North West Farnborough Review

Note of consultation meeting with Guillemont Junior School governors

9 February 2004 - 6.00 pm

The meeting was attended by 10 governors and the headteacher.

Pupil Numbers

· Governors believed that the consultation document contained errors and was therefore flawed.

· It was pointed out that the numbers at Pinewood Infant School have never been 180 since the time when Guillemont Junior moved to its new building in 1976.

· Governors queried why Cove Infant and Cove Junior schools had not been included in the review, as for some parents these schools are closer than the Manor schools. It was felt that by not including the Cove schools the consultation was too narrow in scope.

· A view was expressed that the whole Pinewood community was "being held to ransom" as a result of the actions of two eleven year old boys (who set fire to the school).

· Governors felt that Pinewood parents were being penalised due to the surplus places elsewhere in Farnborough, and pointed out that urban communities can become isolated.

· Governors believed that parents are happy with Pinewood Infant School and that this was borne out by the fact that pupil numbers at the school were holding at a consistent level.

· The fact that forecast pupil numbers for the school did not include the children in the specialist resourced provision led governors to believe that this presented a false picture .

· It was pointed out that forecast pupil numbers in the table of the report were different from earlier forecast figures that had been presented to the headteacher, and that this cast doubt on their accuracy.

· The governing body stated that there would be a reduction in demand for places at Guillemont Junior if children go to Manor Infant as they would then transfer to Manor Junior School. As a result Guillemont Junior would become isolated.

Early Years Provision

· Governors asked whether the County Council will be making proposals in respect of re-providing the Early Years provision.

· It was felt that the Early Years figures should show the actual number of children accessing the provision and not the full-time equivalent figure.

· Governors queried why Early Years data was shown by council wards and not by catchment areas.

· Governors' perception was that there is a real pressure on Early Years places in the area.

Educational Standards

· Governors stated that Pinewood Infant School is a centre of excellence for language and communication difficulties, and that the inclusive nature and practice at Pinewood Infant School was the result of many years of staff commitment and dedication. Such whole school expertise and experience would take years to replicate at Southwood Infant School were the resourced provision to be re-located there.

General Concerns

· Governors asked when the original planned review of primary school provision in the area would have taken place had it not been for the fire.

· Governors felt that the report had been written on a basis for decision not consultation, as of the possible three options only closure was recommended.

· It was pointed out that the report failed to address the impact on the community and only looked at the numbers issue.

· Governors were of the view that the proximity of the Pinewood and Guillemont schools made the estates either side of Sandy Lane attractive to young families.

· It was pointed out that most Pinewood children walk to school and that the proposal would result in more cars on the roads as parents would be unable to walk between Manor Infant and Guillemont Junior School in time for the start and end of the school day. This would not marry with the County Council's transport policy and the schools' Walk to School initiative.

· Governors consider the M3 to be a physical barrier isolating Guillemont Junior, Pinewood Infant and Fernhill Primary schools north of the M3.

· The governors perception was that the distance stated (just under a mile) to Manor Infant School masked the physical difficulties of getting there and back.

· It was pointed out that the resourced provision for language impaired children had already been relocated once before (1997).

· The governors perception was that there was not enough space at Southwood Infant School to accommodate the Language Impaired provision.

· The question was asked as to how much Hampshire County Council had spent on Manor Infant School and whether this was a driving factor in the decision to retain the school.

· The governors sought assurance that officers were being fair pointing out that some people in the community felt sceptical about the process.

· Governors stated that the proposals would take away parents' choice should they not wish their children to go to Manor Infant School.

· The question was asked whether there is an option for a 90 place school at Pinewood and provision for community facilities such as a dentist and space for young children to gather. Governors felt that it would be good to take something positive out of the fire and give something to the community. If costs come into the equation - why not use the funding which would create language impaired resourced provision at Southwood to put towards the building of the new, albeit smaller, Pinewood Infant School.

· Governors asked how much notice is required to make a deputation at the meeting of the Education Policy Review Committee on 11 May 2004.

North West Farnborough Review

Notes of consultation meeting with Southwood Infant School governors

11 February 2004 - 7.00 pm

The meeting was attended by 9 governors and the headteacher.

