Archived decisions

Contact: Chris Holt - 01962 845673; George Heller - 01962 846518;
Bob Eardley - 01962 846275

1 Summary

1.1 This report informs members of the outcome of consultations on the possible amalgamation of Worting Infant and Worting Junior Schools in the Buckskin area of Basingstoke.

1.2 Amalgamation of the infant and junior schools to form a primary school would remove surplus primary school places and offer the opportunity to invest in primary and pre-school provision in the area.

1.3 Full details of the consultation are in Appendix 1. In addition to statutory consultation meetings with staff, parents and governors of the two schools, staff of the playschool, located at the infant school, and interested members of the Buckskin community were invited to attend the parents' meeting. The junior school council (made up of representative children from all year groups) was consulted, and Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council was asked for its views (these are reported in section 10). Appendix 2 contains LEA commentary on the performance of both schools. Hampshire's schools are categorised as either highly effective; effective; requiring some improvement; requiring substantial improvement. Both Worting Infant and Worting Junior schools are categorised as "effective". A summary of correspondence received is in Appendix 3. Copies have been placed in the Members' room. Members of the Education Policy Review Committee visited the schools on 8^th January 2003; issues raised during the visits are covered in section 11.

1.4 Members are asked to advise the Executive Member for Education of their conclusions on the proposal that Worting Infant and Worting Junior Schools be amalgamated to form a 330 place (1.5 form entry) primary school with funded nursery education.

2 Background

2.1 On 17^th October 2002 the Executive Member for Education agreed that consultations should take place following a review of primary school places in the Buckskin and South Ham areas of Basingstoke. Primary education in the area is provided by two pairs of infant and junior schools: Park View and Worting. (A map is included at Appendix 4). Table 1 summarises the balance of supply and demand for places at the four schools. The current surplus in the area, based on September 2002 census returns and on Small Area Population Forecasts data amounts to 193 places and is forecast to fall to 163 by September 2007.

2.2 Table 1 - accommodation and rolls

2.3 The overall picture, therefore, is one of relative stability in pupil numbers, with the current high number of surplus places being sustained. Surplus places at both the Worting schools are forecast to rise significantly above the 25% level which the Audit Commission and Department for Education and Skills consider to require measures to be taken by LEAs to achieve a substantial reduction. Forecast pupil numbers indicate that there is no likelihood of the surpluses being reduced as a result of local population growth.

2.4 The forecast number of four-year-olds in the catchment areas of the Worting and Park View schools is fairly constant over the planning period, as shown in Table 2 below:

2.5 Table 2 - Number of in-catchment four-year-olds

2.6 The participation rate for Worting Infant School (i.e. the percentage of catchment area four-year-olds attending the school) in January 2002 was 41%, which is low. Worting Junior School takes 95% of the children from the infant school, but this is based on the already low participation rate. Table 3 indicates the approximate percentages of Worting schools' catchment area children attending other schools:

2.7 Table 3 - approximate percentages of children from the Worting catchment area attending local schools - January 2002:

2.8 This review was initially prompted by a letter from the junior school governing body expressing concerns regarding the long term viability of the school given the forecast decline in pupil numbers. Subsequently a joint working group of both schools' governors was set up to investigate options to reduce surplus places at the two schools. The group met with LEA officers on three occasions: in May, July and September 2002. At the September meeting it was agreed that a letter be sent to parents of children at the Worting schools to inform them of the discussions which had taken place and the likelihood of future consultations. The letter was jointly signed by the headteachers and chairs of governors of the Worting Infant and Worting Junior Schools and made clear the view that the LEA and the schools saw a robust future for 4 - 11 schooling on the Worting schools' site. The letter can be found at Appendix 5.

3 Early Years Provision

3.1 In agreeing that consultation should take place on the possible amalgamation of Worting Infant and Junior Schools, the Executive Member for Education was aware that the infant school provided accommodation and facilities for a playschool, hence the proposal that a primary school should include Early Years provision. The County Council's Early Education and Childcare Unit works in close partnership with Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council, and with other partners, to maximise opportunities for Early Years provision.

3.2 Table 4 below sets out the number of pre-school age children and the services known to be available to them within the Buckskin area of Basingstoke:

No. of children		No. of places
0 - 2 year olds	3 - 4 year olds	Childminder	Pre-school
274	185	72	66

3.3 From the data available the County Council's Early Education and Childcare Unit have calculated that there is a significant shortfall of pre-school provision in the area amounting to some 80 places.

4 Austen Education Centre

4.1 The Austen Education Centre is located in a separate building on the Worting Junior School site, and is part of the County Council's Education Other Than At School (EOTAS) provision. The centre houses the County Council's only specialist provision for teenage mothers and pregnant schoolgirls. The centre also provides education and support for emotionally vulnerable pupils for whom mainstream schooling is not appropriate at a particular time in their development, with a view to their reintegration into mainstream school in the future. The centre can accommodate up to 24 secondary age pupils. There are no proposals for any change to this provision.

5 Parents: Responses to consultations

5.1 Two meetings were held for parents with children at either of the Worting schools; an afternoon meeting at the junior school (attended by 11 parents) and an evening meeting at the infant school (attended by 38 parents). Letters were received from nine parents.

5.2 A main concern expressed by parents related to the pupil number forecasts. Parents queried their accuracy, particularly in light of the type of housing and the profile of families in the area. Parents cited new housing developments in the area which, in their view, would generate significant numbers of children, including housing on the infant school site were an amalgamation to go ahead.

5.3 Parents were concerned that there appeared to be little detail regarding the design and the facilities which would be part of a primary school created from an extended Worting Junior School. Allied to this was concern about the mixing of infant and junior age children in one school; there needed to be separate entrances and play areas. Some parents felt that if any school building on the site were to be developed as a primary school then this should be the infant building. Present parking for parents was deemed by some to be inadequate, irrespective of whether or not the schools were amalgamated. Concerns were also expressed about traffic safety and pedestrian access.

5.4 According to the parents a primary school would result in larger classes. They pointed to the good support which children with special educational needs receive at both schools and felt this would be lost in a larger primary school. There was concern about the impact which change would have on children's learning.

