Contact:

Chris Holt; Education Officer (Primary); 01962 845673; [email protected]

Bob Eardley; Strategic Planning Manager; 01962 846275; [email protected]

1 Summary

1.1. This report provides details of the outcomes of consultations held at Langdown Infant, Langdown Junior and Wildground Junior schools.

1.2. The notes of the meetings held with parents, staff and governors of the schools can be found in Appendix 1. Appendix 2 comprises the LEA commentary on school performance for each of the schools. A record of all correspondence and documentation received is set out in Appendix 3. A map is provided in Appendix 4 and the summary of Langdown Junior School's Ofsted inspection report of September 2003 is provided in Appendix 5.

1.3. All correspondence is on deposit in the Members' Room during the week prior to the Education Policy Review Committee meeting on 2 March 2004, and will be available for perusal in the Council Chamber from 9.30 am on the day of the meeting.

2 Consultation options

2.1. Data on school places at the Langdown schools is set out in Table 1.

Table 1

2.2. The number on roll at Langdown Junior School gave cause for concern, showing it to be the smallest junior school in the county; the equivalent of a one form entry junior school. The County Council's stated optimum size for junior schools is between two forms of entry (240 places) and five forms of entry (600 places) as set out in the County Council's School Organisation Plan. It is difficult for a junior school of the size of Langdown to sustain the range of opportunities available in other schools. Attracting high quality staff can be an issue and it is more difficult to provide for subject leadership across the curriculum. This, together with the number on roll at Langdown Infant School, led to consultation taking place on the following option:

· Amalgamation of Langdown Infant and Langdown Junior Schools to form a 210 place (one form entry) or 330 place (1.5 form entry) primary school on the junior school site, with a view to incorporating and enhancing the early years provision which currently exists at Langdown Infant School.

2.3. Having reflected on comments made during consultation meetings in July 2003 on the option set out in paragraph 2.2, on 16 October 2003 the Executive Member for Education authorised a further consultation with the Langdown schools' communities and with Wildground Junior School, on the possible closure of Langdown Junior School, the re-designation of the school's catchment area to Wildground Junior School and the consequent enlargement of Wildground Junior School.

2.4. Langdown Junior School was inspected by the Office for Standards in Education (Ofsted) in September 2003. Ofsted's judgement was that there were issues of such a severe nature that the school required special measures to ensure that children's education was of the appropriate quality (see Appendix 5). When a school is judged by Ofsted to be in need of special measures the County Council is required to consider the scope for closure of the school. The option to close Langdown Junior School as a result of the review of primary school provision in the east New Forest area, together with the post-Ofsted duty of the County Council, are inextricably linked. When the school was inspected in 1996 weaknesses were identified in standards, teaching and leadership. Some improvement was identified when the school was next inspected in 1999 but underlying weaknesses remained. It has therefore had a long history of striving to sustain standards against a background of falling numbers and small size.

2.5. Following the school's most recent inspection, the LEA, with the agreement of the Department for Education and Skills and following discussion with the governors, has replaced the Governing Body with an Interim Executive Board (allowed for in the case of schools in special measures under the provisions of the 2002 Education Act) and this, in itself, is illustrative of the level of concern about the factors making it difficult for the school to address these issues.

2.6. The headteacher retired at the end of the autumn term 2003. The school now has an acting headteacher who has been seconded to the school for two terms.

3 Langdown Junior School: review of responses to consultation on amalgamation

3.1. Staff, parents and governors asked what would happen to the infant school site in the event of an amalgamated primary school on the junior school site. Governors wished to be assured that any primary school would be built to the necessary specification to enable full delivery of the curriculum. Parents felt that they would be in a better position to decide whether or not amalgamation was the best option if they could see the design/layout of the proposed primary school. It was pointed out that drainage on the school playing field was poor and that car parking on the site was already at its limit.

3.2. Parents wished to know whether or not there would be separate play areas for infant and junior aged children. It was stated that unless it could be shown that a primary school would provide better accommodation for infant aged children than that which presently exists at the infant school, then the infant school community would not support amalgamation.

