Meeting documents
Cabinet
Wednesday, 10th December, 2003
Bath & North East Somerset Council |
|||
MEETING: |
COUNCIL EXECUTIVE |
AGENDA |
|
MEETING DATE: |
10th DECEMBER 2003 |
||
TITLE: |
|||
WARD: |
KEYNSHAM EAST, KEYNSHAM NORTH, KEYNSHAM SOUTH AND SALTFORD |
||
AN OPEN PUBLIC ITEM |
|||
List of attachments to this report: Consultation Document "A Review of Primary Schools in the Keynsham Area" |
1 THE ISSUE
1.1 Reviews of the way in which schools are organised are an important element of the Council's strategic management role. Regular examination of the supply of, and demand for, school places is essential in order to ensure that education provision is being delivered in the most effective way.
1.2 At September 2003 the Keynsham/Saltford area has, depending on method of calculation, 130 or 198 unfilled places representing approximately 8% or 12% of capacity. The fall in the birth rate in the locality (reflecting general national trends), and the absence of significant new housing developments in the area mean that the situation is likely to deteriorate further.
2 RECOMMENDATION
2.1 The Executive is recommended to note the work of the Education, Youth, Culture & Leisure Overview and Scrutiny Panel (EYCL OSP) and to consider their views which are included at paragraphs 4.9 to 4.16
2.2 The Executive is recommended to approve a second phase of the Review and agree that the aims of the Review remain a) improving educational standards, b) ensuring that resources (land, buildings, funding and people) are used in the most effective way and c) attempting to deliver improved access to high quality facilities to children, school staff and the wider community.
2.3 The Executive is recommended to authorise the Education Director to initiate a consultation exercise during the Spring term incorporating the proposals set out in Section 5.
Printed on recycled paper
3 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
3.1 The costs of the Review and related activities can be met from existing resources.
3.2 There are significant costs of taking, or not taking action. These will only be quantifiable after further work. There are potential capital costs if proposals emerge which lead to the creation of one or more new or replacement schools. There are potential capital receipts if existing sites are vacated.
3.3 It is a legal requirement that any capital funding required for the implementation of a proposal must be in place prior to a decision being taken to implement the proposal.
4 THE REPORT
4.1 At its meeting on 9 July 2003 the Council Executive adopted a School Organisation Plan (the Plan) for the period 2003-2008. At a meeting of the full Council on 17 July the Plan also received unanimous support and the Plan was finally approved by the School Organisation Committee (a body independent of the Council) on 22 July 2003.
4.2 The Plan included a new process for undertaking reviews of schools. This process was developed through work undertaken by the EYCL OSP who consulted widely and heard from a number of key stakeholders during this process.
4.3 The Plan stated that those areas most in need of a review were those which presented the highest number of unfilled places. This includes Keynsham / Saltford.
4.4 Members are invited to note that the method used by the Department for Education & Skills for calculating the numbers of unfilled places only takes into account the number of places unfilled at schools where capacity exceeds the number of children on roll. It does not take account of the deficit of places at schools.
4.5 An initial document was prepared and distributed to key stakeholders for `fact-checking' on September 29th. Following responses a number of corrections and clarifications were made and a further document was issued on October 16th. A third document was published on November 10th. This document contained all the agreed facts, requests for clarification and correction, the LEA response to those requests and some draft conclusions drawn up by Officers.
4.6 The November 10th document was discussed at a specially arranged public meeting of the EYCL OSP, held on November 12th at Broadlands School, Keynsham. The notes of the meeting (attached as Appendix 2) show that all speakers at the meeting recognised that action was required in order to address the current and projected numbers of unfilled places. There was no clear opinion about how this might be achieved but it was acknowledged, with regret, that school closures may form part of the solution.
4.7 All speakers and Panel members stated explicitly that whatever changes were planned the key outcome must be better provision for children (and by logical extension, staff and the wider community).
4.8 The OSP organised a visit to each of the schools covered by this review. This took place on 24th November 2003. Following this tour Panel members arrived at certain conclusions. Members are invited to note the work of the Panel and to consider their recommendations.
4.9 Panel members agreed that taking no action was not an option.
4.10 The possibility of `mothballing' buildings at certain schools was discussed. This means the closure of parts of buildings or temporary classrooms. If demographic trends are reversed these buildings could then be taken back into use in several years time without the need to provide new accommodation. The Panel believed that this solution would reinforce a negative image of schools where `mothballing' had taken place. They rejected this as a solution.
4.11 Panel members took the view that Temple Primary, located as it is on two sites, faced difficulties and ask the Executive to consider whether Temple should be replaced on a new site in Keynsham. They asked that Officers undertake investigations into the provision of a suitable site in the town.
4.12 Consideration was also given to closing Keynsham Primary and replacing Temple Primary School on the Keynsham Primary site.
4.13 The Panel also considered the possibility of closing both Temple Primary and Keynsham Primary and establishing a new school on the Keynsham Primary site.
4.14 In relation to the options identified at 4.11 to 4.13, the Panel recognised that there were capital costs and capital benefits to each option.
4.15 Panel members considered that there was no need, at this time, to propose changes to Chandag Infant, Chandag Junior, Castle Primary, St John's CE Primary or Saltford CE Primary.
4.16 The Panel also drew the attention of Officers to specific improvements needed in schools which were raised during the public meeting on November 12th and during the site visits on 24th November.
4.17 The final Review is now attached. This document provides the basis for decision-making.
4.18 The attached paper contains references to data from the Primary Care Trust (PCT). Some stakeholders have expressed reservations about proceeding on the basis of this data. Members are asked to agree that a cautious approach should be taken in order to ensure that the outcomes of the Review, whatever they may be, are based on a clear understanding of the future needs of the area. Further discussions with the PCT will be required in order to validate the data.
4.19 Members are invited to agree that the school provision in this area remains in need of a fundamental review.
4.20 Members are invited to agree that, having taken into account the views expressed at the public meeting on 12th November, and the views of the OSP, further consultation should be undertaken during the Spring term on the basis of the options set out in sections 5.1 to 5.7
5 CONCLUSIONS
The following options will form the basis for future consultation. The Executive is invited to consider whether any of these options should not be pursued. Members are asked to note that closures of schools, establishment of new schools or significant enlargement of existing schools are subject to highly prescriptive legal processes. Representations regarding any statutory proposals will, in all likelihood, mean that proposals are referred to the School Organisation Committee (SOC). SOC is a body independent of the Council and decisions of the Committee must be unanimous. If unanimity on a decision cannot be achieved the proposal is referred to the Office of the Schools Adjudicator. OSA decisions are final.
Members are referred to paragraph 3.3 regarding the requirement for capital funding in particular circumstances.
5.1 Closure of Keynsham Primary School and redistribution of pupils to other Keynsham schools with any necessary increases in capacity at the receiving schools being funded from the Capital Programme. Disposal of the Keynsham Primary School site and any receipts that may arise to be returned to the Capital Programme.
5.2 Closure of Temple Primary School and redistribution of pupils to other Keynsham schools with any necessary increases in capacity at the receiving schools being funded from the Capital Programme. Disposal of the Temple Primary School sites and any receipts that may arise to be returned to the Capital Programme.
5.3 Closure of both Temple Primary School and Keynsham Primary School and redistribution of pupils to other Keynsham schools with any necessary increases in capacity at the receiving schools being funded from the Capital Programme. Disposal of Keynsham and Temple sites and any receipts that may arise to be returned to the Capital Programme.
5.4 Closure of both Temple Primary School and Keynsham Primary School and the creation of a new primary school on the Keynsham Primary site. Disposal of the Temple Primary School sites and any receipts that may arise be used to assist with the development of the new school.
5.5 Closure of Keynsham Primary School and the replacement of Temple Primary School on the existing Keynsham Primary site. Disposal of the Temple Primary School sites and any receipts that may arise be used to assist with the development of the new buildings.