5.5 Parents sought assurances that the playschool, currently operating in the infant school, would be a part of an amalgamated school. Clarification was sought of the nature and extent of the early years/community provision in the proposed primary school.

5.6 Concern was expressed about the schools' ability to retain and recruit staff in the light of the instability created by the review, and the impact this could have on the quality of children's education.

5.7 The Worting schools' catchment area was cited as a reason for the low pupil numbers at the schools. Would a "new" primary school mean a new catchment area?

5.8 There was a strong feeling amongst parents at the infant school meeting against an amalgamation of the infant and junior schools.

6 Worting Infant staff - responses to consultation

6.1 The staff's main concern was focussed on the perceived detrimental impact an amalgamation would have on the quality of education for infant age children. Children's needs were being well catered for now and there was no guarantee that this would be the case in a primary school. Staff pointed out that the school served an area of deprivation which resulted in more time being devoted to social issues and pastoral care than might otherwise be the case. Staff doubted that this would be sustained in an amalgamated school. Concerns were expressed about mixed-age classes which would be created as a result of 45 children per year group in a 1.5 form entry primary school. Staff believed that infant classes in an amalgamated primary school would contain more children than those presently operating in the infant school. There was also concern about the ability of one school to cope with the high incidence of children aged 4 - 11 with special educational needs. Allied to this was the view that children with SEN need more space, and a primary school would not be able to match what was presently available at the infant school in this respect.

6.2 Staff were concerned that a 1.5 form entry primary school would have insufficient capacity to admit all the four-year-olds in the infant school's catchment area, and queried whether the County Council had taken account of the impact which new housing development in the area would have on the forecast pupil numbers. There was concern that other similar amalgamations of infant and junior schools in the area had been less than successful.

6.3 There was concern amongst staff that the perceived excellent environment within and outside the infant school would not be replicated in an amalgamated primary school. Staff were concerned that there should be space in a primary school to facilitate community provision for parents. Concern was also expressed about road safety and car parking at both the infant and junior schools.

6.4 Staff were concerned about existing recruitment problems and expressed the opinion that these would continue in an amalgamated primary school. There was concern about the future of staff who might be unsuccessful in securing a post in an amalgamated primary school.

6.5 Playschool staff were concerned that a playschool should be a part of any new primary school, even though there were reservations about the mixing of pre-school age children with 10 and 11 year olds on one site.

6.6 Whilst there was no clear indication given from the full body of staff regarding the proposed amalgamation, a poll of infant school class teachers was reported indicating that 100% of them would not be prepared to work in an amalgamated primary school.

7 Worting Infant School Governors - response to consultations

7.1 Governors' main concerns were based on the recognition that both the infant and junior schools are "sound". A change to the current pattern of provision needed to, at the very least, result in the same quality of education for children as existed now. Discussion and information shown to date had not convinced governors that this would be the case; there was a consensus that an amalgamation would have an adverse effect on the quality of education for Worting children.

7.2 Governors believed that an amalgamation would result in larger, mixed-age classes, incorporating high numbers of children with SEN. This would result in a decline in pupil numbers as parents chose not to send their children to an amalgamated primary school. A primary school would result in less space being available than at present, and this would impact on the ability of staff to meet the needs of the infant children.

7.3 Governors raised the issue of new housing developments which would result in more children in the area, and the need to ensure that there were sufficient school places for them. They believed these developments would enable both the infant and junior schools to remain viable as separate establishments.

7.4 Governors were of the opinion that the catchment area was a major factor in the infant school's low participation rate of 41%, and believed that an adjustment could result in more children coming to the school. Similar views were expressed with regard to pre-school provision and the belief that, were there to be more provision available at the infant school, then the main school numbers would rise. Governors saw this as an alternative option to reduce surplus places at the infant and junior schools.

7.5 There was a clear consensus amongst the governing body against amalgamation. Governors were not convinced that such a step would be in the best interests of the Worting school community.

8 Worting Junior School Governors and Staff - response to consultation

8.1 There was a belief amongst staff and governors that some parents elected not to send their children to the infant school because of its location on the edge of the catchment area. A primary school on the junior school site would be more accessible to many parents with infant age children within the catchment area.

8.2 Continuity and progression exemplified by an all through primary school would be a distinct advantage to the local children, particularly to the high numbers of children with SEN at the two schools. Both staff and governors felt that the proposal to amalgamate the schools offered a real opportunity to effect educational regeneration in the Worting community.

8.3 Governors and staff reiterated their concerns about the forecast decline in pupil numbers at the junior school, and the impact this would have on the school's ability to continue to deliver a quality education to children at Key Stage 2.

8.4 Concern was expressed at the impact of the period of consultation and the lead-up to amalgamation (if that were to be the decision) on children, and asked that this be minimised as far as possible. There was also concern about the impact which an amalgamated primary school would have on traffic in the area; staff and governors would wish this to be assessed and appropriate action taken.

8.5 Governors and staff expressed unanimous support for the proposal to amalgamate the infant and junior schools.

9 Worting Junior School children - response to consultation

9.1 Common concerns about an amalgamated primary school amongst children age 7 - 11 were: the perceived lack of space in school assembly if more children were to be in the junior school buildings; that junior age and infant age children would not get on; that a headteacher would lose her job.

9.2 Common perceived benefits of a primary school were: older children could care for the younger ones; children of junior and infant age would strike up more friendships; parents would not have to split their time between schools; infant and junior age siblings could be together; more money would be available for school equipment.

10 Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council - response to consultations

10.1 The Borough Council was asked for its views on the possible amalgamation of the Worting Infant and Junior schools to form a primary school with accommodation for funded nursery education. In her reply the Chief Executive of Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council stated:

"I can confidently say that Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council have no objections to this proposal".

11 Members visits on 8^th January 2003

11.1 Members visited Worting Infant and Worting Junior Schools on 8^th January 2003. Issues raised are dealt with in section 12 and sections 5 to 9 of the report.

11.2 Other specific issues raised at the infant school were the recruitment of governors, and the number of children which the on-site playschool catered for. Members were informed by the headteacher that the infant school were fortunate to have a full complement of committed governors, and that the playschool catered for up to 60 children on a sessional basis.

