A Review of Primary Schools in the South & Central Bath Area

Moorlands Infant, Moorlands Junior, Oldfield Park Infant, Oldfield Park Junior, St Michaels CofE VC Junior School Southdown Infant, Southdown Junior, Twerton Infant School,

INTRODUCTION

The first stage of the Review involves 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
• 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).

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

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.

The Context

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 Ó Crown Copyright under License Number 100023334.

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

Levels of Educational Achievement

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

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

Timescales and Consultation

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

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

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

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

MAPS

Location of Schools in South & Central Bath

Pupil Locations September 2003 - Wide Area View

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Aims and Objectives

The aims of the Review are to:

• Maintain and improve educational standards
• Maximise the use of existing resources (land, buildings and funding)
• 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

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 31st 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.