5.6 Closure of Keynsham Primary School and the replacement of Temple Primary on a new site in Keynsham. Disposal of Keynsham Primary School site and Temple Primary School sites and any receipts used to fund development of the new Temple Primary School.
5.7 Amalgamation of Chandag Infant School and Chandag Junior School, as a two form entry school, from 1 September 2008. Examine the potential for creating this new school in new buildings on one of the existing sites, disposing of any surplus site area and returning the receipts to the Capital Programme. N.B. Members are invited to note that the earliest possible date for amalgamation would be September 1 2008. Further details of the process can be found on page 31.
Contact person |
Bruce Austen School Organisation Manager 01225 395169 |
Background papers |
School Organisation Plan 2003-2008 |
A REVIEW OF PRIMARY SCHOOLS IN THE KEYNSHAM AREA Castle Primary School Chandag Infant School Chandag Junior School Keynsham Primary School Saltford CofE Primary School St John's CofE Primary Keynsham Temple Primary School Enquiries to: Bruce Austen School Organisation Manager Education Service Bath & North East Somerset P O Box 25 Riverside KEYNSHAM BS31 1DN Tel: 01225 395169 or e-mail: September to December 2003 |
A REVIEW OF PRIMARY SCHOOLS IN THE KEYNSHAM AREA
1. WHY ARE WE REVIEWING THIS AREA?
1.1 All primary schools in Bath & North East Somerset are to be reviewed over the next four years. Each school will be reviewed alongside its partner schools in a geographical area. At the end of each Area Review elected Councillors may decide that some changes (school closures, new schools, enlarging schools etc.) appear to be necessary and initiate a further consultation process focussing on the school(s) affected. It is equally possible that Councillors may simply acknowledge that the pattern of school provision is working effectively and that no changes are required in the short or medium-term.
1.2 The process to be followed when undertaking an Area Review has been the subject of wide and lengthy consultation. It was finally approved by the School Organisation Committee (a body independent of the Council) on 22 July 2003.
1.3 A document entitled "The School Review Process" can be found on the Council website at: www.bathnes.gov.uk/Committee_Papers/OandSEYCL/EYCL021202/10SchoolReviewProcess.htm Paper copies are available on request.
1.4 The School Organisation Committee also approved the areas for review during the school year 2003/04. These are the areas showing the highest numbers of unfilled (sometimes referred to as surplus) places. The Keynsham area (including Saltford) is amongst these areas.
1.5 The schools named below are considered in this Review.
Castle Primary School, Newlands Road
Chandag Infant School, Chandag Road
Chandag Junior School, Chandag Road
Keynsham Primary School, Kelston Road
Saltford CofE Primary School, Bath Road, Saltford
St John's CofE Primary, Charlton Park
Temple Primary School, Bath Hill East (and also at Albert Road)
2. INTRODUCTION
2.1 The first stage of the Review has involved the gathering of information on the following:-
· current numbers on roll (September 2003)
· historical numbers on roll (1997-2002)
· anticipated numbers on roll (2004 and beyond)
· levels of recruitment against Standard Number
· unit cost per pupil
· pupil teacher ratios
· home addresses of pupils on roll
· outstanding planned maintenance
· suitability for curriculum delivery
· level of surplus or deficit of places
· levels of educational achievement
· levels of educational deprivation and multiple deprivation in the ward in which the school is located (and more detailed information on the level of educational and economic deprivation amongst children at each school).
2.2 On 29 September, a draft version of this document was circulated to the Headteacher and Chair of Governors of each school covered by the Review, the Headteacher and Chair of Governors of the two secondary schools serving Keynsham, senior officers of the Education Service, the Bath & Wells Diocesan Board of Education, the Roman Catholic Diocese of Clifton, Councillors representing wards in Keynsham and Saltford and Keynsham Town Council. The document was also circulated to members of the Education, Youth, Culture & Leisure Overview & Scrutiny Panel in order to prepare the Panel members for their discussion at a meeting on 3 November.
2.3 A revised version containing amendments and clarifications of facts was issued to all stakeholders on October 17th.
2.4 A further revision was published on November 10th. This document was a duplicate of the revised paper issued on October 17th with the crucial addition of initial conclusions drawn by officers.
3. School Organisation Plan
3.1 Each school has been assessed against policies, established through the School Organisation Plan, regarding school size. The School Organisation Plan states that;
· Infant and junior Schools should be at least one form of entry and a maximum of three with a standard number between 30 and 90.
· No infant school should have 60 or fewer children on roll.
· No junior school should have 90 or fewer children on roll.
· Urban/suburban primary schools should be at least one form of entry and a maximum of two with a standard number between 30 and 60.
· No urban/suburban primary school should have fewer than 180 children on roll.
· The maximum desirable size for an all through primary school is 420 pupils.
3.2 Both infant and junior schools meet the minimum size and admission number criteria. All the primary schools have acceptable admission numbers. At September 2003 two of the primary schools covered by the Review have fewer than 180 children on roll.
3.3 The School Organisation Plan agreed on July 22 2003 stated the following in relation to Keynsham "At the time of publication of the original draft Plan significant housing developments were planned for Keynsham. As this Plan reaches final draft stage and approval the planned large-scale housing development for Keynsham has been deleted from the Local Plan. Therefore, there is no prospect of unfilled places in the town being taken up by residents of new housing." The housing developments that are still identified for the town will add 74 dwellings at Somerdale and at the former Cannocks garage plus an unspecified element of residential development at St John's Court.
3.4 The School Organisation Plan agreed on 17 July 2001 stated that "the LEA's preferred option for school organisation at Key Stages 1 and 2 is all-through primary schools. This also includes the Foundation Stage in nursery and reception classes." Of the schools covered by this Review there is one infant school and one junior school. One primary school also operates an LEA nursery class.
3.5 Readers will note that two of the seven schools covered by this Review are Church of England schools (both are Voluntary Controlled). Any changes in the area may result in a change in the proportion of denominational places in Bath & North East Somerset. At present, 47% of primary school places in Bath & North East Somerset are in Church of England schools. In Keynsham this percentage is 33%.
3.6 All schools have also been assessed under the Authority's Asset Management Plan (AMP). The AMP is concerned with the Condition, Suitability and Sufficiency of schools. The Key Data sheets at the back of the document show the position at these schools in relation to the AMP headings.
4. Keynsham - The Context
4.1 A map showing the location of the schools is attached.
4.2 Keynsham/Saltford has a population of approximately 19,500 of which, at the date of the 2001 National Census, 2860 were between the ages of 0-10.
4.3 Data from the Primary Care Trust was received on October 22nd. This shows the position at April 2003.
4 Levels of Educational Achievement
4.1 There are various measures of educational performance. Simple examination of headline results may not reveal the success (or otherwise) of a school.
4.2 Care must be taken when analysing results of small year groups and making comparisons with schools that are significantly different in size. In small schools one pupil can have a very marked effect on the percentage figures. OFSTED makes the following statement:
Care should be taken when analysing the results of small year groups and small schools. The effect of one additional pupil on, for example, a school percentage measure can be considerable, whereas in larger schools the effect will be less marked. This does not mean that analysing the performance of small cohorts is invalid. Rather it means that the findings from such analyses should be interpreted carefully, and may need to be augmented with other information or considered over more than one year. |
6. Levels of Educational and Multiple Deprivation
6.1 All wards in England have been assessed under a range of headings in order to determine, not only the overall levels of deprivation in a given community, but to compile an elemental breakdown of the type of deprivation. The headings are Income, Employment, Health, Education, Housing, Geographical Access to Services and Child Poverty. The results of this survey were published by central Government in August 2000.
6.2 The measure of educational deprivation is compiled by considering the following data:-
· the number of working age adults with no qualifications
· the number of children aged 16 and over who are not in full-time education
· the proportion of 17-19 year olds who have not successfully applied for university
· KS2 primary school performance data
· primary school children with English as an additional language for 1998
· absenteeism (authorised and unauthorised) at primary level for 1998.