Specialist Resourced Provision

· The governors asked whether the Language Impaired (LI) resourced provision would require a separate area for administration.

· Governors asked if LI children would have behavioural problems.

· The question was asked as to who decides which school LI children will be placed in.

· Governors sought clarification as to whether any of the LI children would be sight impaired too.

· Governors queried how long it would take to set the provision up.

· Clarification was sought as to what percentage of time LI children spend in the mainstream class and whether year 2 LI children sit Standard Attainment Target tests.

· The headteacher and governors asked whether a child placed in year R LI provision would remain there for the whole three years and whether children are ever placed part way through the infant phase.

· Governors asked whether the (up to 15) children placed in the LI resourced provision would be evenly spread throughout the school's 3 year groups.

Buildings

· A governor asked if the school would be extended to provide the new specialist provision or could it be created from an existing space. If existing then acoustic and glazing issues will need to be considered.

· Questions were asked whether the staffroom would be large enough, and if additional car parking would be considered due to the extra taxis that are likely to travel to the school as a result of the relocated specialist provision.

· A question was asked about the capital cost of relocating the LI resourced provision.

General

· Governors sought clarification about the general perception of parents, regarding mainstream schools with specialist provision.

· The question was asked as to why the County Council is consulting on the specialist provision now in advance of the decision on Pinewood.

· Governors asked if all the necessary set-up costs would be paid for by the County Council.

· It was pointed out that the forecast reduction in pupil numbers would likely lead to a 5 class organisation thereby necessitating mixed age classes.

· Governors stated that some children currently travel from Alton to attend the resourced provision at Pinewood.

· Clarification was sought as to what would happen, in the event of Pinewood's closure, if schools in the area refused to house the LI provision.

Decision

· Following due consideration the governing body announced its decision that, in the event of Pinewood Infant School closure, Southwood Infant School would be happy to house the LI resourced provision.

North West Farnborough Review

Note of consultation meeting with Manor Infant School governors

24 February 2004 - 7.00 pm

The meeting was attended by 8 governors, the deputy head and headteacher.

Pupil Numbers

· The governors and headteacher stated that children attending Manor Infant School would have a choice of Key Stage 2 education at either Guillemont Junior or Manor Junior schools.

· Governors felt that the north west Farnborough review had had an impact on pupil numbers at all the local schools for this September. It was also pointed out that those children starting at Pinewood Infant School this September would have to move school should the decision be taken to close Pinewood Infant School.

· Governors asked whether, if the decision to close Pinewood Infant School is taken in May 2004, Pinewood would have a September intake in 2004 and 2005.

· Governors sought clarification as to whether they should change their admission number to 90, to include the hearing impaired children. The question was asked what would happen if their school numbers rose to 31 or more per class.

General

· Governors pointed out that they had picked up on a number of parents' concerns about the walk from the Pinewood estate to Manor Infant School. This was not perceived to be a problem as a number of children already come from the Pinewood Park estate to the school.

· Governors referred to concerns about congestion in the area and pointed out that the school had been working hard with the local community and the safe routes to schools team to improve, and make safer, the walk to school routes. It was also pointed out that a new pedestrian crossing had recently been built outside the school.

· A governor pointed out that many parents arrange a system of collection of children when their children attend schools some distance apart.

· Governors wished to be informed as to why the elected members visit the schools where consultation are been undertaken.

· The governors sought reassurance that the consultation was not in any way proposing a change from infant school status for Manor Infant School.

· The question was asked as to why Southwood Infant had been identified as a school to accommodate the language impaired provision should Pinewood Infant School close.

· One governor asked what colour uniform do the Pinewood Infant School children wear.

· Finally the governors stated that they would be happy to extend the school's catchment area should the decision be taken to close Pinewood Infant School. It was also pointed out that the school would be happy to accommodate the language impaired provision if helpful.

North West Farnborough Review

Note of public consultation meeting with the Pinewood Infant School community

1 March 2004 - 7.00 pm

The meeting was attended by approximately 200 people including some governors and staff.