11.3 Other specific issues raised at the junior school were the concerns of parents regarding the mixing of infant and junior age children in one school and potential bullying, and the attitude of teaching staff to mixed age classes. The headteacher informed Members that the school had a very clear bullying policy and cited examples of its effective implementation. Teachers were comfortable with mixed classes given that their focus was on the learning needs of individual children and curriculum delivery was differentiated accordingly. In response to a specific question about the proportion of children at the junior school with siblings at the infant school members were informed it was around two thirds.

12 Issues raised during consultation

12.1 The following comment is given on the main issues raised during the consultation meetings:

Forecast Pupil Numbers

12.2 Much discussion centred upon future numbers of children in the area and the schools they might attend. Forecast pupil numbers for schools take into account all new housing for which planning has been approved and are based upon Small Area Population Forecasts which detail the number of four-year-olds in an area.

12.3 During consultations it was pointed out that there are more children in the area than there are school places, and an amalgamated primary school would reduce those places. However, Worting Infant School is currently attracting less than half the children in its catchment area. 2007 forecast pupil numbers at the infant and junior schools will total 218. A one form entry primary school would have capacity for 210 children, but the County Council has proposed a 1.5 form entry primary school which would have capacity for 330 children. A school of this size would have sufficient capacity to admit the additional primary age children generated from the sale of the infant school site (in the region of 13 - 30) together with more catchment area children who would be attracted to their local school following significant investment in the school buildings and pre-school age provision.

Mixed age classes/size of classes/special educational needs (SEN)

12.4 Mixed age classes and their perceived impact on standards was the subject of much discussion with infant school staff, parents and governors. Mixed age classes would be the normal model of organisation in a full 1.5 form entry primary school. Of the present six classes at the junior school two are already mixed age. The forecast number on roll at the infant school indicates that the grouping of children would need to be based on mixed age classes in the future without re-organisation of the two schools. The high component of SEN within mixed age classes would continue to be a challenge for the schools as separate establishments. One all-through primary school would have the benefit of one budget providing resources for all the children aged 4 - 11. Provision of resource for children with SEN would be able to be organised more cost effectively, with the benefit to staff and children of progression and continuity through the three Key Stages.

12.5 On 5^th December 2002 the Secretary of State for Education and Skills was asked by a member of parliament what research the Department for Education and Skills had done on the effects of mixed age teaching in primary schools. Mr Milliband - Minister for Standards in Schools, responded on behalf of the Secretary of State as follows:

"The department is not currently undertaking research on this subject. Previous research has shown that there are a number of positive benefits for primary school pupils in mixed age classes. These include the opportunity to form wider friendships and for younger pupils to learn from their contemporaries, more individualised teaching, and the opportunity for pupils with differing abilities to provide intellectual stimulation for each other. The research does not find positive effects for attainment. However, there appears to be no negative impact for pupil attainment of what is known as `vertical grouping'. Teachers tend to be more negative about mixed age classes, believing them to create more work and complicate class management."

12.6 There is no evidence to support the premise of some parents that a primary school will result in larger classes. Class sizes in infant, junior and primary schools throughout Hampshire are broadly similar. In the context of legislation governing infant class size, a maximum of 30 (other than in temporary, exceptional circumstances) class size will be determined through the internal organisation and management of the school. Crucial to the success of an amalgamated primary school would be the appointment of a headteacher who would lead the school through organisational change whilst continuing to focus on the main standards agenda.

Primary Brief/Buildings

12.7 The concern of infant school staff, parents and governors regarding the amount of space necessary to educate infant age children, many with SEN, is acknowledged. Comparison with the County Council's model brief for primary schools (Design for Learning) has demonstrated the need to provide additional hard play areas to accommodate the extra children and to adapt existing facilities to suit the change from junior to primary as well as to provide infant class bases. Both infant and junior schools have a high proportion of children with SEN. This will require the provision of sufficient flexible space to enable children's needs to be met.

12.8 The County Council has an excellent track record in managing significant building works on a range of educational sites throughout the county. The same high standards, in particular to do with health and safety, would be adhered to if an amalgamated primary school were to be developed on the junior school site.

Catchment area

12.9 The schools' catchment area was cited by infant school governors and staff as a factor contributing to the low participation rate of 41%. The infant school's location is such that it borders the populated area within catchment (see Appendix 4). While this may be a factor in parents' determination of preference for a school, there are others. The re-drawing of a line will not per se alter parents' expression of preference. Whilst there would be no intention to review the catchment area, the location of a primary school on the junior school site would move education for infant age children closer to the centre of the Worting schools' catchment area.

Funded nursery education

12.10 An integral part of the consultation proposal is provision for pre-school age children in primary school. The County Council recognises that high quality funded nursery education is crucial to maintaining and raising standards in an area. Section 3 of the report indicates present provision in the area, this includes the playschool which is located at Worting Infant School, and highlights the need for more.

12.11 If it is decided to change the present pattern of provision to an all-through primary school, thereby generating the resource for additional provision for pre-school age children, then an analysis of need will be undertaken by the County Council's Early Education and Childcare Unit to determine the nature and scale of provision which the new school will house.

Size of school

12.12 Notwithstanding the issue of surplus places, infant school governors raised the issue of smaller schools than Worting Infant School managing to operate effectively.

12.13 Hampshire County Council's School Organisation Plan, as approved by the School Organisation Committee on 10^th September 2002, sets out the County's policy with regard to optimum school size as follows:

· An infant school should, wherever possible, fall within the range two forms of entry (180 children) to 5 fe (540).

· Junior schools should, wherever possible, fall within the range 2 fe (240) to 5 fe (600).

· Primary schools should, wherever possible, fall within the range 1 fe (210) to 3 fe (630).

Worting Infant School is forecast to have 87 children on roll in 2007.

Worting Junior School is forecast to have 131 children on roll in 2007.

Whilst recognising that there will inevitably be schools outside these ranges for a variety of reasons, for example geography and falling rolls, the factors generating the County's policy of optimum school size, such as achieving a pupil population of a size which facilitates cost effective education, remain. It is acknowledged that schools outside these ranges can achieve excellent results. It is also recognised that schools which fall below the minimum optimum size are more vulnerable in their ability to sustain high quality education.

12.14 Parents and infant school staff also raised the issue of staff recruitment, the latter referring to present difficulties. The continued existence of separate schools, each with falling rolls, would serve to compound these difficulties.