6.3 8414 wards were assessed. The lower the score the higher the level of educational deprivation. For comparison purposes readers will wish to know that the wards with the highest and lowest scores in the Bath & North East Somerset area are Peasedown (728) and Combe Down (8015)
6.4 In terms of multiple deprivation, the comparison should be made with Twerton which is ranked at 1111. Saltford, at 8135, is the least deprived ward in Bath & North East Somerset and is within the `top' 5% of wards in England.
6.5 Information regarding the extent of child poverty is also included as an illustration of the economic deprivation in the area. For comparison purposes, Twerton scores 286 placing it within the `bottom' 5% of wards in England. The former ward of Chew Valley West scores 8056.
6.6 Information has also been gathered showing the numbers and proportion of pupils from each ward attending each school. This is shown on the Key Data Sheet.
7 Timescales
7.1 The document was considered by the Overview & Scrutiny Panel (OSP) at its meeting at 5.30 on November 3 2003 at the Guildhall, Bath. The OSP is holding a public session in Keynsham to hear contributions from invited stakeholders. This has been arranged for 4 p.m. on 12th November at Broadlands School.
7.2 A meeting for Bath & North East Somerset Councillors representing the wards in Keynsham and Saltford took place on October 27th.
7.3 The final paper will be considered by the Council Executive which meets at 10.00 on 10 December 2003 at Keynsham Town Hall.
KEY DATA
Numbers on Roll, Forecasts & Surplus Places (Sufficiency 1)
Level of Recruitment against Standard Number
Financial Information
Outstanding Planned Maintenance (Condition)
Site and Building Areas (Sufficiency 2)
Deprivation Data
Educational Standards
Suitability
Numbers on Roll, Forecasts & Surplus Places School |
Category |
PAN Sept 2004 |
Net Capacity |
Sep 97 Actual |
Sep 98 Actual |
Sep 99 Actual |
Sep 00 Actual |
Sep 01 Actual |
Sep 02 Actual |
Surplus Places Sep 02 |
Average NOR 97-02 |
Sep 03 Actual |
Surplus Places Sep 03 |
Sep 06 Forecast |
Surplus Places Forecast Sept 06 |
Castle Primary |
Community |
40 |
240 |
224 |
243 |
241 |
231 |
220 |
233 |
7 |
232 |
221 |
19 |
||
Chandag Infants |
Community |
60 |
180 |
161 |
150 |
155 |
171 |
178 |
180 |
0 |
166 |
177 |
3 |
||
Chandag Junior |
Community |
68 |
240 |
256 |
260 |
261 |
271 |
280 |
275 |
-35 |
267 |
288 |
-48 |
||
Keynsham Primary |
Community |
30 |
243 |
246 |
229 |
224 |
206 |
179 |
156 |
87 |
207 |
122 |
121 |
||
Saltford CofE Primary |
Controlled |
50 |
350 |
352 |
348 |
353 |
346 |
347 |
344 |
6 |
348 |
335 |
15 |
||
St.John's CofE Primary, Keynsham |
Controlled |
30 |
210 |
235 |
235 |
229 |
230 |
229 |
230 |
-20 |
231 |
227 |
-17 |
||
Temple Primary |
Community |
30 |
210 |
125 |
128 |
127 |
121 |
142 |
148 |
62 |
132 |
170 |
40 |
||
Totals |
308 |
1,673 |
1,599 |
1,593 |
1,590 |
1,576 |
1,575 |
1,566 |
162 |
1,583 |
1,543 |
198* |
1,457 |
216 |
|
Average |
N/A |
239 |
228 |
228 |
227 |
225 |
225 |
224 |
226 |
225 |
Notes
PAN means Planned Admission Number. This figure equates to the number of pupils the school must admit if demand exists. PAN has replaced Standard Number for admissions from September 2004.
Net Capacity is the physical capacity of the school and shows the number of places available. It is derived from a DfES formula.
*Surplus places means unfilled places. Not all unfilled places are surplus. The calculation of the number of unfilled places takes account only of those schools where the number of pupils is fewer than the number of places available. Shortfalls of places in schools are not counted. Therefore, although the difference between total numbers on roll and total capacity is 130 (1673 - 1543) there are in fact 198 unfilled places using the Audit Commission / DfES methodology.
The purpose of showing the average number on roll over the five years previous to 2003/04 is to ensure that an unusual variation in admissions in one year does not provide a distorted picture.
Levels of Recruitment against Standard Number
School |
1997 |
1998 |
1999 |
2000 |
2001 |
2002 |
2003 |
Average |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
SN |
Intake |
% |
SN |
Intake |
% |
SN |
Intake |
% |
SN |
Intake |
% |
SN |
Intake |
% |
SN |
Intake |
% |
SN |
Intake |
% |
% of SN |
|||||||||||||||||||
Castle Primary |
38 |
36 |
95% |
38 |
40 |
105% |
38 |
31 |
82% |
38 |
30 |
79% |
40 |
23 |
58% |
40 |
37 |
93% |
40 |
27 |
68% |
82% |
||||||||||||||||||
Chandag Infant |
60 |
59 |
98% |
60 |
38 |
63% |
60 |
46 |
77% |
60 |
60 |
100% |
60 |
58 |
97% |
60 |
60 |
100% |
60 |
58 |
97% |
90% |
||||||||||||||||||
Chandag Junior |
75 |
51 |
68% |
75 |
56 |
75% |
75 |
65 |
87% |
75 |
66 |
88% |
75 |
57 |
76% |
75 |
63 |
84% |
75 |
69 |
92% |
81% |
||||||||||||||||||
Keynsham Primary |
45 |
35 |
78% |
45 |
33 |
73% |
45 |
32 |
71% |
45 |
18 |
40% |
45 |
19 |
42% |
45 |
14 |
31% |
45 |
4 |
9% |
49% |
||||||||||||||||||
Saltford CofE Primary |
50 |
51 |
102% |
50 |
35 |
70% |
50 |
42 |
84% |
50 |
48 |
96% |
50 |
49 |
98% |
50 |
45 |
90% |
50 |
36 |
72% |
87% |
||||||||||||||||||
St John's CofE Primary, Keynsham |
34 |
34 |
100% |
34 |
34 |
100% |
34 |
31 |
91% |
34 |
34 |
100% |
34 |
34 |
100% |
34 |
32 |
94% |
34 |
34 |
100% |
98% |
||||||||||||||||||
Temple Primary |
35 |
14 |
40% |
35 |
15 |
43% |
35 |
9 |
26% |
35 |
15 |
43% |
35 |
22 |
63% |
35 |
16 |
46% |
35 |
24 |
69% |
47% |
||||||||||||||||||
Totals |
337 |
280 |
83% |
337 |
251 |
74% |
337 |
256 |
76% |
337 |
271 |
80% |
339 |
262 |
77% |
339 |
267 |
79% |
339 |
252 |
74% |
78% |
||||||||||||||||||
Intake figures are compiled from analysis of the September Pupil Count undertaken by the LEA on the 3rd Thursday of each September |
Notes
Levels of recruitment are shown as percentages as changes to Standard Number were implemented at several schools
over the period September 1997 to September 2002. This was often as a result of the infant class size legislation.