3.3. Staff queried how an amalgamation would relieve the pressure on teachers to deliver a broad and balanced curriculum. A one form entry primary school would require four Key Stage 2 teachers and there are already four Key Stage 2 teachers at the junior school. Staff wanted to know the procedure which would be followed regarding employment in any `new' primary school, and what would happen to any staff who did not secure a post in the school. Governors were concerned that if staff moved on in the next couple of years it would be difficult to recruit to vacant posts.

3.4. Parents sought assurance that the forecast pupil numbers took into account Langdown children who attended out of catchment schools. There was concern that an amalgamated one and a half form entry primary school would result in mixed age classes, and the view was expressed that single age classes are better. It was pointed out that there are smaller schools in the county than Langdown Junior School so why should it matter that the school is operating at one form of entry?

3.5. Governors were concerned that retention and recruitment of staff could be problematic, and this would have an adverse impact on educational standards in the school. Also any building work necessary to create a primary school would have a detrimental impact on standards.

3.6. The governing body believed that a primary school, located on the junior school site, would serve the best interests of the children and the local community. This view presupposes that a future primary school would house the existing Langdown Playgroup (presently located at the infant school), that early years provision would be enhanced, and that the primary school would have facilities for daytime community use.

4 Langdown Infant School: review of responses to consultation on amalgamation

4.1. Some governors and parents were of the opinion that the reason that the infant school did not attract more children was due to parents' perception of the junior school. This led to parents placing children in neighbouring infant and primary schools in an effort to secure a perceived better education for their children at junior age. Governors made the point that educational standards at the infant school were good and getting better. There was concern that this progress may not be sustained in the event of amalgamation. Parents were also concerned about the potential disruption to children's education if the two schools were amalgamated. Concern was expressed by some governors that a one and a half form entry primary school meant mixed age classes which would result in a poorer standard of education for children.

4.2. Parents were concerned that the uncertainty being caused by the review would lead to staff leaving, and that this would have a detrimental effect on standards at the school. There was considerable concern expressed about the damaging effect of the review on staff morale. The point was made by some staff that they had made a career choice to work in an infant school. Governors queried the fate of staff in the event of amalgamation. Parents expressed the view that they would wish to see infant staff transferred to the primary school should amalgamation take place.

4.3. Parents and governors sought assurance that pupil number forecasts took into account the demography of the area and, in particular, the army estate within the school's catchment area. Reference was made to the high number of recent births at the local maternity unit. Concern was expressed that class sizes would become bigger if the schools amalgamated. The point was made that the uncertainty caused by the review was causing parents not to place their children at the school.

4.4. Governors and staff sought clarification with regard to the future of Langdown Playgroup. Would this be re-located in the primary school in the event of amalgamation? Some parents expressed concern that four year olds would have further to walk to school if the infant school were closed. The point was made that parents had opted to send their children to a small infant school and this choice would be denied them if the schools amalgamated. Allied to this was concern at the prospect of the four year olds and the eleven year olds being together and the fear that younger children would be bullied.

4.5. Parents wished to know what the primary school would have in terms of accommodation and playground areas. They were of the opinion that the facilities at the infant school were `better than average', and the point was made that if there was no guarantee that the accommodation in an amalgamated primary school was not as good, or better, then amalgamation should not even be contemplated. It was pointed out that access and traffic congestion/hazards were an issue at the junior school. In the event of amalgamation, governors, parents and staff would want all building work to be completed before pupils were moved, and sought reassurance that there would be no temporary accommodation on the site. Governors also wished to be assured that they would have the opportunity to influence any building plans for an amalgamated primary school.

4.6. Parents, governors and staff were united in their view that there should be no amalgamation. All perceived the infant school to be doing well and they would not want to see this disrupted any more than is already the case. It was felt that the LEA should concentrate on supporting the junior school.

5 Langdown Junior and Langdown Infant Schools: review of responses to consultation on the junior school's closure

5.1. Staff and governors of the junior school expressed concern at the prospect of children having to attend a junior school located one and a half miles away. It was pointed out that many children at Langdown Junior School walk to school without an accompanying adult, and the walking route to Wildground Junior School involved a crossing of, and walking alongside, busy roads. A view was expressed that children would not be safe. Reference was made to the traffic problems experienced at Wildground Junior School now at drop-off and pick-up times. Given the distances involved, Langdown parents would exacerbate the problems as they would elect to drive children to school. Concern was also expressed at the perceived likely prospect of parents, whose older children were forced to attend Wildground Junior School, opting to place their younger children at Wildground Infant School. This would have serious repercussions for pupil numbers at Langdown Infant School. It was pointed out that the closest school for some Langdown children was Hythe Primary School, so why wasn't this an alternative if Langdown Junior School were closed?