Traffic

12.15 Concerns were expressed regarding the impact of an amalgamated primary school on car parking, pedestrian access and road safety. If the proposal were to go ahead, these issues would be the subject of discussion between Hampshire County Council and Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council officers with a view to the formulation and submission of a school transport plan.

13 Alternative option

13.1 Worting Infant School governors felt that the surplus places issue could be addressed by the provision of more facilities for pre-school age children at the school. Governors believe that parents would then choose to keep their children at Worting Infant School when they reach infant school age and that these children would then go on to attend the junior school. At present there are no plans to extend provision for pre-school age children at Worting Infant School. There is a recognised need for more funded nursery education provision in the Buckskin area of Basingstoke (see section 3). This is in the context of other priority needs in the county. The County Council would not consider more early years provision here to be a sound basis on which to address the issue of surplus places at the infant and the junior schools. Notwithstanding the issue of resourcing additional early years provision at the infant school, and whilst it might be reasonable to expect additional early years provision to result in a greater number of children attending the infant school, the number of surplus places (26% now rising to 51%) is substantial. It must also be recognised that it would take in excess of four years for any rise in numbers to feed through to the junior school.

14 Capital Strategy

14.1 Capital funding to create a 1.5 fe primary school from the present junior school with accommodation for funded nursery education would need to be made available through the sale of the infant school site for residential development. This would be subject to the granting of planning consent by Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council. Officers of the Borough have been approached for an in-principle view and have indicated that there are no obvious reasons why the proposal to develop the infant school site for housing should not be successful.

14.2 Initial feasibility studies have been carried out on the cost of extending the junior school buildings to a 1.5 fe primary school with funded nursery education provision, compared to the likely capital receipts from the sale of the infant school site for residential development. These studies indicate that there would be sufficient capital to carry out all the necessary work. This is, however, dependent upon agreement being reached with the Borough Council on the amount of affordable housing to be provided and the amount of open space to be retained. The Secretary of State's consent to the sale of part of the infant school site would also be required.

15 Revenue implications

15.1 The amalgamation of two schools into one would result in revenue savings from the reduction in fixed allocations per school, chiefly the posts of headteacher and admin officer as well as lower premises costs. This funding would remain within the schools block of the County Council's scheme of local management.

16 Process and timescales

16.1 If the Executive Member for Education decided to publish notices proposing the closure of Worting Infant and Worting Junior Schools and the opening of an amalgamated primary school, the notices would run for a period of two months. If there were objections to the proposal then these would be considered by the School Organisation Committee in the summer term 2003. If the final decision was to proceed with amalgamation then a temporary governing body would be set up in advance of the official opening of a new primary school. The first, and most important, task of the temporary governing body would be to appoint a headteacher for the new school. The headteacher and governing body would then determine the staffing structure and subsequent appointments to the new school.

16.2 The earliest date on which an amalgamated primary school could come into being would be September 2004. The primary school would operate in the infant and junior buildings; work necessary to create a primary school on the junior school site with accommodation for funded nursery education would have an estimated completion date of September 2005.

17 The way forward

17.1 The County Council needs to take a strategic decision which is in the best interests of children aged 3 - 11 in the Worting community.

17.2 The combined number on roll at the infant and junior schools in September 2002 was 292 (132 infant, 160 junior). This is forecast to fall to 218 (87 infant, 131 junior) in 2007. The percentage of surplus places in 2007 (51.6% at the infant school and 37.6% at the junior school) is not sustainable, nor would it be recognised as such either by the Department for Education and Skills, or by the Audit Commission.

17.3 Members will have noted from the reports of the consultation meetings that there is a clear difference of opinion between the infant and junior schools as to the best way forward. The infant school believes it can continue to provide a good start for 3 - 7 year olds, despite a forecast decline in numbers to less than 90. The junior school has concerns that the continuing decline in pupil numbers will put severe strain on its ability to give 7 - 11 year olds sufficient grounding before secondary transfer in order that they have a chance to flourish at Key Stage 3 and beyond.

17.4 Both the infant and junior schools recognise the need for, and benefit of, high quality provision for pre-school age children. Notwithstanding the infant school's wish to see investment in funded nursery education at the school, amalgamation of the two schools offers the County Council a realistic opportunity to invest in such provision.

18 Executive Member, Education

18.1 The Executive Member, Education is minded to publish statutory notices to propose the closure of Worting Infant School and Worting Junior School and the establishment of a 1.5 fe primary school, with funded nursery education provision, on the Worting Junior School site.

19 Recommendations

19.1 To advise the Executive Member for Education on the way forward for primary school provision in the Buckskin area of Basingstoke.

Section D - Local Government Act 1972 - Background Documents

The following documents disclose facts or matters on which this report, or an important part of it, is based and has been relied upon to a material extend in the preparation of this report.

NB The list includes:

1. Published works

2. Documents which disclose exempt or confidential information as defined the Act.

Review of Primary Education in the Buckskin Area of Basingstoke

Note of Meeting held on 21st November with parents of pupils at Worting Junior School

The meeting was attended by 11 parents and Councillor Don Allen, Councillor Jo Kelly, the headteacher of the junior school plus one junior school governor and one junior school member of staff. In addition there was a governor from the infant school in attendance.

Questions / Comments made by those in attendance:

Pupil Numbers

_ What would Central Government do if the Local Education Authority did nothing about surplus places in the area?

_ If the infant school site is to be sold for housing then this would generate extra pupils. Has this been taken into account? The number of additional pupils and forecast numbers are only guesses as the number and types of new housing that will be provided and the number of children that will be produced is unknown.

_ The perception of Buckskin as an area makes it difficult to attract children into the school and this will be the case for any new primary school. If there is a continued fall in pupil numbers then the schools will receive less money and not be able to continue to operate with the current levels of staff. How far in advance are forecasts for pupil numbers made. It appears that the situation has arisen quickly and if the community had known that numbers were dropping then opportunities to encourage further parents to attend the school may have been taken.

_ If one school is created with the current number of children there will be reduced costs from running two schools and therefore it would be better off financially.

Consultation Process

_ If there are only 10 minutes at any Committee meeting for parents to make a presentation this doesn't seem fair to decide the future of a school.

