schools and the arrangements for all pupils with SEN, and under-fives, referring to the Early Years Childcare and Development Partnership Plan. It must explain how the LEA proposes to remedy any excess or insufficiency of school places in their area and how it intends to provide for children with special educational needs. The SOP should then draw conclusions about the need to add or remove places in particular areas. SOPs are generally on LEA websites.

The SOP does not, however, identify specific schools for action. Individual proposals may also need to be brought forward to deal with immediate or unexpected situations not covered in the Plan - or, indeed, that may require appropriate action in advance of the Plan's approval.

The Plan is to be prepared in consultation with the LEA's partners. Following initial consultation, the draft Plan must be published by 1 June. There is then a two-month period in which any interested party may submit to the Council statutory objections to the draft Plan. At the end of this period, there is a further month for the LEA to consider the objections and then submit the draft Plan, the objections received and its comments on the objections to the School Organisation Committee (SOC). The role of the SOC is to consider the draft plan alongside any objections. They can agree the draft plan as it stands or with modifications. Where they cannot agree, the plan is referred to the Adjudicator for consideration. Responsibilities for post-16 provision are split with the LSC, and the LSC role is increasing, as is the programme and implications of OfSTED's post-16 area-wide reviews.

School Organisation Committee

It is the responsibility of the LEA to establish a SOC. This is not a committee of the LEA, but is a separate body. It brings together the key partners in local education provision (such as the LEA, the religious denominations etc), giving each of the five or six groups an equal voice.

Once the SOC has agreed the Plan, it then has the role of considering and deciding individual proposals for change at specific schools put forward by the LEA and other proposers. The LEA should seek a sufficiently strong partnership with aided and foundation schools to work collaboratively with them on such proposals, although it cannot force the governors of these schools to do so. This does not remove the responsibility of the LEA to initiate proposals, to consult on them and to publish statutory notices for changes.

This role of the SOC replaces the previous role of the Secretary of State for Education and Employment in deciding such proposals. The membership requirements and protocols for agreement are complex, but usually not an issue. Where the SOC does have problems deciding, refer to the summary of the arrangements on the web in the DfES AZ of school leadership: school organisation committee, as well as the legislation.

School Adjudication System

Schools Adjudicators are appointed by the Secretary of State to take decisions on the SOP and on individual statutory proposals in cases where the SOC has been unable to agree. The adjudicator will consider all presented papers, including alternative options put forward by any group on the SOC. The adjudicator may select one of the options put forward or may suggest an alternative to the SOC for consideration. If the SOC unanimously accepts the adjudicator's alternative, that will form the final Plan. Otherwise, the SOC will refer the Plan back to the Adjudicator with comments. The Adjudicator will then determine the Plan, but may only select his/her own alternative if at least one group on the SOC has indicated that they are in favour of it. Following the Adjudicator's decision, the LEA must publish the agreed plan. Adjudicators' decisions are not case law, but have been seen as precedent. All are available on www.schoolsadjudicator.gov.uk.

LEA duty to secure Infant Class size limits

Following SSFA (1998) all infant classes (i.e. Reception and KS1) must not contain more pupils than 30 taught by a single teacher by September 2001. Each LEA is under a duty to prepare a statement to review the actions required, and to report progress termly, and apply and account for specific grant.

LEAs should have met the target in 2001or be able to explain the shortfall. From September 2001, the new numbers will move up to junior, and some funding for new junior classrooms (but not teachers) is available.

Reorganisation and Statutory proposals

Before certain changes can be made to schools, all interested parties must be consulted and statutory proposals published. Whether responsibility for publishing the statutory proposals rests with the LEA or the governors varies according to the status of the school and the proposed changes. All proposals by governing bodies fall to local SOC (or the School's Adjudicator) for decision. Alterations that require publication and approval are set out in more detail in the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, read with schedule 1 of The Education (School Organisation Proposals) (England) Regulations 1999 (SI 1999 No. 2213), The Education (School Organisation Proposals) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2000 (SI 2000 No 2198) and the Learning and Skills Act 2000,

Governors of voluntary or foundation schools have responsibility for publishing proposals for any changes sought. LEAs must publish proposed alterations to community schools, except for the removal of selection from a grammar school. LEAs may also publish proposals to close voluntary and foundation schools and enlarge the premises of foundation schools. The exception to this is if a school wishes to change category, for example to go from community to foundation status. The governing body of any school may publish such proposals. In addition, LEAs may publish for community schools to become foundation schools.