5.2. Junior school governors and staff queried whether the decision to consult on the school's closure was as a result of the recent Ofsted inspection which had placed the school in special measures. It was pointed out that staff and governors, with the support of the LEA, would be striving to ensure improvement. On the basis that satisfactory improvements were achieved, would the County Council reconsider any closure proposal? It was asked whether Wildground Junior School had sufficient room to accommodate Langdown pupils if the school were to close. Confirmation was sought that, in the event of closure, any funding generated from the sale of Langdown Junior School's site would be used to support the education of Langdown children.

5.3. Governors and staff reiterated their support for the option to create a primary school on the junior school site.

5.4. Parents, the majority from Langdown Infant School, were very concerned about the prospect of their children having a long walk along a perceived unsafe route to an alternative school, were Langdown Junior School to close. The point was also made that some parents will have children at Langdown Infant School and at Wildground Junior School, and that this would be extremely problematic. Parents asked whether they would have a choice as to which school their child would transfer to. Some parents thought it unfair that a decision about the future of the Langdown schools would not be known until after the date on which parents of children starting school in September 2004 would have to decide which school they would wish their child to attend. If it were decided Langdown Junior School should close would parents opt for Langdown Infant School or Wildground Infant School to the detriment of Langdown Infant School?

5.5. Some parents were concerned that the closure of Langdown Junior School would necessitate their having to purchase new uniforms for their children. Where would the money come from? The point was made that traffic congestion around the Wildground schools was a problem now, and this would be exacerbated if Wildground Junior School were to admit more children. In the event of the closure of Langdown Junior School and the enlargement of Wildground Junior School, parents were concerned that building work at Wildground Junior School would disrupt children's education.

5.6. Of the 118 present at the meeting, 54 showed that they were in favour of retaining Langdown Infant and Langdown Junior Schools. Were the status quo not an option, 34 were in favour of amalgamation.

5.7. Concern was expressed at a meeting with Langdown Infant School staff and governors that the views expressed at the joint meeting of Langdown parents was not representative. Governors and staff were forceful in their reiteration that they would not want to see any changes which would result in infant age children being denied the opportunity to attend their successful and caring infant school. The staff team were passionate in stating their belief that a small infant school, with on-site playgroup, provided the best possible start for Langdown children.

6 Wildground Junior School: Review of responses to consultation on enlargement

6.1. Governors, staff and parents were concerned that the school did not have the infrastructure, for example toilets, grounds, catering facilities, car parking, to cater for up to 120 additional pupils. Allied to this was the issue of traffic. Parents were particularly exercised at the prospect of exacerbating what was `already a nightmare' at school drop off and pick up times. There was unease at the prospect of Langdown children having to walk what was considered to be unreasonable distances alongside and across busy main roads.

6.2. Parents asked whether other alternatives had been considered in the event of Langdown Junior School's closure, pointing out that for some Langdown children Hythe Primary and Orchard Junior Schools would be closer for them to walk to. Why couldn't Hythe Primary children be moved to Wildground Junior School and Langdown Junior School children go to Hythe? Views were expressed that Langdown and Wildground were two separate communities and Langdown children attending Wildground Junior School would feel isolated.

6.3. It was felt that the impact of admitting 100+ children at the same time would have a serious and damaging effect on standards at the school. It would put considerable strain on staff and Wildground Junior School children in managing this large influx of children. It was pointed out that Wildground Junior School had a relatively high number of children with special educational needs and that Langdown Junior School was not dissimilar. Putting the two groups together was not a good idea.

6.4. There was concern that the consultation was being rushed in order to push the proposed changes through. Why haven't Wildground Infant School parents, governors and staff been consulted, together with parents of pre-school age children and local residents?

6.5. There was a clear consensus at the end of the meeting with parents against the enlargement of Wildground Junior School to house displaced Langdown Junior children in the event of that school's closure.