A number of presentations were made by parents and other members of the community regarding Pinewood Infant School. Key points from those presentations are detailed below.

The parish vicar

· The school serves the community of Pinewood Park providing a great benefit to the children and parents of the community. The school should remain at the heart of the community.

Presentations by parents and governors

Progress of children within the school

· A parent read out the letter they had sent to the school in January this year regarding the progress their child had made following a move from Woking to Pinewood. The child had moved from a large to a small school and it was clear that Pinewood School had improved the confidence of the child.

· Another parent referred to the fact that they had children attending Pinewood Infant and Guillemont Junior schools and that if Manor Infant became the designated infant school they would be unable to ensure each child was at school for the start of the school day given the distances between them.

· It was also pointed out that Pinewood Infant School has small class sizes and this provides benefits for pupils who are insecure and in need of additional support.

Views about travelling to school

· It is important to reduce traffic and promote walking to school. If Pinewood Infant School is closed and children attend Manor Infant School there is no safe walking route from Pinewood Park to the Manor Infant School.

· Reference was made to information contained on the Hampshire County Council website regarding walking routes to school.

· There is already a high percentage of Pinewood pupils who walk to school and this percentage would reduce significantly if ex Pinewood pupils then had to attend Manor Infant School.

A parent living adjacent to Manor Infant School

· The area around the school is already congested with traffic at the beginning and end of school day. More children attending the school will make this situation worse especially as more parents will drive their children to school from the Pinewood Park area.

Community perception of school

· A letter drop was made to residents of the area. Over 400 replies were received.

· The community felt the school was unique and gave the feel of a village school.

SEN provision

· The presenting parent stated that he had a child attending the language impairment resourced provision. He praised the inclusion policy operated by Pinewood Infant School and the way the school helped children to integrate with mainstream pupils.

· There are very good knowledgeable staff at the school who understand the pupils' needs.

· Setting up resourced provision takes time and is not easily moved to another school. If moved there can be no guarantee on the future quality of education offered.

· The moving of the resourced provision affects children's rights under the Disability Discrimination Act and, therefore, a challenge may be made on the right of the LEA to relocate the provision.

· The provision must be kept at Pinewood School and therefore the school must remain open.

Pre-school provision

· The pre-school is actually registered for 26 children and not the 24 as recorded in the report. Therefore the pre-school provides support to 52 children.

· The pre-school is full in the mornings and running at between 50% and 75% of capacity in the afternoon. If it is closed where would the children go?

· Other local pre-schools are full and there is a need for more pre-school provision in the area.

· The existing learning environment is very good and there are good links with Pinewood Infant School.

· The pre-school and school should remain open with the school being rebuilt.

Community facilities

· A baby and toddler group operates within the school for two mornings and one afternoon per week and has been operating for two and a half years.

· The group provides support for parents in the locality.

Youth club/community hall

· The school should be rebuilt in order for a community hall to be provided as part of the rebuild, together with a youth club on site.

· Members of the local community are willing to run a youth club and the police are supportive of this proposal.

· The Leader of Rushmoor Borough Council voiced support for community provision to be provided on the Pinewood Infant School site and stated that capital funding could be available from Rushmoor Borough Council to support this.

Senior citizens

· A letter was read out from two residents of Pinewood Park, in support of the school.

· The only community facility on the site of 400+ houses is the school.

· A smaller school should be built with community facilities such as doctors surgery and health centre.

Pupil numbers

· The number of adults within the borough has increased, particularly within the 20-30 year old age group, and exceeds the national average. This may well impact on the number of children born within the borough.

· The LEA should encourage schools to have smaller class sizes.

· The net capacity assessment for Manor Infant School on the HCC website is incorrect which raises concerns over the statistics being used by the LEA as not being accurate.

The LEAs review process

· The case of Calmore Junior School, in connection with the review of primary school provision in the east New Forest area, was raised. It was felt that in this review no account was taken of new housing. The question was raised as to whether the housing position of Rushmoor had been taken into account.

· The school organisation plan, suggests a walking time to school of no more than 20 minutes. Walking from Pinewood Park to Manor Infant School would exceed this time.