Financial Information
School |
Formula Allocation |
FTE pupils |
per pupil |
Standards Grant |
Standards Fund |
Devolved Capital |
Other Funding Total |
Other Funding per FTE pupil |
Total Funding |
Total Funding per FTE pupil |
Castle Primary |
458,574 |
228 |
2,011 |
30,000 |
20,895 |
21,730 |
72,848 |
320 |
531,199 |
2,330 |
Chandag Infant |
364,953 |
178 |
2,050 |
18,000 |
14,593 |
19,017 |
51,793 |
291 |
416,563 |
2,340 |
Chandag Junior |
513,989 |
281 |
1,829 |
30,000 |
17,927 |
23,002 |
71,100 |
253 |
584,918 |
2,082 |
Keynsham Primary |
466,712 |
152 |
3,070 |
18,000 |
22,170 |
19,250 |
59,684 |
393 |
526,132 |
3,461 |
Saltford CE Primary |
647,428 |
342 |
1,893 |
30,000 |
19,318 |
26,394 |
75,856 |
222 |
723,140 |
2,114 |
St John's CE Primary |
457,199 |
228 |
2,005 |
30,000 |
14,479 |
21,052 |
65,726 |
288 |
522,730 |
2,293 |
Temple Primary |
362,031 |
166 |
2,181 |
18,000 |
18,909 |
18,508 |
55,639 |
335 |
417,448 |
2,515 |
Totals |
3,270,886 |
1,575 |
174,000 |
128,291 |
148,953 |
452,647 |
3,722,130 |
|||
Average |
467,269 |
225 |
2,077 |
24,857 |
18,561 |
21,279 |
64,664 |
287 |
531,733 |
2,363 |
Outstanding Planned Maintenance
School |
Category |
Outstanding Planned Maintenance |
OPM per head Based on average NOR |
(OPM) |
97-02 |
||
Castle Primary |
Community |
13,000 |
56.03 |
Chandag Infants |
Community |
90,000 |
542.16 |
Chandag Junior |
Community |
209,500 |
784.64 |
Keynsham Primary |
Community |
7,500 |
36.23 |
Saltford CofE Primary |
Controlled |
26,350 |
75.72 |
St.John's CofE Primary, Keynsham |
Controlled |
97,000 |
419.91 |
Temple Primary |
Community |
276,000 |
2090.91 |
Totals |
719,350 |
454.42 |
|
Notes
The figures showing the total costs of outstanding planned maintenance show only those works which are regarded as Urgent or Essential.
DfES and Property Services define Urgent as `Work that will prevent immediate closure of premises, and/or address an immediate
high risk to the health and safety of occupants and/or remedy a serious breach of legislation'
Essential is defined as `work required within two years that will prevent serious deterioration of the fabric or services and/or address
a medium risk to the health and safety of occupants and/or remedy a less serious breach of legislation.
Site & Building AreasSchool |
Category |
Proportion of required site area |
Proportion of required building area |
Castle Primary |
Community |
85% |
105% |
Chandag Infants |
Community |
43% |
92% |
Chandag Junior |
Community |
56% |
121% |
Keynsham Primary |
Community |
172% |
202% |
Saltford CofE Primary |
Controlled |
156% |
117% |
St.John's CofE Primary, Keynsham |
Controlled |
101% |
125% |
Temple Primary |
Community |
31% |
101% |
Totals |
|||
Notes
An assessment of these areas forms part of the Sufficiency element of the Asset Management Plan.
Building Bulletin 82 (BB82) `Area Guidelines for Schools' is a DfES guidance document which indicates total site and building areas required. Figures take account of the size of school and the age range covered. BB82 is in the process of being revised.
A site or building which is too small will make management of the school more problematic. A site or building that is oversized will require more resources in order to maintain it. Such resources will come from the school budget and thus leave less to allocate to direct delivery of the curriculum.
Levels of Educational and Social Deprivation
School |
Category |
Ward |
Ward Score |
Educational |
Ward Score |
Child |
Educational Deprivation |
Deprivation |
Child Poverty |
Poverty |
|||
Proportion of |
Proportion of |
|||||
pupils from |
pupils from |
|||||
lowest quartile |
Lowest quartile |
|||||
Castle Primary |
Community |
Keynsham South |
2214 |
96.4% |
4242 |
21.3% |
Chandag Infants |
Community |
Keynsham East |
7743 |
19.5% |
6643 |
6.7% |
Chandag Junior |
Community |
Keynsham East |
7743 |
16.5% |
6643 |
3.9% |
Keynsham Primary |
Community |
Keynsham North |
1783 |
92.5% |
3429 |
42.2% |
Saltford CofE Primary |
Controlled |
Saltford |
7447 |
4.0% |
7617 |
0.9% |
St.John's CofE Primary, Keynsham |
Controlled |
Keynsham South |
2214 |
90.1% |
4242 |
19.3% |
Temple Primary |
Community |
Keynsham North |
1783 |
92.5% |
3429 |
15.5% |
Notes
These figures are taken from the Indices of Multiple Deprivation published by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister in 2000.
The extent of educational deprivation in a ward is assessed by considering the following;
The number of working age adults with no qualifications
The number of children aged 16 and over who are not in full-time education
The proportion of 17-19 year olds who have not successfully applied for Higher Education
KS2 primary school performance data
Primary school children with English as an additional language for 1998
Absenteeism (authorised and unauthorised) at primary level for 1998
Educational Standards 2002
School |
Category |
KS1 % of children Level 2c |
Key Stage 1 Comparison with other similar Schools nationally |
Key Stage 2 |
Key Stage 2 Comparison with other similar Schools nationally |
||||||||
% Level 4 |
|||||||||||||
Reading |
Writing |
Maths |
Reading |
Writing |
Maths |
English |
Maths |
Science |
English |
Maths |
Science |
||
Castle Primary |
Community |
71 |
66 |
74 |
well below E |
very low E* |
very low E* |
70 |
77 |
80 |
below D |
in line C |
well below E |
Chandag Infants |
Community |
98 |
100 |
97 |
well above A |
very high A* |
in line C |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
Chandag Junior |
Community |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
93 |
92 |
99 |
well above A |
well above A |
above B |
Keynsham Primary |
Community |
81 |
63 |
70 |
in line C |
well below E |
very low E* |
77 |
73 |
85 |
above B |
above B |
in line C |
Saltford CofE Primary |
Controlled |
94 |
90 |
98 |
in line C |
below D |
in line C |
98 |
98 |
100 |
well above A |
well above A |
very high A* |
St.John's CofE Primary, Keynsham |
Controlled |
100 |
100 |
100 |
Very high A* |
very high A* |
very high A* |
87 |
94 |
94 |
in line C |
well above A |
in line C |
Temple Primary |
Community |
79 |
79 |
79 |
well below E |
well below E |
well below E |
72 |
88 |
100 |
below D |
well above A |
very high A* |
LEA Average |
88 |
86 |
93 |
78 |
78 |
89 |
|||||||
KEY
A* - E* grades are based on Ofsted comparison with similar schools.
A* = Top 5% to E* = Bottom 5%
SUITABILITY ASSESSMENTS
In conjunction with sufficiency and condition assessments, suitability assessments help in the targeting of resources where they can have the greatest effect in raising standards and maximising value for money. The assessments help in identifying any need for additional accommodation and for improvements to, or removal of, existing accommodation.
The definitions below will assist readers in assessing the scale of the suitability problems faced by the schools within this Review.
All data is based on assessments undertaken during the Autumn Term 2002-2003
Category A - Unable to teach curriculum.
This is most likely to be associated with numbers and types of teaching spaces available. There
should be enough appropriate spaces to accommodate all pupils for the whole of the curriculum
Category B - Teaching methods inhibited. Unsuitability of spaces may mean that schools' preferred teaching methods are inhibited. This may be associated with numbers and types of teaching spaces, or with the size and other aspects of spaces
Category C - Management or organisation of school affected adversely.
Unsuitability of spaces and/or the way they relate to each other may affect the organisation or management of the school
Category D - Pupil or staff morale or pupil behaviour affected adversely.
Unsuitability of spaces may affect pupil or staff morale or pupil behaviour.