7 Wildground Infant School: review of responses to consultation on enlargement of the junior school

7.1. In view of the issues raised at the Wildground Junior meetings in December 2003, it was agreed that consultations should be held with the staff, governors and parents of Wildground Infant School.

7.2. Parents, governors and staff were concerned that an influx of 100 children would have a negative impact on educational standards at Wildground Junior School. It was also pointed out that there was a relatively high incidence of special educational needs at Wildground Junior School and there was a similar pattern of needs at Langdown Junior School. Concern was expressed at the disruption which would be caused to children's education whilst building work was underway. Parents believed that the admission of more children to the school would result in larger class sizes.

7.3. Staff, governors and parents stated that more children at the Junior School would lead to greater pressure on places at Wildground Infant School, pointing out that Langdown parents whose junior aged children had to attend Wildground Junior School, and whose infant aged children were attending Langdown Infant School, would find it very difficult to manage with children at different schools over one mile apart. Allied to this was concern that the walking routes between Langdown and the Wildground schools bordered dangerous, busy roads. It was questioned how long it would be before the County Council sought to expand Wildground Infant School. Provision for Langdown children at Wildground Junior School could have the effect of denying children a place at the Wildground schools, who would have otherwise got in.

7.4. It was suggested that if Langdown Junior School were to close, then a better option would be to spread the displaced the children amongst all the local schools, providing accommodation as necessary. Parents pointed out that many children lived closer to alternative schools other than Wildground. There was concern that new buildings on the Wildground site would take away space, and therefore reduce what was presently on offer to pupils. Allied to this was concern from staff that the present infrastructure of the Junior School would not sustain up to 120 additional children, for example, lunchtime arrangements were already at saturation point.

7.5. Governors, parents and staff highlighted the very strong links which existed between the Wildground schools and their local community which had been built over many years. The schools would not want to jeopardise this relationship, which had helped with regard to the significant traffic issues at the start and end of the school day. Local residents ere extremely concerned at the prospect of even greater traffic congestion which would occur in the event of Langdown children moving to the Wildground site. This view was strongly endorsed by governors, staff and parents alike.

7.6. Both the meeting with governors and staff, and the meeting with parents revealed unanimous opposition to the proposal that Wildground Junior School be enlarged to accommodate displaced Langdown Junior children.

8 Parish Council: review of response to consultation

8.1. On 9 October 2003 Hythe and Dibden Parish Council wrote and stated its opposition to an amalgamation of Langdown Infant and Langdown Junior schools. On 20 October the Parish Council was informed of the additional consultations, as authorised by the Executive Member for Education on 16 October 2003, to be held with the Langdown communities on the option to close Langdown Junior school. On 17 December 2003 Hythe and Dibden Parish Council wrote and expressed the view that notwithstanding that there does not appear to be any evidence of falling school rolls in the area, if Langdown Junior School were closed, then the parish council would recommend that the building be retained for community use. In the event of Langdown Junior School's closure, Hythe and Dibden Parish Council expressed concern over the logistics and related safety issues (walking routes/traffic) of parents getting infant and junior age siblings to their respective schools.

9 Members' visits

9.1. Members visited the schools on the following dates:

· Langdown schools on 11 December 2003

· Wildground schools on 10 February 2004

9.2. Specific issues were raised in relation to the percentages of children at each of the schools receiving free school meals, and the percentages of children identified through the special needs audit. Members were informed as follows:

Table 2

School	SEN Audit (%)	Free school meals (%)
Langdown Infant	51	29
Langdown Junior	38	21
Wildground Junior	40	20

10 Area specific issues raised during the consultation

Traffic/walking routes

10.1. The anxieties of Langdown and Wildground parents and governors about increased traffic and the safety of walking routes as a result of possible reorganisation are acknowledged. Nevertheless, this review must address educational issues first and foremost, whilst recognising that traffic management is an issue affecting the whole county in the broader context. Reorganisation inevitably involves disruption to families and there are individual difficulties, particularly when they relate to the need to take children to more than one site, although for some families a different location may have advantages. The walking distances between the Langdown and neighbouring schools are set out in Table 3:

Table 3

	Wildground (miles)	Hythe Primary (miles)	Orchard (miles)
Langdown Infant	1.19	1.07	1.33
Langdown Junior	1.44	0.78	1.32

Walking routes are all on paved paths or footways. The actual journey would depend on home address.