· The DfES website promotes less car use and more walking to school. The proposal to close Pinewood would mean more car use.

· The question was raised regarding accessing the budget within Rushmoor Borough Council for safe routes to schools and when this might be available.

· There are other schools with less than 100 pupils and therefore why is it not possible to rebuild the school as a one form of entry infant school if other such schools exist within the county.

· A small school doesn't equal a poor school so why can't a 90 place school be built.

· Information on HCC's website indicates that removal of surplus places can lead to capital funding from the DfES. Why has this not been pursued in this case.

· Where would the early years provision be relocated? Further provision is needed in the area and therefore the existing cannot afford to be lost. DfES guidance would indicate that early years provision is key in consideration of reorganisations.

· It was put forward that the process being followed by the LEA hasn't reflected DfES guidance on such reviews.

Questions arising from overall community

Forecast numbers

· A governor pointed out that it is clear from the forecast numbers presented in the report that the numbers at Pinewood Infant School have, and are, remaining constant.

· Parents sought clarification as to whether surplus places were the main reason for the review.

· Parents and governors made the point that should the Pinewood Infant School site be sold for housing this would create additional children.

· The governors and parents stated that the north west Farnborough review had put a degree of uncertainty over the schools involved. However it should be noted that the Pinewood numbers were remaining constant.

· A question was asked about the report back to the Education Policy Review Committee, seeking clarification as to whether this would show the number of non-catchment children attending Pinewood Infant School.

· Parents and governors suggested that if funding is not the issue and the priority is to remove surplus places, why has the review not looked at amalgamating the Cove and Manor schools as these schools are in close proximity of each other?

· The governors wished to point out that by rebuilding Pinewood Infant School as a 90 place school would reduce some of the surplus places. If further places need to be removed this should be done at other schools.

Educational Standards

· In 1999, following the Ofsted report, the County Council made a case to keep the school open - what has changed?

· A governor and a number of parents expressed the view that the Pinewood Infant School was a centre of excellence for language impaired provision.

Buildings and Finance

· Parents raised issues surrounding the Hampshire County Council system of insurance for school buildings. If there is funding set aside this should be used to rebuild the school.

· A parent asked if, technically, there was the funding available to rebuild the school. The fact that the school burnt down should not be held against the local community.

· Parents asked if costs had been produced for rebuilding the new school?

· One parent asked, if funding is an issue as to whether Pinewood Infant School is rebuilt, why does the County Council not look at the Public Private Partnership funding route.

· A parent asked why a capacity of 90 or 180 is being considered for the school - could it not be another number.

General

· A parent pointed out that the most important consideration must be the children.

· In response to the process of the Executive Member for Education being the decision maker for the County Council, a parent stated they considered this not to be democratic.

· Questions were asked as to why Pinewood Infant School was the only school being considered for closure.

· Support for Pinewood Infant School remaining open was offered by local member. A parent stated that such a strong turn-out to the meeting clearly showed their concerns over the potential deterioration in their children's education. Surely the County Council has a duty of care to these children.

· The question was asked whether the School Organisation Committee is represented from anyone with a special needs background.

· A parent pointed out that some children travel over 80 miles a day to attend Pinewood Infant School.

· A parent sought clarification as to who was involved in the decision making exercise, specifically asking if one was an accountant.

· The parents wished to know whether the headteacher would be given a copy of the LEA's note of the meeting.

· One parent stated that they had moved house to enable their child to attend Pinewood Infant School and have a safe walk to school.

· The Leader of Rushmoor Borough Council pointed out that he had written to the Leader of the County Council stating that Rushmoor Borough Council would look favourably at trying to secure a capital contribution towards the new school for community facilities. He offered his congratulations to the staff, governors and parents on an excellent presentation and for all their hard work following the fire.

· It was pointed out that a parent suffered from vertigo and would therefore find it impossible to walk over the motorway footbridge to Manor Infant School.

North West Farnborough Review

Note of consultation meeting with the staff of Pinewood Infant School

4 March 2004 - 4.00 pm

A number of presentations were made by the staff. The key points from those presentations are detailed below:-

Recent history

The headteacher gave a brief overview of the recent history of Pinewood Infant School. Reference was made to the supporting letter of May 2000 from the LEA, following the Ofsted report that placed the school in special measures in September 1999.