Where a school wishes to vary its standard number, responsibility for publication of the statutory notices rests with the admission authority for the school, except where the LEA and governors cannot agree on a higher published admission number. Where a request by the LEA or the governors to the relevant admission authority for a higher published admission number has been refused, either the governing body of the school or the LEA (whichever is not the admission authority) may publish proposals for an increase in standard number.

All schools can consider changing category, the process differs depending on the initial category, but proposals will be decided by the SOC. The Dearing report encouraged schools to consider changing status to become voluntary-aided CE schools Further information is on the DfES Change of Category website. Statutory guidance to SOCs and Adjudicators of the factors that they should take into account when considering proposals, and the procedures to be followed is given on the Department's website http://www.dfes.gov.uk/changes/

ii. Description of government policy and national initiatives

a. Education Bill 2001

This proposes to significantly enhance the 'earned autonomy' of successful schools. The implications for the provision of places are that diversity, innovation and partnership within the secondary system will be extended. Schools, with high standards will be rewarded with greater autonomy, further expanding the specialist schools programme, welcoming more faith-based schools, continuing to establish Academies, and changing the law to allow federations of schools and external sponsors to take responsibility for under-performing schools against fixed-term contracts.

b. Surplus Places and overcrowding

Surplus School Places Survey (section 21 return each May)

LEAs annual statistical return to the DfES gives the rolls of all community, foundation and voluntary schools in their area. This shows surplus places in each school and the overall amount of surplus in the authority. LEAs have been under pressure to remove inefficient surplus places, but the number practicably removable varies between LEAs dependent on local circumstances, including social and demographic factors, including the proximity of schools in neighbouring LEAs, and with rural and church schools largely protected from closure.

LEA returns provide forecasts to show how the numbers could change in the future - over the next four years for primary schools, and over the next seven years for secondary schools. The results of the survey are reported each year to MPs in a written parliamentary question and in a Departmental press notice.

The returns are the basis of the `compare' database developed by Audit Commission for use by external auditors in assessing progress on the key issues of managing supply and demand defined by the Audit Commission in `Trading Places' 1996, and the Update report in January 2002. A joint Ofsted/Audit Commission thematic study in early 2002 will focus on the outcomes and impact of school place planning, showing how LEAs can manage school organisation to promote school improvement.

External Audit has followed up the quality of forecasting and the plans for reducing surplus in each LEA. Since 1997, surplus places have fallen by nearly 64,000 to 709,989 in January 2000, representing 9 per cent of the total capacity of 7.8 million places. DfEE issued good practice guidance to LEAs in February 2000 on processes, and a checklist of how to actually propose changes, in effect defining parameters for SOCs and LEAs. Ministers now want LEAs to focus on making reductions in schools with high levels of surplus places (25 per cent or more) that are significantly under subscribed by parents and where there is other provision nearby. 122 failing schools have been closed since May 1997. The proportion of all schools with 25% or more of their places unfilled and with at least 30 surplus places remains stable at 11%.

The number of secondary schools with 25% or more surplus capacity fell from 461 in 1999 (13%) to 393 in 2000 (11%). During the same time there was a growth in the number of schools that are over-crowded (more pupils than MOE - see below) and overcrowding of popular schools is now a key concern in some LEAs, related to admissions and appeals.

c. Measurements of School Capacity

A new measure of `net capacity' comes into effect in June 2002 to measure the number of places in a school. (See (d) below). Meanwhile, two different methods are used:

· More Open Enrolment (MOE): a formula developed by the DfEE, which is calculated using the physical accommodation, teaching spaces and m2 at the school. This is used to calculate surplus places compared to actual roll.