10.2 If there is a prospect of traffic difficulties affecting children's safety in any way, then there will be discussion between appropriate County Council and New Forest District Council officers to resolve the issues.

Catchment areas

10.3 The issue of school catchment areas, in relation to parental preference, was raised on a number of occasions. Catchment areas are largely irrelevant until a school is over-subscribed. The re-drawing of a line will not, of itself, alter parents' expression of preference. Given the relatively close proximity of schools in the Dibden area (appendix 4 refers) there is considerable movement across catchment areas as demonstrated in Table 4, which shows the number of Langdown catchment area children attending neighbouring schools and the number of children attending the Langdown schools from adjacent catchment areas:

Table 4

School	Langdown catchment children attending neighbouring schools	Children from neighbouring catchment areas attending Langdown schools
		Langdown Infant	Langdown Junior
Hythe Primary	102	6	4
Orchard Junior	20	0	11
Wildground Junior	23	0	14
Orchard Infant	18	2	0
Wildground Infant	17	12	0
Totals:	180	20	29
		49

Early years provision

10.4 In agreeing that consultation should take place on the options set out in sections 2.2 and 2.3, the Executive Member for Education was keen to explore opportunities which may arise as a result of potential changes to the current pattern of primary school provision, to consolidate and enhance early years provision as appropriate.

10.5 Table 5 sets out the number of pre-school age children and the provision known to be available to them in the Furzedown and Hardley wards.

Table 5

Ward (Schools)	No. of early years places	No. of 3 and 4 year olds
		2003	2004	2005
Furzedown and Hardley (Langdowns)	85	101	107	101

10.6 An analysis of the data from the County Council's Early Education and Childcare Unit has shown that there is a shortfall of early education places in the Furzedown and Hardley ward. In the neighbouring wards of Hythe West and Langdown, and Butts Ash and Dibden Purlieu there is also a current shortfall of 93 and 35 early education places, respectively. Bearing in mind that the County Council has a duty to secure good quality early education places from the age of three years for those parents who request them and that there are no surplus places in neighbouring wards, there is a strong case to strengthen and extend this provision on the Langdown School site.

10.7 Langdown Infant School houses Langdown Playgroup, which offers 48 places on a sessional basis.

11 The way forward

11.1. During the first round of consultations with the Langdown communities on the option to amalgamate and form a primary school, the schools were split in what each perceived to be in children's best interests. Whilst the junior school governing body supported the idea of a primary school, incorporating early years and community provision, the infant school were clear that the infant school should remain separate. Further consultation with the Langdown communities on the option to close the junior school and re-designate the school's catchment area to Wildground Junior School led to affirmation on Langdown Junior School's part that a primary school was the best way forward. A clear view was expressed at the joint meeting of Langdown parents that they would prefer the separate infant and junior schools to remain. However, if that were considered not to be a realistic option then significant numbers of parents at the joint meeting expressed a preference for an amalgamated primary school rather than the loss of education provision on the Langdown Junior site.

11.2. The numbers on roll at the infant and junior schools in January 2003 were 112 and 121 respectively. In January 2004, the numbers on roll were 95 at the infant and 110 at the junior school. This decline in numbers may reflect the reluctance of parents to place their child at a school which is under review. It may also be indicative of parental concerns about the quality of education provided at the junior school and the standards which the children achieve. Pupil numbers at the infant and junior schools are forecast to fall to 85 and 70 respectively. The issue of school size is referred to in paragraphs 9.8 - 9.11 of the overview report, where it is acknowledged that small schools can achieve excellent results, but that they are more vulnerable in their ability to sustain effective and high quality education.

11.3. Given the present and forecast number on roll at Langdown Junior School, together with the school's present special measures status, the option to maintain the school would represent a high risk strategy. The LEA has a very good record in securing improvement in schools in special measures. However, a small junior school with declining numbers will always face considerable challenge in recruiting a head with the skills and experience to lead a school out of special measures. Similarly, it is more difficult to recruit and retain good quality teachers in such circumstances. Langdown Junior School has had underlying weaknesses since 1996 and there is an obvious risk that improvements achieved in the coming months with the benefit of the current high levels of support will not be sustained when this is reduced.