School name |
CASTLE PRIMARY |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LEA / School No. |
800 |
/ |
2260 |
Assessment date |
7.11.02 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Spaces |
Direct impacts |
H&S / |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
on education |
Security |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Space classification |
Existing |
Optimum |
Surplus |
Shortfall |
Impact |
A |
B |
C |
D |
High |
Medium |
Low |
Comments |
|||||||||||||||||||||
1 |
General teaching |
8 |
8 |
4 |
Undersized |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2 |
Science |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
3 |
IT |
1 |
1 |
1 |
Undersized |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
4 |
Art |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
5 |
Technology |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
6 |
Music |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
7 |
Drama |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
8 |
PE |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
9 |
SEN |
1 |
1 |
C |
1 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
10 |
Private study |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
11 |
Hall |
1 |
1 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
12 |
Library |
1 |
1 |
B |
1 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
13 |
Resource areas |
1 |
1 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
14 |
Common room |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
15 |
Practical (Other) |
1 |
1 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
16 |
Group (Other) |
1 |
1 |
C |
1 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
17 |
Miscellaneous (Other) |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
18 |
Teaching spaces |
12 |
13 |
2 |
3 |
6 |
2 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Spaces |
Direct impacts |
H&S / |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
on education |
Security |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Surplus |
Shortfall |
Impact |
A |
B |
C |
D |
High |
Medium |
Low |
Comments |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
19 |
Staff and admin spaces |
5 |
Staffrm/offices/undersized/inadeq vent in toilets |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
20 |
Pupil changing / toilets |
1 |
Inadequate ventilation & light |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
21 |
Teaching storage |
2 |
C |
2 |
No PE /chair storage |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
22 |
Kitchen / dining |
1 |
1 |
Poor floor/open trough drains |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
23 |
Ancillary / circulation |
1 |
1 |
1 |
Scissor action window closers throughout school/MI under/no security system on bldg |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
24 |
Non-teaching spaces |
2 |
2 |
8 |
1 |
2 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
25 |
Playing fields |
1 |
Playing field floods in winter |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
26 |
Hard surfaced play areas |
3 |
Storm drains/uneven paving/concrete bases/hazards |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
27 |
Soft landscaped areas |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
28 |
Access roads and paths |
1 |
Storm drain trip hazard |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
29 |
Car parking |
1 |
No segregation between car park & Infant play |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
30 |
External areas |
1 |
1 |
4 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
31 |
Provision for disabilities and |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
special educational needs |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
School name |
CHANDAG INFANT |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LEA / School No. |
800 |
/ |
2258 |
Assessment date |
9.09.02 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Spaces |
Direct impacts |
H&S / |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
on education |
Security |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Space classification |
Existing |
Optimum |
Surplus |
Shortfall |
Impact |
A |
B |
C |
D |
High |
Medium |
Low |
Comments |
|||||||||||||||||||||
1 |
General teaching |
6 |
6 |
1 |
Classrooms overheat in summer |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2 |
Science |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
3 |
IT |
1 |
1 |
B |
1 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
4 |
Art |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
5 |
Technology |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
6 |
Music |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
7 |
Drama |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
8 |
PE |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
9 |
SEN |
1 |
1 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
10 |
Private study |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
11 |
Hall |
1 |
1 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
12 |
Library |
1 |
1 |
B |
1 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
13 |
Resource areas |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
14 |
Common room |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
15 |
Practical (Other) |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
16 |
Group (Other) |
1 |
1 |
C |
1 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
17 |
Miscellaneous (Other) |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
18 |
Teaching spaces |
8 |
11 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Spaces |
Direct impacts |
H&S / |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
on education |
Security |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Surplus |
Shortfall |
Impact |
A |
B |
C |
D |
High |
Medium |
Low |
Comments |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
19 |
Staff and admin spaces |
3 |
Overheat in summer |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
20 |
Pupil changing / toilets |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
21 |
Teaching storage |
1 |
Inadequate hall storage |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
22 |
Kitchen / dining |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
23 |
Ancillary / circulation |
1 |
C |
1 |
1 |
No MI room/no entry system on main door |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
24 |
Non-teaching spaces |
1 |
2 |
3 |
1 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
25 |
Playing fields |
1 |
Site boundary not secure |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
26 |
Hard surfaced play areas |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
27 |
Soft landscaped areas |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
28 |
Access roads and paths |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
29 |
Car parking |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
30 |
External areas |
1 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
31 |
Provision for disabilities and |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
special educational needs |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
School name |
CHANDAG JUNIOR |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LEA / School No. |
800 |
/ |
2242 |
Assessment date |
9.09.02 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Spaces |
Direct impacts |
H&S / |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
on education |
Security |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Space classification |
Existing |
Optimum |
Surplus |
Shortfall |
Impact |
A |
B |
C |
D |
High |
Medium |
Low |
Comments |
|||||||||||||||||
1 |
General teaching |
8 |
9 |
1 |
A |
1 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
2 |
Science |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
3 |
IT |
1 |
1 |
1 |
In temporary classroom. H&S (fire) and security issues. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
4 |
Art |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
5 |
Technology |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
6 |
Music |
1 |
1 |
1 |
In temporary classroom. H&S (fire) and security issues. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
7 |
Drama |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
8 |
PE |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
9 |
SEN |
1 |
1 |
C |
1 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
10 |
Private study |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
11 |
Hall |
1 |
1 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
12 |
Library |
1 |
1 |
1 |
Undersized and poor location on circulation route |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
13 |
Resource areas |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
14 |
Common room |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
15 |
Practical (Other) |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
16 |
Group (Other) |
1 |
1 |
C |
1 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
17 |
Miscellaneous (Other) |
1 |
1 |
Kiln room |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
18 |
Teaching spaces |
13 |
14 |
2 |
3 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
Spaces |
Direct impacts |
H&S / |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
on education |
Security |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Surplus |
Shortfall |
Impact |
A |
B |
C |
D |
High |
Medium |
Low |
Comments |
||||||||||||||||||||
19 |
Staff and admin spaces |
2 |
Secretary's office undersized |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
20 |
Pupil changing / toilets |
1 |
C |
1 |
1 |
Basins outside pupil WCs (8 classrooms). No pupil changing rooms. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
21 |
Teaching storage |
1 |
C |
2 |
PE equipment/chair store inadequate. Central storage inadequate. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
22 |
Kitchen / dining |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
23 |
Ancillary / circulation |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
24 |
Non-teaching spaces |
2 |
5 |
1 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
25 |
Playing fields |
2 |
Site perimeter not secure. Playingfield detached (emergency procedure) |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
26 |
Hard surfaced play areas |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
27 |
Soft landscaped areas |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
28 |
Access roads and paths |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
29 |
Car parking |
1 |
Inadequate carparking |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
30 |
External areas |
1 |
2 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
31 |
Provision for disabilities and |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
special educational needs |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
School name |
KEYNSHAM PRIMARY |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LEA / School No. |
800 |
/ |
2241 |
Assessment date |
8.11.02 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Spaces |
Direct impacts |
H&S / |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
on education |
Security |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Space classification |
Existing |
Optimum |
Surplus |
Shortfall |
Impact |
A |
B |
C |
D |
High |
Medium |
Low |
Comments |
|||||||||||||||||
1 |
General teaching |
9 |
6 |
3 |
3 |
1 |
Poor environment/fire doors do not operate efficiently |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
2 |
Science |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
3 |
IT |
1 |
1 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
4 |
Art |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
5 |
Technology |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
6 |
Music |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
7 |
Drama |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
8 |
PE |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
9 |
SEN |
1 |
1 |
C |
1 |
GT Space 52 used as SEN |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
10 |
Private study |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
11 |
Hall |
1 |
1 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
12 |
Library |
1 |
1 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
13 |
Resource areas |
1 |
1 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
14 |
Common room |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
15 |
Practical (Other) |
2 |
2 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
16 |
Group (Other) |
1 |
1 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
17 |
Miscellaneous (Other) |
GT Space 25 used as Special Therapeutic Facility |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
18 |
Teaching spaces |
16 |
11 |
6 |
1 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
||||||||||||||||||||||
