CALMORE JUNIOR SCHOOL

CONSULTATION WITH PARENTS (2 July 2003)

78 people present including four local Councillors and two County Councillors.

Statement

· The Executive Member (Education) made a statement to the meeting about the consultation process and emphasised that no decisions had been taken on the outcome of the consultations contrary to the rumour circulating within the area.

· Following the statement a parent asked if the Members who will be discussing the proposals will visit the schools concerned.

Buildings

· One of the parents made the point that some of the classrooms in the junior building are quite big which means that as the number on roll falls the amount of space per child increases which is beneficial.

· There are two proposals for the Calmore schools; one is to amalgamate and the other is to provide additional resourced SEN provision and Early Years. Is the status quo not an option?

· If the infant school decided that they wish to extend the early years provision in the school and take up the surplus places in that way, what would happen to the surplus places at the junior school?

· The governors present at the meeting made the point that they have been unable to make decision about the proposal because they have been exploring the other options with schools who already have the different types of provision established.

· One member of the community stated that she had just finished full time education and, during her last year, there were building works at the school which adversely affected her education.

· One parent wished to pursue the possibility of moving all the children from Oakfield Primary School into the Calmore Schools (in order to refill them) and use Oakfield Primary School as the new SEN school.

· The provision of additional early years accommodation in the infant school could stop the drift away of pupils from the area to other schools. If this were to happen the school would be short of places.

· As part of the original presentation to the parents it was stated that the LEA could propose the closure of the junior school (a foundation school). Some parents wished to be assured that the LEA would not be proposing option 1 (the amalgamation of the two schools to form a 2FE primary school). The parents also wished to be assured that if option 2 is proposed the governors would still be able to say no to the SEN provision.

· Should option 1 be proposed will there be pre-school provision in the new primary school?

· Some parents wished to know if the LEA could impose the closure of the junior school, against the wished of the governing body, even though it has foundation status. They also sought clarification about the status of the new primary school, i.e. community or foundation.

· A number of parents wished to know what is seen as a "reasonable" size for a primary school.

· It was pointed out that both the infant and junior school had music/drama rooms and ICT suites. Would the new primary school be built to the primary brief plus everything the infant school currently provides in its accommodation?

· One parent asked if it would be possible for the amalgamation to take place in the infant building with the junior site being accessed from Oldbarn Close for any possible residential redevelopment.

· Some parents were of the opinion that the consultation is taking place in a vacuum without any idea of what the solution might be. They wished to know what the LEA was trying to achieve.

· Some parents wished to know how long any building work might take and whether or not this could be achieved during the summer break.

Funding

· The revenue funding for a school is based upon the number of children not the size of the school, so why does the size of school matter?

· A number of parents wished to know how much it would cost to carry out the building works on the school and questioned the cost benefit analysis of this work rather than leave both schools operational.

· Concern was expressed that the LEA was consulting on proposals without knowing how much each of the proposals would cost and without knowing if enough funding could be generated to carry out the works. If preliminary costings have been produced why not share them with the community and be up front about how the funding is likely to be spent, including any possible capital receipts from the sale of land.

Educational Standards

· Parents were concerned that the quality of education will decline if there is an amalgamation of the two schools and they wished to know how the proposed amalgamation will improve the education of the children.

· The point was made that parents move into the area so that they are able to send their children to a good school. This includes making a decision about separate infant and junior schools. The amalgamation process will take away the parental preference for separate schools.

· The amalgamation may improve the education of the pupils but some of this will be down to the environment in which the children are taught. If this is the case at what size will the new classrooms in the new primary school be built?

· Parents were concerned that if a SEN resourced provision was introduced the governors would have little control over what happened within that provision and wished to be assured that the governors would have a say in how the provision was run. They were also anxious that the governing would be able to say no to the provision if they felt it was detrimental to the educational standards of the school.

· A question was raised about how the LEA prioritises the area of need in the Totton/Waterside area when deciding which provision will be placed at which school.

Pupil Numbers

· Some concern was expressed about the forecast numbers in the light of hundreds of new houses being built in the area and the point was made that a small error at the start of the process becomes magnified the further into the future that the projections run. Do the forecasts take into account the new housing being proposed by New Forest District Council?

· One parent stated that housing will go all the way down to junction 2 so there will be a need for more places not less so why not leave the schools as they are at present?

· Some parents were of the opinion that the LEA was refusing to acknowledge the longer term housing developments in the area in order to show that the schools should be amalgamated.

· Hangar Farm is just about to be developed with 290 houses, of which 95 will be social housing, so there will be a number of younger families who will have children. On that basis should we be seeking to remove places from the area when there is likely to be a growth in pupil numbers? It also appears that Totton does not have any planning constraints as does the rest of the New Forest District area so it is likely that more housing will be squeezed into the area rather than spread out over the New Forest which will put even greater pressure on the schools in the area.

· Parents were apprehensive that the removal of surplus places from the Calmore Schools will cause longer term problems when Dibden Bay is built and pupils from that development try to find places in the local schools.

· If the infant school site was sold for residential development where would all the children from the development go to school if the surplus places at the Calmore Schools have been removed?

· A question was asked about how the projected numbers for Oakfield Primary and Bartley Junior are increasing when set against a falling school population. Could Oakfield not be stopped from taking too many pupils and becoming over full?

· A question was also raised regarding the participation rates for the two Calmore Schools. The infant school shows 68% and the junior school as 94% so why is the junior school not full if it is taking virtually 100% of its catchment?

· After an explanation of the position a supplementary question was asked about the 68% for the infant school and the possibility that this would rise following a good OfSTED inspection. If this were the case why not leave the Calmore Schools as they are.

· The point was made that the consultation process will bring with it insecurity for the schools involved and the predicted drop in numbers will become a self fulfilling prophesy as parents choose away from schools under threat.

· Parents wished to know if there is a limit to the number of pupils per class in a primary school.

· One member of the governing body asked if the removal of surplus places and the provision of additional early years or SEN resourced provision is not the same thing, i.e. if you achieve the additional early years provision or SEN provision in existing schools the number of surplus places falls by default.

· It was pointed out that if all the pupils living in the catchment area attended the two school they would be full so why not leave the schools alone to refill?

Timing

· Parents wished to know why it has taken so long to begin the consultations after the decision to allow this to happen (27 March 2003) and whether anything else had been happening since that date.

Consensus

· There was no consensus from the meeting.