_ Does the consultation make any difference if everyone objects to the proposal? Would it still go ahead? Having formal meetings for parents to make their views known can be a daunting experience and it was suggested that a more informal approach is also considered as part of the consultation exercise.

_ Are minutes made of the comments made at consultation meetings?

_ Can meetings of the School Organisation Committee be held locally to assist parents making presentations as many will not be able to travel to Winchester.

Use of Infant School Site / Buildings

_ What happens to the infant school site if the proposal goes ahead? If the proposal goes ahead the siting of a Pupil Referral Unit and infant aged children together does not appear to be ideal. Other attendees at this meeting felt that since the change of the profile of pupils at the PRU no issues seem to have arisen.

_ Instead of selling the infant school site off, this space should be kept and maintained as open space for the community.

_ How is funding provided to undertake the building works before the site is proposed for sale?

Class Size / School Organisation

_ Having a new school will mean larger classes and this will affect the education of some pupils. There is less opportunity to support individual children in large classes.

_ Both schools work well now and are able to respond to those pupils who have special educational needs. Both schools should be kept in order to maintain this good provision.

_ The infant school had provided much needed support for a particular pupil and this level of support should not be lost. The infant school feels much like a village school and if the reorganisation goes ahead this will be lost. These schools seem to have been picked out of a hat for reorganisation. There would appear to be more concern from infant school parents than junior as the infant school pupils are more likely to be affected by a possible merger of the two schools.

_ Concern was raised about the quality of education at any new school and the impact of change on pupils who have special educational needs.

Pre-school Provision

_ What will happen to the playgroup and the parent/toddler groups currently situated within the infant school?

_ What sort of community facilities will be provided in any new school? Concern was expressed that if the school is to be open at evenings and weekends this will have a detrimental effect on the houses surrounding the school.

Staffing / Funding Issues

_ How does the funding work in a primary school. Are only one headteacher and one deputy headteacher enough to manage a new school?

_ Concerns were expressed about recruitment and retention of staff in view of the long timescale to create a new school. This may affect staffing levels.

Timescale

_ Why does the information given on the timescale show the new school as opening either September 2004 or September 2005?

Publicity

_ It is important that a positive spin is provided for the reorganisation to maintain the good opinion of the schools within the community.

Catchment Areas

_ Which school will pupils from the Old Kempshott Lane proposed housing development attend?

_ A development at Fylingdales in the Buckskin area was for 40 affordable dwellings and this has produced 59 primary aged pupils. Will pupils from this development be targeted to this community or `Oakleystoke'?

Note of Meeting held on 21st November staff and governors at Worting Junior School

The meeting was attended by 25 staff including the headteacher.

Questions / Comments raised at the meeting were:

Staffing

_ What happens to staff if the reorganisation goes ahead? Will staff have to apply for jobs?

Location of New School

_ Creating a primary school based around the junior school buildings is appropriate as the infant school site is some way away from the community. Some parents do not choose Worting Infant School in view of its location.

_ Having one building rather than two will make it easier to maintain and there will be opportunities to improve the building fabric as a result of this process

Pupil Numbers

_ The headteacher explained that she had raised concern over a drop in pupils numbers previously and was pleased to see the proposal to create a new primary school as she saw this as a benefit for the community.

Pupils with Special Educational Needs / Effect on Current Pupils

_ 65% of pupils at the junior school have special educational needs. These pupils can be affected by the transfer between infant and junior school so creating an all-through primary school will prevent this happening in the future.

_ Pupils have expressed concern about the transfer from infant to junior school when this was discussed with them by their class teacher. They would have preferred to have attended a primary school.

_ It is important that during this process the effect on pupils is minimised as far as possible.

Consultation

_ It is important that the children's views are taken into account and it was suggested that an officer from the LEA visit the school to hear their comments.

_ Good communication is key throughout the process to ensure all those affected are kept fully up-to-date with progress.

Buildings / Site

_ Will the new school only open when the new building is available?

_ How much of the total current site will be sold off as part of the process?

Impact on the Community

_ It was felt that the proposal afforded re-generation opportunities for the community.

Impact on Travel

_ The implications for the travel arrangements to and from the school need to be assessed.

At the end of the meeting a view was taken as to whether those in attendance were in favour of the proposal and each group in attendance (School Governors, Support Staff & Teachers ) were in support of the proposal to create a new primary school using the junior school buildings.

Review of Primary Education in the Buckskin Area of Basingstoke

A meeting was held with parents of children attending Worting infant school on 3^rd December. The meeting included some members of the local community and some parents of pre-school children who attend the Star Playschool on the site. In addition it was attended by the local county councillor, Councillor Kelly, the headteacher of the infant school, a governor of the school and the community policeman. In total 38 parents attended.

Points and queries raised on the proposals were as follows:-

School Buildings

_ Separate entrances for infant and junior pupils should be provided in the new primary school together with separate play areas.

_ When will building works commence and has the impact on pupils education been considered?

_ The infant school is sited within the Worting village and in order to preserve community identity it is this building which should be developed as a primary school rather than the junior school building.

_ Creating a new primary school will only make the current parking problems worse.

_ The situation for those parents who have to drive should be improved and parking provided to allow parents to take their children into the school or pre-school.

_ Within the report there is some mention about facilities in the new school but further clarification should be made of what is to be provided.

Pupil Forecast

_ The capacity at the school has changed as a result of net capacity assessments which the county council was required to carry out at all of its schools therefore the surplus capacity has reduced between the initial report and the presentation to this meeting. The figures for the percentage surplus do not appear to reflect the fall in the capacity. Has the new housing in the area been taken into account in the pupil number forecasts?

_ The pupil forecast only shows numbers to 2006. What happens if the housing proposed in the area is built after that period? The proposed old Kempshott Lane housing development is for a minimum of 290 houses but it could be more; also there is a proposal for a major development area close to Buckskin. The additional pupils that could be provided from such developments need to be taken into account.

_ The development at Filingdales Close of social housing has produced 100 primary aged children which is in excess of the 0.25 pupil per dwelling ratio that is quoted as a way of ascertaining new pupil numbers from housing developments. The number of children anticipated from the new housing does not appear to reflect experience elsewhere and could be an under-estimate of the true figure.