11.4. The school and the local education authority are fully committed to taking the necessary action to remove the school from special measures, thereby ensuring that the children receive the high quality education to which they are entitled, and are confident that this will be achieved. However, a junior school of less than one form of entry will remain vulnerable.

11.5. The school will be supported fully in order to ensure that the children now on roll receive the best possible opportunities. Such support brought about significant improvements when the school was previously identified by Ofsted as having weaknesses. The difficulty lies in sustaining the quality in the face of the local circumstances, including the further fall in the number of primary pupils: the current picture is that numbers are declining below one form of entry and the school is in special measures. In these circumstances recruitment and retention of good staff is likely to be highly problematic.

11.6. Two approaches to address these issues of concern are set out below.

Creation of a primary school on the Langdown Junior School site

11.7. In order to sustain places for children across the 3 to 11 age range in this part of the area, bearing in mind the success of the infant school, there would be an opportunity to establish a single school and to invest in upgrading the accommodation. This would also address concerns that if provision were made for junior aged children only outside the area served by the Langdown schools, there could be a growing tendency for infant aged children also to attend other schools.

11.8. The creation of a primary school on the junior school site, incorporating the current Langdown playgroup, would ensure the opportunity for continued educational provision for pre-school, infant and junior age children within the Langdown community. Forecast combined pupil numbers for Langdown Infant and Langdown Junior Schools are 207 in 2005/06 and 195 in 2008/09. On this basis a one form entry (210 place) primary school would have sufficient capacity, and a one and a half form entry (315 place) school would be too large.

11.9. Table 6 shows the forecast position for January 2007 and January 2009, assuming that building work for a 1 f.e. Langdown Primary School is completed by September 2006. It demonstrates that a 1 f.e. Langdown Primary School, with other schools in the area, would provide sufficient capacity to meet forecast demand, which would be kept under review. This represents a continuation of the present situation where, because of the proximity of other schools, children attend schools outside the catchment area. The longer term level of surplus places would be consistent with national guidelines. The opportunity would be available to increase capacity if demand were to increase in future years.

Table 6 Langdown Primary School option - forecast numbers on roll in 2007 and 2009

Schools	Net capacity	January 2007			January 2009
		NOR	Surplus	% Surplus	NOR	Surplus	% Surplus
Langdown Primary	210	176	34	16.2	155	55	26.2
Hythe Primary	315	304	11	3.5	304	11	3.5
Orchard schools	660	632	28	4.2	603	57	8.6
Wildground schools	420	388	32	7.6	378	42	1.0
Totals	1,605	1,500	105	6.5	1,440	165	10.3

11.10. A primary school would offer one focal point for parents and the Langdown community. It would support a larger staff team, which would be more likely to provide a greater shared expertise and more opportunities for the career progression of staff than presently exists within the separate infant and junior schools. These factors are important in meeting the challenges of staff recruitment and retention. Surplus places in Langdown Junior School are not the main issue. Spare spaces have already been used for specialist teaching provision but that does not tackle the underlying issue of the school's viability, which requires more radical measures.

11.11. Langdown Infant School is well led and has an effective team of teachers who enjoy the confidence and strong support of the local community. The school's headteacher was previously a successful headteacher of a primary school. There has been a steady improvement in pupils' performance in recent years and standards are broadly in line with those of similar schools. The most recent Ofsted inspection of the school was in January 2002. The school was judged to be well led and to provide good value for money. No unsatisfactory teaching was seen and nearly half was judged to be very good. Recent LEA visits to the school indicate that these positive features have been sustained.

Closure of Langdown Junior School, retention of Langdown Infant School and expansion of Wildground Junior School

11.12. Closure of Langdown Junior School and retention of Langdown Infant School would ensure the opportunity of continued educational provision for pre-school and infant age children within the Langdown community. Junior age children would have the option to attend one of three neighbouring schools: Wildground Junior; Hythe Primary; Orchard Junior. Present and forecast pupil numbers at each of these schools show insufficient capacity for all the Langdown children to be accommodated; additional accommodation would therefore need to be provided. Neither the Hythe nor the Orchard sites are capable of the significant enlargement. This would be feasible at Wildground junior school. The displacement of Langdown Junior School children to a neighbouring school, or schools, may have an impact on pupil numbers at Langdown Infant School if parents opt to place their children in other infant or primary schools because of the journeys involved, or other reasons.