Reference was also made to the support from the local community at the parents' consultation meeting on Monday 1 March 2004.

Early Years

The next presentation by staff highlighted the teamwork of the Year R staff, identifying the positive views of the recent Ofsted report of 2003. Ofsted recognised the rich variety of well-planned experiences provided across all areas of learning and commented that the teamwork between teachers and assistants has been very effective.

The fact that the pre-school is in close proximity to the infant school also helped the transition to mainstream schooling as the children can see and talk to reception staff on a regular basis. It was pointed out that regular discussions and liaisons took place between the infant school's and pre-school's staffs.

SEN / LI

The SENCO and manager of the resourced provision for language impairment highlighted the whole staff commitment to inclusion backed up by the high level of staff knowledge and expertise. It was pointed out that the small class sizes at Pinewood helped to identify children's needs early.

Concerns were then expressed about the possible relocation of the LI provision to another school. It was pointed out that moving to a new school would mean starting from scratch. The provision will take time to become established and mean that children affected in the transition period will suffer. It was pointed out that the inclusive nature of Pinewood School meant that LI and mainstream pupils are inextricably linked. It was stated that to relocate the provision will take LI provision in north east Hampshire back at least five years.

Community links

The strong links with the local community and parental involvement with the school were emphasised, and reference was made to Ofsted's judgement that one of Pinewood's main strengths is `effective links with parents and the community supporting pupils' learning'.

It was pointed out that the strong community support for the school had been strengthened since the fire. The close working relationship with Guillemont Junior was also stressed.

Past uses of the school

Reference was made to the community use of the school buildings which had taken place in the past:

· Brownies and Girl Guides

· Youth club

· School disco

· Girls Brigade

· Various private lettings

Questions arising from the school staff

Forecast Numbers

· The staff were of the view that the review was a "number crunching" exercise and does not take into account that 80+ children require an infant school on the Pinewood estate.

· The point was made that if Pinewood Infant School is rebuilt as a 90 place infant school this would reduce the surplus places by 90. It was also pointed out that Fernhill Primary is reducing its capacity.

· Staff acknowledged the need to reduce surplus places. However, did this have to be as a result of closing Pinewood Infant School?

· Staff were of the view that the mother and toddler group had helped to bolster numbers at the infant school.

Travel

· A number of staff wished to know whether officers had walked the route from the Pinewood Park estate to Manor Infant School.

· Staff pointed out that the County Council's School Organisation Plan states "a reasonable walking distance to school would be a journey of no longer than 20 minutes each way".

· A member of staff stated that she lived half way between Pinewood Infant School and Manor Infant but had made a clear decision to place her child at Pinewood Infant School as she considered the motorway bridge to be an unacceptable route to school.

· Staff pointed out that the footpaths to Manor Infant are hazardous, particularly along Sandy Lane.

· Staff advised that the footpaths surrounding the school are already very busy. The decision to close Pinewood Infant School would not only increase the pedestrian traffic but also vehicular traffic in the area.

· A member of staff stated that the journey to Manor Infant School from Pinewood Park would prove to be extremely problematic for parents with more than one child.

Special Educational Needs

· Staff questioned whether the timescale for this review allowed sufficient time to relocate the language impaired (LI) provision elsewhere.

· Staff wished to know why Southwood Infant School had been chosen to accommodate the LI provision.

General

· A member of staff asked why the review area was limited to the north of Farnborough. If the review looked at amalgamating the Manor schools that community would be left with a school offering Key Stage 1 and Key Stage 2 education.

· Another member of staff asked whether consideration had been given to amalgamating the Cove and Manor schools.

· Staff suggested that Pinewood Infant School had previously been flagged up for closure in 1985.

· The question was asked as to why Guillemont Junior could not be converted to a primary school.

· Staff asked about the final decision making process and the weighting which would be given between pupil numbers and community issues.

· Officers were made aware that the Pinewood site had a number of trees with tree preservation orders and that the site was home to a population of bats.

