Decision details

The six week representation period for the statutory notice published on 16th December 2010 proposing the closure of Culverhay school ends on 26th January 2011 and a decision was taken on 23-Feb-11 but was Called-in.  Council will consider the Call-in at a Special meeting on 14^th July and Cabinet will meet on the rising of Council to consider the recommendations from Council, if any.

The Cabinet Member agrees that Culverhay School shall close on 31st August 2014 and there shall be no admissions to Year 7 in September 2012 and beyond

Closing Culverhay as part of the overall plan for Bath is considered to be the best way to address the key challenges identified through the course of the review process. In particular it would:

·  Reduce the total number of schools from seven to six, removing surplus places and making better use of resources and reflecting the current and future need in Bath.

·  Reduce the number of single sex places by closing a school that is not in demand from parents.

·  Facilitate the creation of schools which are of a more viable size to be educationally and financially secure.

·  Result in the retention of one single sex girls school and one single sex boys school to provide choice for parents and ensure diversity.

·  Provide a wider range of opportunities at larger schools for pupils who would have attended Culverhay with the potential to achieve higher standards in these schools.

In selecting Culverhay as the school proposed for closure, it should be noted that:

·  It has the lowest level of attainment in Bath secondary schools.

·  It is a National Challenge School with a relatively low percentage of students gaining 5 A*-C with English and Maths.

·  It has a large number of surplus places – 49% based on the October 2010 School Census data. Department for Education (DfE) School Organisation guidance states that where a school has at least 30 and 25% or more unfilled places and where standards are low compared to the rest of the Local Authority, closure proposals in order to remove surplus places should normally be approved.

·  Two out of three boys who live closer to Culverhay than any other school already choose schools further away.

·  The community is relatively close to alternative schools.

·  The cost of educating each pupil is high.

All representations received during the representation period have been taken into consideration in reaching this decision and have contributed to the overall decision making process. The 41 objections to the proposal received during the representation period covered the same key issues that emerged in the statutory consultation and call in and did not raise any substantive new issues.

In consideration of this proposal regard has been had to DfE statutory requirements. The sufficiency and quality of the statutory consultation has been taken into consideration as part of the overall determination of the proposal and the Decision Maker is satisfied that the consultation meets the DfE statutory requirements.

The concerns raised in the objections to the proposal do not outweigh the benefits that can be achieved by closing the school in order to address the important key challenges and issues as outlined above. Concerns expressed about any potentially negative effects of the proposal will be addressed carefully and thoroughly via the transition process.

Two other options were proposed, one from a parent group and the other from Culverhay itself.

Option 1: Retain seven schools and achieve a reduction in surplus places by reducing the Planned Admission Numbers (PAN) at all Bath secondary schools to 160 except Culverhay and St Mark’s which would remain at 102. Culverhay and Oldfield would be co-educational schools.

Option 2: Retain Culverhay as a co-educational academy in partnership with Bath Spa University with the possibility of an all through school for age range 2-19.

Neither of these options would address the key challenges identified through the course of the review process and following consideration and evaluation against key criteria, neither option proved achievable.