_ Have the number of houses generated from the housing development on the infant school site been taken into account in the pupil number forecasts, if the merger goes ahead?

_ The existing schools should be reduced in size in order to fit the demand for admissions.

New Primary School

_ The principle of merging the schools is unacceptable as both schools are good schools. `If it isn't broken don't fix it'.

_ Creating a new primary school will not necessarily attract pupils back to the school; overall it will provide no better education than the current infant and junior schools provide.

_ Mixing infant and junior aged pupils can affect the younger aged children. Infant aged children are better placed in an infant school rather than in a school with older children. The infant aged children get more attention than junior aged pupils and this support needs to be preserved in any future school. It is felt that as a primary school it will not be able to support areas of learning as social skills.

_ How do parents influence the organisation in a new primary school? What will be the organisation in a 1.5FE school? Presumably this will involve mixing different aged groups which will have an impact on the education provided. If children cannot cope in the new primary school and as a result abscond this will adversely affect the community's commitment to the school.

Community Issues

_ The junior school has a bad reputation in the community and that school should be closed not the infant, which has a good reputation. The proposal has had a detrimental impact on the community as it has split the community between those who are in favour and those who are against. This may mean that parents remove their children from the current schools due to the possible disruption a reorganisation would generate.

_ The beat officer for Buckskin highlighted that the area was regarded as being deprived and does not need change, causing anxiety and disruption in the community. It would have been useful if forecast pupil numbers had been projected beyond the period shown, to perhaps 10 years, to get a better idea of the long term situation. Parking is problematic and has safety implications which could be made worse with the development of a new primary school. The Austen unit sited on the junior school site has recently started to accept pupils with more behavioural issues and this does have an impact on the pupils in the area. There could be bullying if there was only one entrance to the new school. The example of a merger of infant and junior schools in recent years in Basingstoke which was felt not to have been successful was mentioned. (Chineham Park Primary School).

Financial Issues

_ There is a significant cost related to extending the junior school building to create a primary school and would it not be best to save that money by keeping both schools operating as they are?

_ Children's education is far more important than creating money by undertaking this reorganisation. Why can't money be obtained from other sources to extend the junior school rather than by having to undertake closure of both schools?

Consultation Process

The decision to close both schools and create a primary school has already been made. Why have no other options apart from amalgamation been considered?

Staffing

_ Will teachers transfer with the children to the new primary school to ensure consistency of education for those pupils affected by the reorganisation? The current teachers work in the schools as they do not want to be part of a primary school. Will this proposal solve the problems that exist within the junior school?

Inclusion

_ Pupils with disabilities will suffer more from being in a larger school and by being with older children rather than remaining in the infant school.

Playgroup Provision

_ Is it guaranteed that the Star Playschool will have space in the new school? There are 50 children within the Star playschool and so it is important that this is retained. What other facilities will be provided in the new school and when will provision be made so that the Star Playschool is aware of what the future holds?

_ If the County Council provides a day nursery there is more income available to the county council, compared to allowing a playschool to operate within its buildings.

Pedestrian Access

_ The Chiltern Lane subway is unusable during bad weather as it floods. This needs to be taken into account when deciding on walking routes to the school and there should be an improvement in the crossing points of the roads in the area.

Catchment Area

_ If the merger goes ahead what will be the new catchment area for the school?

_ The catchment area being poorly drawn in its relationship to other local schools contributes to the low take up of spaces from the catchment areas at the Worting schools.

There was a strong feeling against the merger of the schools from those present at the meeting.

Review of Primary Education in the Buckskin Area of Basingstoke

A meeting was held with the staff of the Worting Infant School on 5^th December. The meeting was attended by 29 people, including representatives from the Star Playschool and the headteacher of the infant school.

The issues/comments raised at the meeting were:-

Governors

_ What will be the influence of the new governing body in the process/implementation of setting up a new primary school?

_ Would the new governors required for the primary school be separate from the existing governors?

The School Organisation Committee

_ What is the number of attendees at the Committee to be quorate? Where will the School Organisation Committee meeting and the Policy Review Committee meeting be held so a deputation can be made.

Pupils' Education

_ The current infant school does meet the needs of pupils and provides added value to their education. How can this be maintained if the reorganisation goes ahead?

_ The school serves an area of deprivation and the headteacher has spent a considerable amount of time dealing with issues arising from this situation including a lot of contact with the Social Services department.

_ In a larger school this will take out even more of the headteacher's time thereby reducing the time available to maintain education standards.

_ Pupils at the infant school learn through play and this key element of their education should not be lost within the new primary school.

_ What would be the benefit of pupils of different age from the same family, e.g. 4 and 10 attending the same school. For some children this could present difficulties, perhaps involving sibling rivalry.

_ If the organisation of the new primary school will result in 45 pupils per year group this will result in cross-key stage education, i.e. a mixture of classes for pupils in Year R / Key Stage 1 and this mix of pupils with the variety in their range of educational skills does not work.

_ The ethos of the infant school and how it delivers education to pupils would need to be transferred to the new school. How long would a transfer of such an ethos take. The strengths of the school in being caring and loving need to be a key part of any new primary school.

Children with special educational needs

_ How will one SEN co-ordinator staff member be able to deal with 330 children when 60% of those children will have special educational needs. The pupils have a variety of special educational needs, e.g. speech, hearing and 7 pupils currently at the infant school have a statement of Special Educational Needs. In view of the additional support they receive it is important that space is available for small group and 1-to-1 work to take place. This takes place now in the infant school and should be an essential part of the new primary school. The infant school currently runs a nurture group as part of a pilot study within Hampshire and this has proved successful in the reintegration of pupils into classes.

_ The infant school is able to offer small class sizes which benefit those children with special educational needs whereas in a larger primary school this will not be the case.

Pupil Numbers

_ From the information contained in the report on the number of 4 year olds in the catchment area, the average is 89 per year. It is clear, therefore, that a new primary school would not be able to offer a place to all eligible pupils in the catchment area. The proposed housing development at Old Kempshott Lane and the new major development area need to be accounted for in the size of any new primary school.

_ As far as the numbers of 4 year olds are concerned, what is the impact of the Old Kempshott Lane on the numbers detailed and have they been taken into account as part of the formulation of these figures? Can the timing and phasing of the Old Kempshott Lane development can be confirmed?