11.13. Forecast numbers on roll in local schools in January 2007 and January 2009 if this option were to be implemented are shown in Table 7.

Table 7 - Closure of Langdown Junior School, retention of Langdown Infant School, expansion of Wildground Junior School - forecast numbers on roll in 2007 and 2009

Schools	Net capacity	January 2007			January 2009
		NOR	Surplus	% Surplus	NOR	Surplus	% Surplus
Langdown Infant	120	87	33	27.5	85	35	29.2
Hythe Primary	315	304	11	3.5	304	11	3.5
Orchard schools	660	632	28	4.2	603	57	8.6
Wildground schools	540	476	64	11.8	484	56	10.4
Totals	1,635	1,499	136	8.3	1476	159	9.7

Strategic considerations

11.14. The County Council's responsibility is to take a strategic view of the most sustainable way to provide school places for the area. Primary schools in this area are close together and families exercise preferences among them.

11.15. In planning new schools in urban or suburban areas, the County Council would not consider establishing a junior school of this size. In small rural communities where effective alternatives are not available, small village schools are supported; the extra costs (which fall on the education budget and therefore affect what is available for schools generally) may be offset to some extent by the cost of transport in rural areas (the statutory distances beyond which home to school transport to a designated school is provided free of charge to parents is two miles for children under eight and three miles for older children).

11.16. As stated earlier, Langdown Junior School's governing body was supportive of the primary school option. Langdown Infant School is not in favour of this option for a variety of reasons, a major one being the belief that what is presently on offer at the infant school would be lost in a primary school. There is no reason to suppose that a primary school could not build on the significant strengths of Langdown Infant School. The infant school site is too small to house a primary school with purpose built early years provision, therefore a primary school would need to be located on the present junior school site in extended and adapted buildings, designed to create a better learning environment for junior age children, and to emulate present infant and early years provision at Langdown Infant School.

11.17 The primary school could be established in one of two ways, either:

· the closure of both Langdown Infant and Langdown Junior schools and the opening of a new primary school, or

· the closure of one and the change of character and enlargement of the other on the junior school site.

11.18 The enlargement of Wildground Junior School would meet the LEA's statutory duty to provide sufficient school places for children in the area. Walking distances for displaced Langdown children would be well within what are deemed to be reasonable by the Department for Education and Skills . The potential, logistical difficulties of some parents of children attending schools at Langdown and Wildground could be dissipated by staggered start and finish times at the schools, however there is a risk that numbers at Langdown Infant School could decline as parents elect to place infant and junior children in the adjacent Wildground schools.

11.19 The issues of parking and traffic congestion around the Wildground schools are not unique to this area. Whilst, first and foremost, it is the duty of the County Council to ensure there are sufficient school places for the children requiring them, the very real traffic issues which exist in the immediate area cannot be ignored, particularly in relation to the safety of children. In conjunction with the appropriate authorities, careful consideration would need to be given as to how the increase in traffic which would result from greater numbers of children at Wildground Junior School could be managed.

11.20 Either option would provide sufficient places for the area, with a surplus of around 10% by 2009, in line with guidelines.

11 Capital strategy

12.1 Initial feasibility studies have been carried out on the adaptation of Langdown Junior School to form a one form entry primary school and on the extension of Wildground Junior School to three forms of entry. These studies take account of the accommodation which would be required under the primary building brief and the need for refurbishment of the building overall, as well as major repair and maintenance items.

Adaptation of Langdown Junior School to a one form entry primary school

12.2 The Langdown Junior building would require two additional classrooms and spaces for craft and food technology to bring it up to the brief standard. Provision is also proposed for early years. The building would benefit from significant refurbishment, the cost of which would depend upon the amount of work carried out. This could range from internal redecoration of walls and ceilings to full refurbishment, covering new floor, wall and ceiling finishes, light fittings and minor internal layout modifications. The table below summarises the estimated costs.