· Standard Number (SN): this is the greater of either a number derived from the MOE calculation, or the actual number of pupils admitted to the school in 1990/91 (for primary schools) or 1979/80 or 1989/90 (for secondary schools). Since Standard Numbers apply only to a single year group, it is necessary to multiply the relevant standard number by the number of year groups in the school's normal age range in order to determine the overall capacity. Sometimes a school will have different SNs for different year groups.

d. New `Net Capacity' measure

From June 2002 the capacity of schools (and hence the level of surplus) will be based on a revised method of assessment, known as `net capacity' which aims to be fairer and more realistic than current measures. The DfEE issued guidance in March 2001 following consultation as part of the asset management process - http://www.dfee.gov.uk/amps . However, some details are still to follow.

To reduce the burden on LEAs, from June 2001 the DfES are organising and contracting directly with independent surveyors to measure all schools' capacities and collate the information. The results will then be given to each LEA to confirm the `net' capacity for use, from the schedule of useable `workplaces' in the net area, by June 2002. LEAs are being granted some funding to cover their, and schools' associated costs. In June 2002 the New Education (Information as to the Provision of Education) Regulations come into force and net capacity will be used by DfES to set future Basic Need funding, by Authorities for future SOPs, and in the publication of any statutory proposals. In Autumn 2002 surplus places information will be published, based on a revised analysis using the net capacity measurements. (It is anticipated that this will mop-up some surplus places).

e. Rural schools: The DfES guidance to the SOCs makes clear that the presumption continues to be against the closure of rural schools, and that in considering such proposals the Committee should take into account the standards of the school proposed for closure and those of alternative schools, the distance and nature of the journey to alternative schools, and the effect of closure on the community as a whole. Since February 1998 the rate of closure has been reduced from an average of 30 a year to just seven since August 1999. However there seems to be no definition of rural. Many LEAs argue this case for other tightly geographically defined communities.

3. HOW GOOD IS THE SERVICE/FUNCTION?

i. Inspection Toolkit

a. Essential statistical evidence to identify any key issues

i. Past two years' Section 21 returns to the DfES setting out capacity and rolls of each school, particularly identifying those with over 25% surplus places, and if they are also SM/SW stating why they are not proposed for closure.

ii. Compare Database on school places, held by the Audit Commission LEA support team, which can provide the following data (and with comparisons nationally and with statistical neighbours):

The Number and percentage of:

If the above indicators suggest particularly good practice, unusual patterns of indicators or weaknesses it may be desirable to scrutinise:

iii. Financial indicators

· Small schools protection factor within the LMS formula (- this can be subsidising small schools for too long rather than tackling them directly for educational reasons as well as financial)

· Class size revenue and/or capital grant

· Capital grants and credit approvals from DfES

· s106 planning gain funding (relevant in areas of population growth)

b. Documentary evidence that will need to be reviewed includes:

Essential:

It will be necessary to scrutinise the following documents in every organisational inspection, either at the design brief stage or at the beginning of the inspection:

Required only when requested by an inspector:

If the above documents suggest particularly good practice or weaknesses it may be desirable also to scrutinise:

c. Possible interviewees in order of priority

Essential meetings:

It will be necessary to conduct the following interviews in every organisational inspection:

Meetings required in specific circumstances:

If the indicators or the documentation suggest particularly good practice or weaknesses it may be desirable also to interview:

d) Further evidence

If the indicators or the documentation suggest particularly good practice, or weaknesses, it may be desirable also to gather further evidence:

Questions might be asked at the interviews with the CEO and the Lead Member respectively.

Questions might be asked at the focus groups of school headteachers and/or governors about consultation on the SOP, schools' general understanding of data, strategy, implementation and linkages. Inspectors should test interviewees' confidence in the LEA's leadership, grasp and overall direction, rather than dwell on specific details.

If school visits are undertaken, some could be made to schools subject to recent, or destined for, amalgamation, closure, expansion, change of status or involved in an area wide reorganisation, to test LEA policy, process, consultation, and skill in implementing difficult decisions.

e. Best Value Review

The scope of the BVR will vary; some LEAs plan to use the BVR as part of the statutory consultation on changes, e.g. for SEN provision.

The LEA could be expected to have consulted:

· parents of pupils

· headteachers and chairs of governors (the form and coverage of the consultation

· will be different in the case of schools which are their own admission authorities);

· diocesan authorities;

· neighbouring LEAs (where there are cross-border issues).

The LEA could be expected to compare its performance by examining:

· the data content, analysis and presentation of the SOP compared to other LEAs

· support and training for the SOC

· the performance of schools with different ages of transfer

· the performance of schools of different sizes

· the costs of provision if it were to be restructured

· the responses to the school survey on place planning.

The LEA is limited by statutory requirements in challenge to its own provision but

· should be using the SOP to challenge the effectiveness of the current configuration of schools

ii Making Judgements About Impact

a. Grade criteria

b. Evaluating impact

The following may indicate the impact of successful planning:

· no significant surplus places across LEA (below 10%) and no individual schools over 25%

· no significant over-occupancy, e.g. schools with 5% more pupils than capacity.

However, the issue may be more complex. In some LEAs place planning is a very significant issue, and the judgement becomes inextricably linked to issues of school improvement, decision-making by Members and Chief Officers, and the relationship with schools and other partners. Key questions are:

· Does the historical pattern of selective, faith, or single sex schools, or cross-LEA movement, impact on standards and on particular schools. Could the LEA do something they have not done? Are there important issues concerning social inclusion in general or, in particular, racial polarisation between schools, and are they connected to Council policy (e.g. on housing)?

· If LEA has partly or entirely a three-tier system has it analysed the impact of the additional transfer process and the lack of ownership by a particular phase of schools of KS2 and KS3 on performance and target-setting.

Further indicators of impact therefore might be:

· The pattern of schools' performance in relation to their context and intake, and form of organisation. The extent to which this has been a factor in LEA planning of place provision

c. Aspects of clear and achievable strategy

all LEAs:

· the LEA sets out to meet all statutory duties, to secure adequate places and to have no pupils not in any education provision (see guidance paper 37);

· the LEA has a strategic approach, is clear about its role, and that of the SOC, and is abreast of all recent DfES guidance;

· the SOP supports the Council's overall strategic priorities, including the corporate policy on social inclusion and regeneration, and it contributes to raising standards;

· the LEA is making progress on key issues in co-operation with the SOC, schools,

· dioceses, Early Years Development and Childcare Partnership (EYDCP) and FE;

· there is comprehensive, clear and coherent planning which is integrated with the

· Asset Management Plan and EDP in order to support school improvement;

· consideration of SEN issues, inclusion and the role and rolls of special schools are integrated in SOP and there are links to health and social services;

· under-5s planning is well co-ordinated with EYCDP and monitored, with clear plans to expand provision to meet targets for four and three year olds;

· post-16 provision is co-ordinated between schools, FE and other providers in the

· Life-Long Learning Partnership;

· the availability / need / cost of home to school transport is regularly reviewed;

· the LEA has secured training for the School Organisation Committee;

· the Infant Class Size Plan is being implemented and monitored termly and is on target to deliver the pledge;

· the LEA is discussing sufficiency suitability and condition of buildings with schools through the Asset Management Plan process;

· school organisation is supported by the Capital strategy including external partnerships;

the following are relevant to some LEAs:

· the strategy involves the LEA in planning in co-operation with partners, to tackle surplus places and/or overcrowding;

· the strategy for major reorganisation proposals includes detailed plans for effective implementation from consultation to closure/ new schools/expansion, and these are closely linked to school improvement;

· corporate planning for rural areas includes consideration of educational issues;

· in areas of population growth or loss, corporate strategy involves education working with housing and other bodies to improve planning and control 'blight' or overcrowding, and to secure planning deals for new schools;

· the LEA has information systems to keep it in touch with cross-LEA pupil movement or population volatility, and liaises with the National Asylum Seekers Support Service and other bodies and agencies;

· there is a strategy for tackling difficult and unpopular issues such as closing or expanding certain schools, and a mechanism for compromise where there are big surpluses in tiny rural schools or in the VA sector;

· the strategy includes consideration of the educational and resourcing problems of small schools and sixth forms, and unpopular / failing schools in a spiral of decline.

d. Audit of need

The audit should mainly be contained in the SOP; it should include:

· forecasting of school places (this should be accurate to 1%);

· processes to regularly report to Members actual pupil numbers, and to review SNs and Admissions Limits;

· detailed analysis of the issues underlying surplus places or over-crowding¹

¹ For instance, the surplus may not be real, because space may be being used for community purposes, EiC activity etc, or some space may be inaccessible.

e. Promoting school autonomy.

DfES believes the autonomy of schools is supported by the increasing diversity of organisational structures and school ethos.

Virtually all grant maintained schools became Foundation or Voluntary Aided, and continue to control their own admissions. In a minority of LEAs, these alone or with CTCs and City Academies form the majority of secondary provision.

485 secondary schools have now been designated as specialist schools, which therefore liaise closely with the Technology Colleges Trust as well as with their LEA. LEAs should, nevertheless, support schools' applications for specialist status since specialist schools will make some community provision and will support other schools. At least one LEA has brokered joint applications from all secondary schools for specialist status in an LEA partnership ".

Fifteen City Academies will open in 2002 or 2003, with more Academies (as they will be renamed,) to follow. They will be publicly-funded independent schools, subject to inspection by Ofsted and cannot charge fees. They are constituted as charitable companies, and have sponsors from the voluntary and private sectors, although the sponsors are not able to make profits from these schools. They will operate under funding agreements with the Secretary of State. Like the fifteen City Technology Colleges, they will be independent of LEAs but they will usually have an LEA representative on the governing body. Academies will have to set targets on the same basis as maintained schools. Their targets will be included in the LEA's EDP2 and their performance will count towards the LEA's performance.

f. Promoting social inclusion.

The LEA's provision of school places should contribute to social inclusion by:

· ensuring all pupils have access to an adequate range of appropriate, local good schools;

· protecting pupils against the possible adverse effects of some schools' right to control admissions, e.g. this can limit the LEA in ensuring the reintegration of excludees from other schools

· locating schools alongside other services (e.g. libraries, health and social services, partly through neighbourhood renewal activity);

· encouraging the co-location of mainstream and special schools, and the development of resource bases on mainstream sites.

Inspectors will need to be alert to the following issues:

· the development of new non-maintained faith schools, is a live issue in some LEAs, as is the expansion or change of status to increase Christian aided schools. The recent Cantle report on Community Cohesion and reports following riots in some Northern cities 2001 highlighted the contribution of schools to community cohesion, and criticised the impact of racially segregated schooling.

· Changes in school places may increase or reduce racial polarisation in schooling, depending on the number of places in various schools and the respective admissions criteria; inspectors will therefore need to consider guidance papers 33 and 42 before coming to judgement on the LEA's places policy; these issues may exist even where expansion of a sector is not planned and they will still need due consideration;

· trade-offs with wider community and political priorities are harder to make and judge in rural and inner city areas; DfES guidance to SOCs discourages the closure of rural or church schools and requires consideration of the need to minimise travel-to-school time and costs; however, some inner-city communities feel trapped with a school in a cycle of declining standards, roll and popularity, and may have to face the alternative of losing the local school and travelling instead.

4. IS THE SERVICE/FUNCTION IMPROVING?

a. Measures of improvement

These are dependent on the context of the LEA and could be strategic or operational. Indicators might be:

· progress in meeting the recommendations from previous LEAI or external audit reports;

· reduction in surplus places or over-crowding;

· a clear SOP and evidence of implementation of proposals affecting schools;

· better understanding and agreement from schools.

b. Rates of improvement

This is dependent on the unique context of each LEA. Inspectors should note that in some circumstances improvement can be rapid: a small LEA closing one secondary school may thereby cut all its surplus places.

c. evidence required to judge the capacity to improve further

· positive relationships with the dioceses, other partners and schools;

· a strategic awareness by Members and senior officers, particularly where there has been weakness in places provision in the past;

· good leadership by senior and middle ranking officers in implementing plans and in co-ordinating across the education service (e.g. with school improvement work);

· a proposal or timetable for action, especially where the future of one school is crucial (even if this is in the form of a confidential paper);

· innovation, such as securing PFI funding or developers' funding, or devising a means for supporting special schools;

· corporate expertise and commitment (e.g. links with housing and regeneration policy).