_ If other schools in the area are full then there will not be a choice for parents as to which school they wish their children to go to.

_ The recent example of an amalgamation of an infant and junior school resulting in the creation of Chineham Park Primary school has shown that such mergers do not work due to the fact that the numbers within that school are low. Can the LEA guarantee that a similar position will not occur in an new primary school created for Buckskin?

_ If the new school's number on roll falls, at what point would the LEA revisit the viability of the new school?

_ How many surplus places are being lost if the proposal to create a new primary school goes ahead?

Playgroup Provision

_ The Star Playschool serves the Buckskin and Worting communities and provides a link to the infant school. The playschool staff are keen to be involved in this process but would have concerns regarding the mixture of pre-school children with 10 - 11 year olds, should the creation of the new primary school go ahead.

_ If the Star Playschool is to be relocated as part of the process it would be ideally situated as a separate building. There are good working relationships between the infant school and the Star Playschool and it was felt that the playschool should form a key part of any new primary school.

Community Support

_ The infant school is small, caring and has a staff group able to provide support to parents. Any new school would also need to provide space within which such support to parents can be provided. The community needs such provision.

The staff are proud of the work undertaken to support the community and are afraid that this element will be lost in a new larger school.

Buildings

_ There needs to be space for speech therapy to take place in the new school as a number of pupils within the infant school need such support.

_ There are existing road safety and car parking concerns for both schools which would need to be addressed in the development of a new primary school. The infant school has created an excellent environment for the infant pupils and this needs to be seen by the Committee members before a decision on the possible closure of both schools takes place.

_ It is felt that it would be better to locate any new primary school within the infant buildings rather than the juniors.

_ The junior school is a SCOLA building and as such is not built to a high standard. The costs of the maintenance of such a building need to be taken into account as part of this consultation process.

Funding

_ The infant school is able to manage the budget even though numbers are low. Concern was expressed as to why the junior school is not managing its budget better as this seems to form part of the reasons for the proposed reorganisation.

_ The junior school has bigger class sizes which would seem to indicate that it is unable to manage its budget as well.

_ If the schools were not to close and a new primary school not be created, would the LEA provide investment to the existing schools?

Staffing Issues

_ Recruitment problems exist now and the new school will continue to have problems in recruiting staff.

_ How will the appointment procedures work for staff to obtain jobs in the new school.

_ If staff are unsuccessful in getting jobs at the new school, what will happen? Would they still get paid until they are able to find a new job?

_ There appears to be a misconception in the junior school that the head and deputy of the infant school would not be part of any new primary school.

_ Would new teaching staff posts be advertised?

_ As infant school staff are experts in Key Stage 1 education would the `ring fence' relating to finding other jobs allow them to stay within Key Stage 1 education?

School Starting Times

_ It would be beneficial for the schools to have staggered starting and finishing times for infant and junior aged pupils.

It was felt that the closure and creation of the new primary school could be supported by staff if it was proved that this could provide better education for pupils, but the LEA can't guarantee that this would be the case. As a result it is difficult to see a benefit in this proposal for the children and community. A poll of class teachers showed that 100% were not prepared to work in the new primary school.

Review of Primary Education in the Buckskin Area of Basingstoke

A meeting was held with the Governors of Worting Infant school on 10^th December. The meeting was attended by 14 people including the headteacher and deputy headteacher of the school.

Points and queries raised were as follows:-

Summary of Concerns

Both the infant and junior school are sound schools and if they closed the replacement school must provide the same quality of education, or ideally improve the pupils' education. The information provided as part of the consultation exercise does not give the governors the necessary detail to agree that this would happen. Their main concerns were;

1. The quality of education in the new school

2. The social and educational development of children within the school and community

3. Whether the new school could cope spatially and financially

The specific points raised were:-

Organisation and delivery of education

_ Creating a 1.5 FE size school would result in mixed age groups which are unpopular with parents and children. How will the new school therefore attract new pupils in an area where parents already use alternative schools?

_ How will you get pupils to accept a new school with mixed aged classes as the existing schools are already effective.

_ The existing small classes within the infant school are attractive to parents and should be maintained. Having a larger school with mixed aged classes is less attractive to parents when considering education of their children. The governors would like to see examples within existing size schools where this organisation is being successful. Within the consultation process it was noticed that there appears to be too much emphasis on the school and governors making the new school organisation a success.

_ From the list of 1.5 FE schools provided, four in Basingstoke have been in special measures. Basingstoke is a community with different issues when compared to those in the south of Hampshire. Comparisons shouldn't always be made with Leigh Park as that area has benefited from other resources, e.g, Sure Start.

_ There are other schools with low numbers which are able to deliver the National Curriculum so why can't the existing infant and junior school continue being the same size that they are?

_ The infant school currently provides a nurture group for pupils and such provision should not be lost in the development of any new school. Funding and space need to be provided to the new school to enable this to continue. The small nurture environment that exists within the infant school gives pupils an excellent start in their education and prompts individual development and gives pupils a good grounding so in future they don't become a victim of bullying, for example. The infant school has at its heart the development of pupils. This works very well and there is no need to change the current provision.

_ A parent of 18 years working with the school had seen the junior school struggle to provide good education which had affected the numbers attracted into the infant school.

_ It was noted that the LEA would consider promoting a new school but why wouldn't it do so for the existing schools?

Pupils with Special Educational Needs

_ The infant school has a lot of pupils with a wide range of educational need. How would this be managed in a large school with a wider age range?

Community Impact

_ There are barriers and issues in relation to making the proposed reorganisation work, the key being getting the community on board. This will present difficulties for the new school whereas opportunities exist for the infant and junior school to remain and to continue giving benefit to the whole community.

_ The community and the governing body are suffering as due to this process uncertainty is being created with respect to future education in the area. The governors are not just concerned about the education at the infant school but with the impact on the overall community.

Pupil Numbers

_ If a new primary school is provided and the pupil numbers remain low there will be a more severe impact on staff due to their wider responsibilities than if the current infant and junior schools remain.

_ The example of the school reorganisation which led to the creation of Chineham Park Primary School was quoted, where even after the reorganisation the pupil numbers have remained low. The similarity of the situation does not show this proposal in a good light.