Table 8 - Estimated capital costs of a one form entry primary school in the Langdown Junior building

Project elements	£ million
Additional general teaching	0.415
Additional specialist teaching	0.338
Early years	0.376
Internal refurbishment	0.304

12.3 The total estimated cost of the project, including the new early years provision, is £1.433 million.

12.4 The Langdown Infant School site could be sold for residential development, subject to planning consent being obtained from the New Forest District Council. The Secretary of State's consent to sale of part of the site would also be required. The anticipated capital receipt would cover most of the costs of providing the additional classrooms, specialist facilities and the early years provision. The remainder of these costs could be met from provision in the Education capital programme. As the building work would start in 2005/06, the funding strategy would be reviewed once the likely capital receipt can be more accurately assessed. This would allow the amount of funding required from the capital programme to be finalised.

Extension of Wildground Junior School to three forms of entry

12.5 A feasibility study on the expansion of Wildground Junior School to three forms of entry has been carried out. Estimated costs, based on the same approach as that used above for the Langdown Junior School building, are summarised below:

Table 9 - Estimated capital costs of extending Wildground Junior School to three forms of entry

Project elements	£ million
Additional general teaching	0.841
Additional specialist teaching	0.573
Early years	n/a
Internal refurbishment	0.368

(Early years provision is not included, as this would continue at Langdown Infant School.)

12.6 The total estimated cost of the project is £1.782 million.

12.7 The overall capital cost of this option is higher than for the creation of a Langdown Primary School and does not include early years provision. Although the capital receipt from the sale of Langdown Junior School would meet a significant proportion of the cost, the contribution required from the capital programme would be higher for this option

12 Revenue implications

12.1. The creation of a primary school from separate infant and junior schools would result in revenue savings from the reduction in fixed allocations per school, chiefly the posts of headteacher and administrative officer as well as lower premises costs. This would also be the case were Langdown Junior School to close and Wildground Junior School enlarged. This funding would remain within the Schools Block, supporting the County Council's scheme of local management for all schools.

13 Process and timescales

13.1. If the Executive Member for Education decides to publish notices proposing a significant change of character for Langdown Infant School to become a primary school on the junior school site, and the closure of Langdown Junior School, notices would run for a period of six and four weeks respectively. If there were objections to the proposals then these would be considered by the School Organisation Committee on 25 June 2004. If the final decision is to proceed with the infant school's change of character and the closure of the junior school this could be effected by January 2005. Adapted and extended buildings for the primary school on the junior school site with early years provision could be completed by September 2006, until which time children would continue to be educated in the schools' present buildings.

13.2. If the decision were to publish notices proposing the closure of Langdown Junior and Langdown Infant schools, and the opening of an amalgamated primary school on the junior school site, the notices would run for periods of four and six weeks respectively. Any objections would be considered by the School Organisation Committee on 25 June 2004. The earliest date on which an amalgamated primary school could come into being would be Easter 2005. Buildings would be completed by September 2006, until which time children would continue to be educated in the separate Langdown schools' buildings.

13.3. If the decision were to be to publish notices for the closure of Langdown Junior School and the expansion of Wildground Junior School, notices would run for a period of four and six weeks respectively, again with consideration of any objections by the School Organisation Committee on 25 June 2004. Closure of Langdown Junior School could be effected from September 2005 and building works at Wildground completed by September 2006.

14 Advice on the way forward

14.1. The County Education Officer advises the Committee that the strategic responsibilities of the County Council for planning the provision of school places would be met by the publication of statutory notices to:

a) establish a 210 place primary school, with early years provision, on the Langdown Junior School site;

b) close Langdown Junior school.

15.2 Taking account of the initial phase of surplus place removals, referred to in table 4 of the overview document, the outcomes of the proposals in this report would in summary be:

· the creation of a robust, 210 place primary school;

· continued early years provision and further development;

· annual revenue investment to sustain provision;

· capital investment of £1.433 million.

Overall:

the removal of 180 surplus places, as summarised in table 10 below:

Table 10

School	Capacity Sept 2000	Capacity Sept 2003	Capacity after implementation of measures proposed in this report	Reduction on September 2000 capacity
Langdown Infant	150	120	210	180
Langdown Junior	240	150

15 Recommendation

15.1. To endorse the advice in paragraph 15.1 of this report and to advise the Executive Member for Education to close Langdown Junior School and establish a 210 place primary school with early years provision on the junior school site, either through the closure of Langdown Infant School and a clean start, or by building on the strengths of the infant school.

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 excludes:

1 Published works

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