Spaces |
Direct impacts |
H&S / |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
on education |
Security |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Surplus |
Shortfall |
Impact |
A |
B |
C |
D |
High |
Medium |
Low |
Comments |
||||||||||||||||||||
19 |
Staff and admin spaces |
4 |
Offices/toilet undersized/lack of privacy toilets |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
20 |
Pupil changing / toilets |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
21 |
Teaching storage |
2 |
C |
2 |
No PE/chair stores in hall |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
22 |
Kitchen / dining |
2 |
1 |
Open drain in kitchen/damp in kitchen/toilet |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
23 |
Ancillary / circulation |
1 |
1 |
1 |
MI remote location/entrance lobby/ poor environment/mat well trip hazard |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
24 |
Non-teaching spaces |
2 |
3 |
7 |
2 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
25 |
Playing fields |
1 |
Playing field floods in winter/hard in summer |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
26 |
Hard surfaced play areas |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
27 |
Soft landscaped areas |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
28 |
Access roads and paths |
1 |
Cracked step in Reception play area/hazard |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
29 |
Car parking |
1 |
No pupil/vehicular segregation |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
30 |
External areas |
1 |
1 |
1 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
31 |
Provision for disabilities and |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
special educational needs |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
School name |
ST JOHN'S CE PRIMARY, KEYNSHAM |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LEA / School No. |
800 |
/ |
3094 |
Assessment date |
4.10.02 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Spaces |
Direct impacts |
H&S / |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
on education |
Security |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Space classification |
Existing |
Optimum |
Surplus |
Shortfall |
Impact |
A |
B |
C |
D |
High |
Medium |
Low |
Comments |
|||||||||||||||||
1 |
General teaching |
8 |
8 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2 |
Science |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
3 |
IT |
1 |
1 |
B |
1 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
4 |
Art |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
5 |
Technology |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
6 |
Music |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
7 |
Drama |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
8 |
PE |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
9 |
SEN |
1 |
1 |
C |
1 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
10 |
Private study |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
11 |
Hall |
1 |
1 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
12 |
Library |
1 |
1 |
B |
1 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
13 |
Resource areas |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
14 |
Common room |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
15 |
Practical (Other) |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
16 |
Group (Other) |
1 |
1 |
C |
1 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
17 |
Miscellaneous (Other) |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
18 |
Teaching spaces |
9 |
13 |
4 |
2 |
2 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Spaces |
Direct impacts |
H&S / |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
on education |
Security |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Surplus |
Shortfall |
Impact |
A |
B |
C |
D |
High |
Medium |
Low |
Comments |
||||||||||||||||||||
19 |
Staff and admin spaces |
3 |
Undersized |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
20 |
Pupil changing / toilets |
7 |
5 |
Poor environment/no ventilated lobbies |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
21 |
Teaching storage |
1 |
Inadequate storage |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
22 |
Kitchen / dining |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
23 |
Ancillary / circulation |
5 |
4 |
Location of drink fountains/poor environment |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
24 |
Non-teaching spaces |
1 |
15 |
9 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
25 |
Playing fields |
1 |
Site boundary not secure |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
26 |
Hard surfaced play areas |
1 |
3 |
Manholes,,no handrails to steps/play area/metal posts |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
27 |
Soft landscaped areas |
1 |
Reception access grass area unprotected from car park |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
28 |
Access roads and paths |
1 |
1 |
Steps next to boiler house/height of paths from grass |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
29 |
Car parking |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
30 |
External areas |
3 |
5 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
31 |
Provision for disabilities and |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
special educational needs |
School name |
SALTFORD PRIMARY |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LEA / School No. |
800 |
/ |
3102 |
Assessment date |
25.10.02 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Spaces |
Direct impacts |
H&S / |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
on education |
Security |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Space classification |
Existing |
Optimum |
Surplus |
Shortfall |
Impact |
A |
B |
C |
D |
High |
Medium |
Low |
Comments |
|||||||||||||||||
1 |
General teaching |
12 |
12 |
3 |
2 |
Undersized/temperature control |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
2 |
Science |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
3 |
IT |
1 |
1 |
B |
1 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
4 |
Art |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
5 |
Technology |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
6 |
Music |
1 |
1 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
7 |
Drama |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
8 |
PE |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
9 |
SEN |
1 |
1 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
10 |
Private study |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
11 |
Hall |
1 |
1 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
12 |
Library |
1 |
1 |
1 |
Undersized |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
13 |
Resource areas |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
14 |
Common room |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
15 |
Practical (Other) |
1 |
1 |
C |
1 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
16 |
Group (Other) |
1 |
1 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
17 |
Miscellaneous (Other) |
1 |
1 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
18 |
Teaching spaces |
18 |
18 |
2 |
2 |
5 |
1 |
2 |
||||||||||||||||||||||
Spaces |
Direct impacts |
H&S / |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
on education |
Security |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Surplus |
Shortfall |
Impact |
A |
B |
C |
D |
High |
Medium |
Low |
Comments |
||||||||||||||||||||
19 |
Staff and admin spaces |
1 |
C |
1 |
6 |
2 |
No st wrksp/admin & st undersz/no vent lobbs tlts |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
20 |
Pupil changing / toilets |
9 |
Poor environment |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
21 |
Teaching storage |
1 |
C |
2 |
Inadequate gen storage/no PE store |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
22 |
Kitchen / dining |
1 |
1 |
Poor flooring |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
23 |
Ancillary / circulation |
1 |
C |
2 |
1 |
No MI room/narrow corridor |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
24 |
Non-teaching spaces |
3 |
5 |
16 |
4 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
25 |
Playing fields |
2 |
No security entry syst on bldg/bound not secure |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
26 |
Hard surfaced play areas |
1 |
1 |
Inadequate hpa/trip hazards grass to hpa |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
27 |
Soft landscaped areas |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
28 |
Access roads and paths |
1 |
Uneven paving/trip hazards |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
29 |
Car parking |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
30 |
External areas |
1 |
4 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
31 |
Provision for disabilities and |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
special educational needs |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
School name |
TEMPLE PRIMARY |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LEA / School No. |
800 |
/ |
2253 |
Assessment date |
16.09.02 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Spaces |
Direct impacts |
H&S / |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
on education |
Security |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Space classification |
Existing |
Optimum |
Surplus |
Shortfall |
Impact |
A |
B |
C |
D |
High |
Medium |
Low |
Comments |
|||||||||||||||||
1 |
General teaching |
8 |
6 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
Undersized/temperature control/trailing leads |
||||||||||||||||||||||
2 |
Science |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
3 |
IT |
1 |
1 |
B |
1 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
4 |
Art |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
5 |
Technology |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
6 |
Music |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
7 |
Drama |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
8 |
PE |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
9 |
SEN |
2 |
1 |
1 |
School is split site |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
10 |
Private study |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
11 |
Hall |
1 |
1 |
1 |
School is split site/GT Space 59 used as 2nd Hall |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
12 |
Library |
2 |
1 |
1 |
School is split site |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
13 |
Resource areas |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
14 |
Common room |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
15 |
Practical (Other) |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
16 |
Group (Other) |
1 |
1 |
C |
1 |
GT Space 42 used as Group/After School Room |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
17 |
Miscellaneous (Other) |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
18 |
Teaching spaces |
13 |
11 |
4 |
2 |
4 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
Spaces |
Direct impacts |
H&S / |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
on education |
Security |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Surplus |
Shortfall |
Impact |
A |
B |
C |
D |
High |
Medium |
Low |
Comments |
||||||||||||||||||||
19 |
Staff and admin spaces |
9 |
No ventilation/heating/no ventilated lobbies |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
20 |
Pupil changing / toilets |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
21 |
Teaching storage |
1 |
Lack of PE storage on Junior Site |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
22 |
Kitchen / dining |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
23 |
Ancillary / circulation |
2 |
C |
2 |
1 |
Split school -no MI room on either site |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
24 |
Non-teaching spaces |
2 |
3 |
9 |
1 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
25 |
Playing fields |
1 |
2 |
No PFL/grass/front bound hazardous/side insecure |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
26 |
Hard surfaced play areas |
1 |
Steps trip hazard to mobile on Junior site |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
27 |
Soft landscaped areas |
1 |
Pond not fenced |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
28 |
Access roads and paths |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
29 |
Car parking |
1 |
No car parking on either site |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
30 |
External areas |
1 |
1 |
4 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
31 |
Provision for disabilities and |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
special educational needs |
CORRECTIONS REQUESTED AND LEA RESPONSE
Following queries from a small number of stakeholders the LEA revisited the data regarding levels of recruitment against Standard Number. A revised sheet is now included.