_ The governors needed reassurance that the primary school would not be vulnerable to closure if there were low numbers in the future.

_ There are new housing developments in West Ham (planning application in for 50 houses) and the proposed development at Old Kempshott Lane which would continue to mean that the overall position of school places will be tight. Where would the additional children created from these developments go? The development of Old Kempshott Lane with 290 houses, of which up to 30% could be for social housing, could generate more than the forecast number being anticipated. Other local schools are full and therefore there is no opportunity to go elsewhere which means that more children will be available for the Worting infant and junior schools. This needs to be taken into account.

_ With the potential increase in pupil numbers due to the new housing developments in the future this will enable the existing schools to maintain their ability to manage the funding and to be viable.

Governors

_ How will the temporary governing body required for the new school be set up? If there is to be a need for new governors then recruitment issues may mean that the required number of governors could not be found.

Funding

_ Why can't funding be provided to create additional pre-school provision at the infant school which will give the school the opportunity to attract pupils from the pre-school provision into the school, rather than creating a new facility?

_ The availability of the funding through the in/out process may not be sufficient to meet the community needs as it won't be enough to provide what's been promised.

_ The governors are not aware of the proposed new primary school accommodation and therefore it is difficult to see whether the concerns of the community will be met. Other demands on the County Councils budget may mean that the funding available for this scheme is reduced, therefore affecting the end result.

_ The reinvestment opportunity could be at risk if the anticipated land values are not met.

_ No resources seem to exist for a small change to the existing provision but are available for a major reorganisation.

Catchment Area

_ The low participation rate at the school is due to a poorly shaped catchment area.

_ Pre-school provision at other schools also contributes to a low take up of places at the infant school. It was felt that the opportunity of promoting the pre-school facilities to make the proposal more acceptable to the community has been lost.

_ If the catchment area was adjusted for the existing schools this could result in an increase in the take up of places.

_ If the catchment area remains the same for the new school then parents will still not pass by the Park View schools in order to take their children to the new primary school.

Pre-School Provision

_ Why isn't the opportunity to develop additional pre-school facilities at the existing school being pursued? This would provide an opportunity for the infant school to attract pupils into the school via the pre-school provision as well as meeting community need.

_ Basingstoke is poorly served by nursery provision and additional facilities need to be created.

_ The pre-school provision at Park View infant school is larger than that currently at Worting infant school. Providing additional facilities at the infant school should be considered in order that the number of places matches that at Park View infant school, giving Worting infant the opportunity of attracting more pupils.

_ When will the review of pre-school provision required in the area be looked into? Will details be known for the meeting of the Executive Member for Education in January?

Consideration of other options

_ It was felt that other options have not been considered and included in the Committee paper. Through the consultation process other options have been put forward. There are strong reservations over a new primary school being the right way forward for the community. There is uncertainty that the benefits of such a proposal will outweigh the risks. It was felt that the increase in pre-school provision at the infant school would regenerate the number of pupils at both schools and that this option needs to be looked at in more detail and considered by the Executive Member.

Outcome of Proposal

Governors believe that a significant leap of faith is necessary to agree with the proposal based on a vision which, in light of past experience of other infant and junior school amalgamations in the area, may not be delivered. There is a vagueness about the benefits of such a reorganisation, which makes weighing up the risks versus the benefits difficult.

Review of primary school provision in the Buckskin and South Ham area of Basingstoke

School performance - LEA commentary

Worting Infant School

Worting Infant School is an effective school. The school now has a 20% turbulence factor i.e. during the course of a school year approximately one fifth of the children on roll leave the school and the equivalent number join. Approximately 62% of the children have special educational needs and there has been a rising trend since 1998. Baseline indicates a very low level at entry for a large proportion of the intake. The headteacher and staff work hard to address the specific needs of all children and significant levels of provision are made for both individuals and groups. The school has developed good arrangements for tracking progress and sets high expectations through challenging targets. The baseline research project showed that the children make good progress when compared with other schools. The school performance measures data places the school close to the group average of children achieving level 2+ in mathematics and writing. It is encouraging to see a modest improvement in writing in 2002, which reflects the focussed work undertaken by the school to raise standards in this aspect of English. The targets set for 2003 are appropriately challenging.

The Ofsted inspection in October 1999 stated that standards achieved were good, quality of education was very good, the school's climate for learning was good and management and efficiency were very good. The added value data shows that the school is at least in line with other schools in Hampshire in Mathematics, Science and, in the progress made by higher attaining children, in reading and writing.

Although the school is going through a turbulent period with regard to recruitment and its future, it retains a capacity for self-improvement. It is particularly committed to achieving a broad education for its children and continually strives to improve the quality of their experience. All staff work hard to foster a positive view of learning and to enable children to acquire the skills and attitudes needed for learning independently.

Worting Junior School

Worting Junior School is an effective school. The school has a reducing number on roll, with an increasing percentage of children with special educational needs and an increasing turbulence factor. Over 60% of the school population have SEN, including six children with statements. The most recent Hampshire school performance measures data shows the school to be in the middle quartile of its self-referenced group for English and Science and the upper quartile for Mathematics. The targets set in December 2000 for the end of Key Stage 2 in 2002 were exceeded in both English and Mathematics. The school's well developed assessment and tracking procedures indicate that children make at least satisfactory and often good progress against prior attainment.

The Ofsted inspection in September 2000 stated that although children entered the school with standards that are well below average, they achieve good progress with their learning as a direct result of the good quality of teaching and the excellent management by the headteacher and senior staff.

The school continues to meet the criteria for determining its capacity for self-improvement. The school does recognise the differing needs of all children, is committed to achieving a broad education for its children and has been successful in striving to improve the quality of their experiences and to foster a positive view of learning. The school is able to use performance data to set targets for individual children and for groups. It has been particularly successful in beginning to develop information communication technology as a tool for learning. Important developments have been achieved in planning Mathematics opportunities across the curriculum and a multi-intelligence approach to teaching the subject.

The school's targets for 2004 are based on a very careful analysis of individual attainment and progress and are appropriately challenging.

Review of primary schools provision in the Buckskin and South Ham wards of Basingstoke

Correspondence received: