Meeting documents

 Appendix 1

BATH & NORTH EAST SOMERSET COUNCIL

A REVIEW OF PRIMARY SCHOOLS IN THE SOUTH & CENTRAL BATH AREA

1. WHY ARE WE REVIEWING THIS AREA?

7.1 All primary schools in Bath & North East Somerset are to be reviewed over the four years between September 2003 and July 2007. Each school will initially 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.

7.2 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.

7.3 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.

7.4 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 South & Central Bath area is amongst these areas.

7.5 The schools named below are considered in this Review.

Moorlands Infant School, Moorfields Road

Moorlands Junior School, Chantry Mead Road

Oldfield Park Infant School, Dorset Close

Oldfield Park Junior School, Lymore Terrace

St Michael's CE VC Junior School, Twerton, Newton Road

Southdown Infant School, Mount Road

Southdown Junior School, Mount Road

Twerton Infant School, Poolemead Road

7 INTRODUCTION

7.1 On 30 April 2004, a draft version of this document was circulated to the Headteacher of each school covered by the Review.

7.2 On 14 May 2004 a revised version containing amendments and clarifications of facts was issued to the Headteacher and Chair of Governors of each school covered by the Review, the Headteacher and Chair of Governors of the secondary schools serving Bath, senior officers of the Education Service, the Bath & Wells Diocesan Board of Education, the Roman Catholic Diocese of Clifton and Councillors representing the wards in which the schools are located. The document was also circulated to members of the Education, Youth, Culture & Leisure Overview & Scrutiny Panel in order to inform their discussions prior to the public meeting to be held on 19 May 2004.

7 School Organisation Plan

7.1 Each school has been assessed against policies, established through the School Organisation Plan, regarding school size. The School Organisation Plan states that;

7.2 At September 2003 all schools meet the criteria regarding planned admission number and size.

7.3 The School Organisation Plan agreed on July 22 2003 stated the following in relation to South & Central Bath "Provision in South & Central Bath is particularly uniform insofar as all schools bar one are community schools and furthermore there are no all-through primary schools. The level of unfilled places is high. However, part of the area adjoins the planned development at the Western Riverside and any changes to organisational pattern at the most proximate schools will need to take this into account. The timescale for the regeneration of the Western Riverside is extremely lengthy and involves numerous other agencies".

7.4 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 are four infant schools and four junior schools. Two infant schools operate an LEA nursery class.

7.5 One of the eight schools covered by this Review is a Church school. Any changes in the area may result in a change in the proportion of denominational places in Bath & North East Somerset and such changes would require the support of the relevant Diocese. At present, approximately 54% of primary school places in Bath & North East Somerset are in Church schools. In the South & Central Bath area the percentage is 15%.

7.6 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. The Context

7.1 A map showing the location of the schools is attached. An wide area map showing where pupils live is also attached. For legal reasons it is necessary to state that the maps have been reproduced from the Ordnance Survey with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown Copyright under License Number 100023334.

7.2 Population data from the Primary Care Trust shows the position at April 2003 in the wards in which these schools are located.

8 Levels of Educational Achievement

8.1 There are various measures of educational performance. Simple examination of headline results may not reveal the success (or otherwise) of a school.

8.2 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:

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 the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister in August 2000.

6.2 The measure of educational deprivation is compiled by considering the following data:-

7.1 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)

7.2 In terms of multiple deprivation, Twerton ranked at 1111 is the ward most affected and Saltford, which at 8135, is the least deprived ward in Bath & North East Somerset and is within the `top' 5% of wards in England.

7.3 Information regarding the extent of child poverty is also included as an illustration of the economic deprivation in the area in which the school is located. 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.

7.4 Given that electoral ward plays no role whatsoever in the choices that parents/carers make the LEA has gathered data showing the numbers and proportion of pupils from each ward actually on roll at each school. This is shown on the Key Data Sheet.

7.5 The School Organisation Plan agreed on 18^th July 2002 identified certain schools as "strategic schools in areas of educational deprivation". Southdown Infant and Southdown Junior are covered by this designation.

7 Timescales and Consultation

7.1 The Overview & Scrutiny Panel will hold a public meeting to hear contributions from invited stakeholders. This will take place on May 19^th 2004 at Culverhay School, Rush Hill beginning at 5.30 p.m.

7.2 The document will be further considered by the Overview & Scrutiny Panel (OSP) at its meeting on June 7^th 2004.

7.3 A meeting for Bath & North East Somerset Councillors representing the relevant wards will take place on a date to be determined.

7.4 The final paper will be considered by the Council Executive which meets at 10 a.m. on 5 July 2004 at the Guildhall, Bath.

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

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 mean unfilled places. Not all unfilled places are surplus. The calculation of surplus 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.

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.

Forecast numbers for individual schools are not included. It can be seen that the total number on roll at September 2003 is 91% of that at September 1997. Forecasts indicate that by September 2007 the total number on roll will be 85% of the 1997 figure.

Population Data - South & Central Bath

Source : B&NES Primary Care Trust

Data valid as at April 2003

With the exception of Twerton all wards show a small decrease in the numbers of children over recent years. The population of Twerton in this age range is stable.

Levels of Recruitment against Standard Number

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.

Standard Number has been abolished from September 2004

Financial Information

Notes

CPN means Composite Pupil Number. This is the number of pupils for which a school receives funding. It is based on 5/12 of actual number on roll at January each year plus 7/12 from the estimated September number on roll.

* Schools marked with an asterisk operate an LEA nursery. Figures shown EXCLUDE funding for these Nursery classes. Southdown Infant and St Michael's Junior also operate designated special needs units. Figures shown EXCLUDE funding for these units.

PLEASE NOTE THAT THE ABOVE FIGURES HAVE BEEN ADJUSTED IN LIGHT OF ACTUAL NUMBERS ON ROLL AT SEPTEMBER 2003.

Outstanding Planned Maintenance

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'

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.

No school is located on a truly sufficient site.

Four schools occupy sites which are significantly in excess of DfES recommendation.

All schools with team games playing fields have provision well in excess of the statutory requirement.

One school has no team game playing field which is a breach of legislation.

Four schools occupy buildings which are significantly oversized.

Levels of Educational and Social Deprivation

Notes

These figures are taken from the Indices of Multiple Deprivation published by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister in 2000 and from locally generated data provided by Bath & North East Somerset Education Service.

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 2003

Data provided by Bath & North East Somerset Performance Data Unit

Location of Schools in South & Central Bath

Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office Crown Copyright License number 100023334

Pupil Locations September 2003 - Wide Area View

Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office Crown Copyright License number 100023334

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 the educational impact of any deficiencies in accommodation, may identify a need for additional accommodation or improvements to existing accommodation.

The definitions below will assist readers in assessing the scale of the suitability problems faced by the schools within this Review.

Each school received a copy of their Assessment and Headteachers were invited to comment on the findings. Readers are reminded that the issues identified by the Suitability Assessments represent the findings of work undertaken during the Autumn Term 2002-03. They reflect the position at each school on the day of the assessment. An update of the assessments will not be undertaken until the Autumn Term 2004-05.

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.

COMMENTS FROM SCHOOLS

St Michael's CE VC Junior School

Pg 17 We have been working on our suitability issues ourselves and we have rectified the following:

There is now hot water in toilet blocks

There is now hot water to washbasins

We are in the process of securing our boundary

We have replaced uneven paving on 1/2 the site last year and the rest is to be replaced this year

We are in the process of having windows replaced

Pupil/vehicular segregation has been assessed and plans to move our car parking and access facilities are with our Surveyor as 75% of our pupils walk to school because they live in our immediate area.

Oldfield Park Infant School

6. Re the Suitability Assessments.

Ours is very out of date and refers to buildings that have since been demolished and replaced.

Line 1.

The 2 spaces assessed as D have been demolished and replaced by our extension. All our classrooms are now suitable for purpose. We now have 6 classrooms all of which are being used as classrooms.

Line 3.

An ICT suite is currently being built so there will be no deficiency in this aspect by September 2004.

Line 9.

We now have an SEN group room rather than a classroom being used as an SEN room

Line 16

We now have a group room as part of the new extension.

Line 18

We now have equivalent teaching spaces to the optimum.

Line 20

The toilet referred to was the one in the demolished building.

Line 23

Fire exit no longer blocked

Line 25

We now have an area of grass on site replacing the demolished building. Although it is not huge it is adequate for a class to use for P.E.

Line 26

There are no longer any trip hazards on out hard play areas. All the outside areas have been resurfaced since the beginning of this term.

Line 28

Access : additional access gates have now been provided. The main entrance has moved and there are more entry points to the building. There is no longer any building works impeding access ( the school was surveyed when the extension was being built)

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Aims and Objectives

The aims of the Review are to:

This area is characterised by the absence of all-through primary schools and the almost total absence of denominational provision. Most schools are located on generous sites and in generous buildings although one school is particularly badly served in terms of the site area available.

The vast majority of children attending these eight schools live within the immediate and surrounding area. This has potential benefits in terms of promoting and enhancing community cohesion.

Unit costs per head vary quite widely within the range £2255 - £3212.

On average just over 25% of available places each year since 1997 have not been taken up. However, there has been a considerable reduction in the number of places offered since 1997. Almost 100 fewer places were offered in 2003 than in 1997. A further reduction for 2004, following the abolition of Standard Number, is planned.

In September 2003 there were 82 unfilled Infant and 179 unfilled Junior places in the 8 schools. The proportion of places unfilled at September 2003 is almost 15% and forecasts indicate that this will increase to approximately 20% by September 2007. Six of the schools have more than 30 unfilled places.

There are currently 1682 places in these schools against a number on roll of 1441 and a further fall to around 1350 is predicted in the latter part of this decade. The forecast decline in pupil numbers is principally based on the decline in population in the wards in which these schools are located. At April 2003 the number of children aged under 1 is 84% of the number of children aged 5.

Allowing a 5% error rate and a further 5% for `windfall' housing developments and any impact of other changes to schools elsewhere in Bath it is reasonable to assume we need 1500 places and thus just over 180 places need to be removed.

Closure of a single infant school is not considered feasible since there are only 82 unfilled Infant places. Closure of a Junior school is not considered feasible since all four Junior schools have approximately 200 pupils. If one school were to be closed the three remaining Junior schools would have less than 150 spare places to accommodate the approximately 200 pupils needing places due to the closure.

In addition, closing either a Junior or Infant school would create problems of transfer and continuity between the Infant and Junior phases.

Each school has been considered in isolation but, `paired and shared' schools, where infant and junior schools have a natural relationship with each other both in terms of pupil transfer and in terms of physical location, have also been considered together when seeking solutions.

Moorlands Infant School has few unfilled places. Levels of recruitment against Standard Number have improved over recent years although some of this improvement can be attributed to a reduction in Standard Number as a consequence of the infant class size legislation. It is located on a very generous site in buildings which are also very generous. There is a relatively high level of outstanding repairs and maintenance which reflects the age and type of construction of the building. For some years a private nursery known as Happy Days operated from the Infant school site and this provision has now been taken over by First Steps Nursery working in association with Sure Start.

Moorlands Junior School has approximately 13% unfilled places. Levels of recruitment have fallen in recent years. It is located in buildings approximately 70 metres from the Infant school. Site and building areas available to the school are fairly generous and in excess of DfES guidelines. This school also has a relatively high outstanding maintenance liability.

It would be possible to amalgamate these two schools without major capital investment. Such an amalgamation would result in some savings, primarily on management costs and improved continuity and progression from Key Stage 1 to Key Stage 2. Amalgamation could also release a small part of the joint site for disposal, which could generate funds to improve the buildings. However, the two buildings are separate and an amalgamation in the existing buildings could create difficulties in effective management of the school.

Consideration should be given to amalgamation of these two schools on the existing site at a future date when sufficient funding is available to provide new buildings.

Southdown Infant School currently has almost 20% of its places unfilled and this reflects the pattern over the last few years. Levels of recruitment moved up to 90% in the early part of this decade but in 2003 declined to 72%. The site and buildings are well in excess of that recommended by DfES. Outstanding maintenance is relatively high reflecting the age of the building. The school operates a nursery class, and some of the elements of an "extended school" with a breakfast club.

Southdown Junior School has almost a quarter of its places unfilled although the position has improved since the end of the 1990s. The site is undersized but the buildings are well over double the size recommended by DfES. Maintenance liabilities are fairly high.

These schools represent an opportunity for amalgamation. The combined school roll at September 2003 is 330 and is therefore within the maximum ideal size for a primary school. Levels of recruitment at the Infant school have fallen into the mid-40s and thus a 315 place school seems appropriate. As these schools are regarded as `strategic schools in areas of educational deprivation' serious consideration should be given to creating a new primary school in new buildings on the existing sites. The joint sites represent an opportunity to develop an extended school and there may still be an opportunity to dispose of some surplus site area in the hope of generating funds for such a scheme. Colleagues involved in the Sure Start Programme have expressed an interest in locating services at Southdown and this would be of major benefit in developing a new extended school.

Consideration should be given to the closure of both these schools and the creation of a new 315 place extended primary school in new buildings on the existing sites. A bid for funding for the scheme should be submitted to the DfES under the Targeted Capital Fund (should this continue in its present form) and be considered as a priority for future capital allocations from the Council and DfES. Every effort should be made to ensure that Sure Start are able to move onto the site.

St Michael's CE VC Junior School, Twerton is the only denominational provision in this area. It has almost a quarter of its places unfilled. Levels of recruitment varied widely in the late 90s and 80% was reached in 2002 but this fell back to just under 70% in 2003. The site is undersized although the buildings are well in excess of the recommended size. First Steps Nursery have opened an Early Excellence Centre on the school site. The condition of the school building is fairly poor with a high level of maintenance liabilities.

Twerton Infant School has 18% of its places unfilled. Levels of recruitment have generally been below 50 per year. The site is large and the buildings are slightly in excess of the recommended size.

The two Twerton schools cannot realistically be amalgamated at present. The sites are some distance from each other and it is undesirable to create split-site schools. The relocation of the infants to the Junior site or vice versa cannot be achieved without significant capital expenditure. Despite the fact that the Junior site is undersized it seems rational to consider, in the medium term, a scheme to amalgamate on the Junior site. It should be noted that, as the Junior school is the only denominational provision in the area, discussions with the Diocese of Bath & Wells would be needed to clarify whether any new school would continue as denominational provision.

A study should be undertaken assessing the potential for an amalgamated school on the Junior site. This study to include an assessment of the potential value of the Infant school site and the potential for alternative development on the site in order to generate part of the capital funding required for the construction of a new school. The outcome of this study to be reported to the Executive by July 31^st 2005. The initial views of the Diocese of Bath & Wells should also be sought. In the immediate future, an assessment of the means by which surplus places can be removed from the Junior school should be carried out and the necessary action taken.

Oldfield Park Infant School is currently short of places although ongoing building works will eliminate this shortfall. Levels of recruitment are improving and the school was filled at Reception age in September 20003. The site and buildings are a little undersized but this appears to cause no significant difficulties. Outstanding maintenance costs are fairly high but this is unsurprising given the age of the building. The school offers some of the elements of the `extended school' with after-school provision and a breakfast club planned to begin in September 2004.

Oldfield Park Junior School has almost 15% of its places unfilled. Levels of recruitment appear low although this relates to the existence of an unrealistic Standard Number for the period in question. This admission number has been reduced for September 2004 and therefore levels of recruitment are likely to improve. Outstanding maintenance costs are very low. The principal problem facing this school is the fact that the site is extremely undersized and it has no access to a playing field. This latter problem is a breach of legislation. A reservation exists in the emerging Local Plan in order to allow the creation of a playing field at some point in the future but the likelihood of the Council, in the foreseeable future, being able to acquire the necessary land is slim. The relocation of the school represents the only realistic chance of resolving the problems with the site and facilities. A review of the school and its partner Infant school was undertaken a few years ago in order to ascertain whether amalgamation could be achieved on the Junior site. The Education Committee concluded that the costs of such a scheme were not supportable. In view of the desirability of creating all-through primary schools this issue requires re-examination.

Consideration should be given to amalgamating the Oldfield Park schools on a new site. A site needs to be identified and, in the next eighteen months, a search for such a site should be undertaken. An assessment of the value to be achieved through disposal of the existing sites should also be undertaken in order to assess the opportunities for funding, in part, the provision of a new school.