Following an exchange of e-mails as a test of the revised data the following was received from Temple Primary School.
`I have looked at the figures on the new spreadsheet and they appear to be correct for Temple except that our 2003 SN should be 30 not 35 which makes our (level of recruitment) 80%.
The LEA is grateful for the assistance of this particular school in checking revised data at short notice. However, the Standard Number for the school in 2003 remains at 35 and not 30 as stated.
Castle Primary
Please note actual number on roll 224 with another pupil due to start next Monday 13th October.
Please amend data accordingly with no other amendments recommended.
Noted. No change made to data. Numbers on roll for all schools are taken from the September Pupil Count undertaken on 17th September.
Chandag Junior
Numbers on Roll Sept 06 - we predict we will have 279 on roll, made up of Y3 68 Y4 68 Y5 68 Y6 75 ( Still under the old PAN) Surplus places therefore -39
Levels of recruitment
These % are based on our old number of 75, we usually had places in Y3 Y4 and always had 75 in Y5 Y6. Now that we have taken this into account and reduced our PAN to 68 we anticipate, because of our popularity and that of the Wellsway catchment area, that we will always fill our 68 places in every year group. The % will therefore be 100 % from 04 onwards. This won't be in your predicted numbers as many people move into the estate during KS2 and you can't predict that. On our past experience we feel that by reducing our schools pupil number from 300 to 272 the school will always be full. NB We are 288 at present.
Both comments noted. No change made. These are probably reasonable predictions but not (yet) facts.
Planned maintenance
£209,500 obviously looks a great deal and I hope people looking at this will be encouraged to visit the schools and see for themselves the high quality of accommodation provided, because on paper you might judge our school as being in a poor state of repair, which is not true.
Noted. No change requested or made.
Site & Building Areas
Was our joint ownership of the Wellsway sports field taken into consideration here? We do have access to fantastic sports areas and this is a real plus point for our school.
Use of areas at other schools is not taken into account. No change made.
Suitability Assessments
Improvements made since this was written:
· Additional secretarial office made, this is shared with the Deputy Head Teacher
· New resources room created out of an old first aid room
· Disabled toilet area is now a well equipped first aid and medical room
· New car park has been made, which now offers ample car spaces, including disabled parking and a segregated pedestrian pathway.
Noted. No changes made to the Suitability Assessment included in the document but these changes MUST be taken into account during the review process.
In addition I would also like to state that by reducing our School pupil number from a possible 300 to 272 (when the full PAN comes into effect) I feel we have already helped to reduce surplus places without damaging the special nature of our school.
Noted. No change requested or made.
Keynsham Primary
A change inserted by the LEA. The site size has been reduced by 2950m2 as a result of the construction of the Neighbourhood Nursery on this site.
Temple Primary
Comment from Councillor Charles Gerrish
On the page headed Levels of Educational and Social Deprivation Temple Primary School is shown in Keynsham East. It is, in fact in Keynsham North.
Noted. Change made following reference to Office of National Statistics website. Council website shows that main school site is in Keynsham East.
Page 3.
3.3 There is still some building planned at Cadburys, Cannocks and St. Johns Court which will
have housing incorporated.
Noted. A clarification has been inserted in this section.
NUMBERS ON ROLL, FORECAST AND SURPLUS PLACES - The corrections to Actual places Sep 03 and Surplus places Sep 03 have been made, but no alterations have been made to the Sep 06 forecast. The figures in this column must be wrong as they are based on a historical average which will be altered by the changes to the Sep 03 actual.
Correct. Reference to individual school forecasts has been deleted from the document.
OUTSTANDING PLANNED MAINTENANCE
£43,000 has been allocated for roof replacement. This year much work has been carried out to make the roof good and I would question the need to class it as either Urgent or Essential.
£1,000 has been allocated to remove a chimney. The chimney is clearly not dangerous or it would have been removed and as it has stood on the skyline quite happily for at least a hundred years.
£11,000 has been allocated for replacement windows and doors at the junior site. The school has paid to replace the worst doors and so I would set the figure for the remaining window repair at £3,000.
£130,000 has been determined for boiler replacement (intriguing that this figure was £50,000 the year before). Work has commenced on one boiler so I assuming this figure can be halved.
£44,000 has been allocated for circuit replacement. This work has been started and will be completed by Christmas.
This brings the OPM down to £115,000 and the amount per head to £871.21
Noted. At present, the Revenue Services Manager in Property & Legal Services has stated "I have looked at Adrienne's comment and my observations are as follows:
1) Numerous defects to the roof at Bath Hill are identified in the Condition report and it appears in a poor state. We have dealt with repeated calls to attend leaks and while I am pleased that these appear successful for the time being my recommendation is that it remains an essential item in the programme.
2) Removing the chimney is not based on H&S considerations but removing possible sources of rainwater penetration into the building. If approved it would be incorporated with the roofing works above.
3) I am not aware of the windows replaced by the school at the Junior site to determine the impact on the identified budget
4) The £130K is to replace boilers at both sites as they are at the end of their design life. There are no programme works proceeding on boilers at present but I am investigating to see if any emergency repairs/renewals have been ordered.
5) Rewiring works are proceeding at the Infant Annexe but I do not believe that funding is sufficient to also address the needs for Bath Hill.
A structured visit was carried out at the school in June and no changes were proposed to the list of outstanding and planned maintenance at that time. Because of the specific points raised I suggest a surveyor visits the sites during the half-term break to confirm the general condition of the roof and reassess the number of windows and doors to be replaced. I will then write to you and confirm my comments".
Further analysis will be undertaken if further action is approved.
A further comment was received on 14 November. "I have checked the points concerning the roof and windows with (the school surveyor) and our recommendations remain as previously stated"
SUITABILITY ASSESSMENTS
· General Teaching - 7 classes is optimum not 6, additional class is used as a hall because of split-site. The temperature control and trailing leads issues will be resolved this term, work has already started.
Suitability Assessments for each school were agreed with the Headteacher.
· IT - upgrading of facilities is taking place
Noted.
· SEN/LIBRARY - we need these spaces, it is not surplus. I imagine if floor space were taken into account our two SEN spaces and LIBRARY spaces would equal other schools SEN/LIBRARY spaces.
Suitability Assessments for each school were agreed with the Headteacher.
· PLAYING FIELD - we use the park adjacent to school.
Noted. No change made.
· PLAY AREAS - trip hazard removed
Noted. As with the suitability improvements made by Chandag Junior (see above) all changes that address suitability issues must be taken into account as part of the Review.
Opinions on the advantages or disadvantages of using a public park as a school playing field, the requirement or otherwise for a number of classrooms in excess of that suggested by the number on roll play no part at this stage of the Review.
COMMUNITY USE
· The infant department let facilities to the Kookaburra Kids Club which is an after-school and holiday club facility. The school gains approximately £2,500 per annum in letting fees.
· The junior department is used for occasional lettings.
Noted
OTHER COMMENTS
Page 4
5.2 We agree and therefore feel that the chart entitled `Educational Standards' should be
"augmented with other information" such as the data on NO OF STATEMENTS/ SEN / EAL. The DfES do this in their performance tables and so the data is readily available at www.dfes.gov.uk/cgi-bin/performancetables
Noted. Development of the presentation of this data will be considered if further action is approved.
Site and Building Area
New neighbourhood nursery will have an impact on Keynsham Primary's figures.
Agreed. See note regarding Keynsham Primary above
The review makes no reference to the community use of buildings and yet this obviously influences best value. The financial tables do not take account of income raised by schools through letting of premises etc.
This is correct. It was not the intention of this document to incorporate this data. The precise extent and nature of community use at each school can be incorporated if further action is approved and if the information is passed to the LEA.
The review makes no attempt to examine the unique character of each school. Parents choose schools for particular reasons and not just because one is closest to where they live. This needs to be explored. It is important that any action taken does not restrict parental choice in Keynsham.
This is correct. It was not the intention at this stage of the process to examine the character of each school. The first stage of the Review is an information-gathering and fact-checking exercise only.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Aims and Objectives
The aims of the Review are to:
· Improve educational standards
· Maximise the use of existing resources (land, buildings, funding and people)
· Increase access to high quality facilities for children, staff and the community
· Make the choice of a local school the natural and easy choice for parents
1575 children attend the seven schools covered by this Review. 38 of these pupils are part-time nursery pupils. The full-time equivalent is therefore 1559.
Of these 1575 children over 95% live within Keynsham or Saltford. A map showing the locations of pupils is attached. A small number of pupils come from Bath and from surrounding villages. There is some cross-border movement but this is not materially significant in this context.
It is reasonable to conclude that the population trends in Keynsham and Saltford will be the key determining factor when looking at future education needs.
Population Trends
The birth rate in the wards of Keynsham East, North and South and Saltford show a sharp fall. Data obtained from the Primary Care Trust (PCT) and valid at April 2003 shows the following:
Ages at April 2003 |
Year of Entry |
Numbers of Children |
Aged 4 |
2003 |
198 |
Aged 3 |
2004 |
170 |
Aged 2 |
2005 |
191 |
Aged 1 |
2006 |
165 |
Under 1 |
2007 |
126 |
A breakdown of these figures shows that Saltford is experiencing the most dramatic fall in numbers. At April 2003 there were 16 children aged under 1 within the ward. This should be compared with the 42 four year olds in the ward at the same date and shows a fall of over 60%.
Making an allowance of 5% for pupils outside these wards, a further allowance of 5% for the maximum desirable flexibility within schools, and including an allowance for the building of perhaps 100 new houses in Keynsham between now and the end of the decade leads to a figure of 144 children per year requiring a school place.
The organisational impact of the decline in pupil numbers
A form of entry is 30 so we could proceed on the basis of 5 forms of entry (5 x 30 = 150) in the area. At present we offer 240 places for new entrants to school per year or the equivalent of eight forms of entry. There are seven primary year groups and thus by the early part of the next decade, we could have 1050 (7 x 150 = 1050) school places. We currently have 1673 places and therefore 623 school places could be removed.
Removal of such a large number of places cannot be achieved by simply removing unnecessary temporary buildings, `mothballing' buildings or through an attempt to manage declining pupil numbers at all the existing schools.
In order to ensure a closer match between numbers and places, three forms of entry could be removed through the closure and resizing of schools. However, this scenario only applies if the PCT data is absolutely robust and demographic trends are not reversed.
It is prudent to proceed with caution whilst recognising that:
· there are unfilled places which are surplus to current and future requirements.
· There is a wide variation in the quality of the facilities available to children.
· there is a wide gap between levels of attainment.
· there is a wide gap in levels of funding per pupil.
Debating and resolving these issues should form the basis for further consultation.
It is necessary to develop some options in order to provide a focus for future discussions. The following statements summarise the views of the Council regarding each school.
Castle Primary School has a relatively stable intake, generally fills over 80% of its places each year, presents no fundamental condition or suitability problems and is located on a site which, whilst undersized, is generally acceptable in terms of the ability of the school to deliver the whole curriculum. By 2007 as numbers decline the capacity of Castle Primary could be reduced to 210 from its current level of 240. This removes 30 places and may provide the opportunity to address certain suitability issues. The school recruits from the immediate surrounding area and this is advantageous in terms of community cohesion. Expansion of the school to accept pupils from closed schools could be considered. This would require capital expenditure. There is no clear reason to consider making any changes at this school as part of the Review.
Chandag Infant School and Chandag Junior School share a site albeit in separate buildings. Both schools draw from a wide area of Keynsham and Saltford. At present, the combined number on roll of the schools is in excess of the maximum desirable size for an all-through primary school. As the decline in pupil numbers begins to have its effect this could create an opportunity to amalgamate these schools. If this is considered a desirable course of action then it would be sensible for the LEA to take action to facilitate this by amending the Planned Admission Number for Chandag Junior from 1 September 2005. This would allow amalgamation to take place on 1 September 2008. Amalgamation would minimise management costs and release resources for direct delivery. There is no reason to believe that there would be a negative effect on standards through implementation of this proposal. The potential for creating this new primary school in a new building on the Chandag Infant site merits further investigation as the location of the existing schools adjacent to Wellsway School offers some opportunities for `joined-up' provision and the creation of an extended school.
Keynsham Primary School has experienced a dramatic fall in pupil numbers. Numbers at September 2003 are just 44% of those at September 1997. The school is located on a site large enough to accommodate a school twice the planned size. The costs per head are well above the average for the area and for the Authority as a whole. Children come almost entirely from the area surrounding the school. In the interests of ensuring that resources are used as effectively as possible it is sensible to maintain and extend the use of this site. An additional factor supporting this is that a new Neighbourhood Nursery is to be built on land immediately adjacent to the existing school. The level of unfilled places at the school will rise if present trends and admission patterns continue and this is unsustainable.
St John's CE Primary School is located on an adequate site in buildings which are slightly larger than is desirable but this does not present a significant drain on resources. Expansion of the school to accept pupils from closed schools would not be possible on the existing site. Unit costs and levels of achievement are considered to be satisfactory or better. The suitability problems at the school can be resolved through the normal process of assessment for inclusion in the Capital Programme. The planned decline in admission levels, following the implementation of a new planned admission number in September 2004, is sustainable in the medium and longer term. The school draws almost entirely from its immediate surroundings and there is no evidence to suggest that its status as a Voluntary Controlled school brings children from a wider area. There appears to be no reason to propose any change at this school as part of this Review.
Saltford CE Primary School is located on a very large site. This represents a drain on resources and the site should be reduced in size. The buildings are a little oversized but not to such an extent as to cause unmanageable problems. The school presents no significant suitability problems. The decline in the birth rate in Saltford needs to be monitored carefully and a planned reduction in capacity should be considered over the medium term in order to ensure that the school continues to serve the local community. Such a planned reduction could be achieved by the progressive removal of temporary buildings. There are no other reasons to propose change at this school as part of this Review.
Temple Primary School is located on two sites separated by a main road. The school is not located in a densely populated residential area and thus it draws pupils from many parts of Keynsham. Neither site is suitable and, taken together, the school site is grossly undersized. There is no school playing field and there are a number of other suitability problems which are difficult to resolve on the existing site and in the existing buildings. Consideration could be given to relocating this school as part of an amalgamation and/or school renewal scheme. This would require significant capital expenditure.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Prepare detailed forecasts of pupil numbers for this area following detailed discussions with the PCT.
Examine the location of existing pupils and pre-school children in order to predict more accurately the likely areas of need.
Consider whether an option can be developed which adheres to the following principles:
a) Acceptance by all stakeholders that school closures are both possible and necessary.
b) Acceptance by all stakeholders that some unfilled capacity will remain untouched in the medium to long term and that further action may be required in the medium to long term if the projected decline in numbers becomes reality.
c) A recognition by all stakeholders that some existing sites and buildings are fundamentally unsuited to modern day school provision.
d) A clear understanding that the Review may allow us the chance to improve facilities and opportunities for all providing that sources of capital funding can be identified.