· Staff asked about the status of the report to Education Policy Review Committee; once written will it be final?

· Staff wished to point out that on three days of the week there can be up to 145 children on site including the play group and mother and toddler group.

· Staff referred to the poor Ofsted report a few years ago. They stated that it takes time for a school to re-establish its reputation. Pinewood Infant School's reputation has now been re-established within the school community.

· One member of staff referred to younger colleagues - stating they have their whole careers ahead of them and that the closure of Pinewood Infant School would be a blight on them.

· Staff pointed out that they have worked tremendously hard in the last year to get the school back up and running effectively.

· The staff sought clarification as to what would happen to the schools' resources should the school close.

North West Farnborough Review

Note of consultation meeting with Pinewood Infant School governors

4 March 2004 - 7.00 pm

The meeting was attended by 14 governors including the headteacher, deputy headteacher and special needs co-ordinator.

The governors started the meeting by making a presentation. The following is a summary of the key points from the presentation.

School History

A brief summary of the school's history was given from the school opening in 1974 to the establishment of the parent and toddler group in 2000. Reference was made to commendations from the DfES and Ofsted since the school fire in March 2003.

Closure Issues

The governors sought clarification as to what criteria would be taken into account by the County Council in considering the school's future and asked questions about the decision making process.

The governors stated that they would like to see the pupil numbers relating to the resourced provision for SEN included in the forecast table of numbers included in the report. It was also pointed out that the number of places showing for early years was inaccurate.

The governors emphasised the fact that there was considerable expertise amongst the school staff with regard to catering for the needs of LI children. Should the closure take place then this could be lost and training of new staff can only account for a small part of what is gained through hands-on experience.

Viability of a Small School

The governors asked a number of questions about small schools pointing out that there were several in the county. The chairman of governors pointed out that the School Organisation Plan incorrectly showed Pinewood School's language impaired (LI) provision to be for the 4-11 age range.

Development Value of the Site

The governors wished to point out that from discussions they had had with Rushmoor Borough Council planning permission for housing on the site would not be granted with the existing school access.

Census 2001 for Rushmoor

Governors pointed out that the census figures for Rushmoor show an above average increase in the 20-40 age limit for the area. This is also the case for the 0-4 age range and 5-9 age range. The governors also stated that the Pinewood estate is a place that young people are moving to.

Surplus Places - Where are they Rising?

Governors stated that the forecast numbers for Pinewood Infant School were constant, that it was the older urban areas where the numbers were falling.

Projected Demand for Infant Provision 2007/8

Governors presented figures relating to the overall surpluses within the five infant schools identified in the report.

Alternative Option to Closure

The governors wished to point out that Pinewood Infant was not the only school in the area with surplus places. Why not remove the surplus places at Manor Infant School by providing a community space and pre-school. There was concern that the proposal to close Pinewood Infant School will have an impact on the Guillemont Junior School numbers.

The governors were of the belief that the decision to look at closing Pinewood Infant School had been taken as an easy option. It is clear from the public meeting that the local community wish to see the school remain open. If funding is available why not rebuild the school as a 90 place infant and reduce other surplus places at Manor Infant School.

Community Issues

Governors made the point that the school is at the heart of the community and serves a discrete area. Concerns were expressed about early years provision stating that there were no other available spaces, and reference made to the parent and baby group. One parent governor stated that his family had moved to the Pinewood estate as it offered a pre-school, infant school and junior school all in close proximity. The governors advised that they were keen to look at ways of accommodating a youth club at the school.

The Walk to School

Governors pointed out that should Pinewood Infant School close it will be the youngest children that will have the furthest to walk. Will the report back to members look at the cost of enclosing the footbridge across the M3. The footbridge is considered to be dangerous when it is wet and icy. It was also pointed out that it is difficult to get a double buggy across.

Parental Support

It was reported that 207 people attended the parents consultation meeting on 1 March 2004 and all were opposed to the closure of Pinewood Infant School.

Special Educational Needs (SEN)

Governors referred to the recent report from Ofsted which identified the teaching of pupils with SEN as good and for those within the specialist resourced provision as very good.

A governor stated that he doubted that the County Council had enough resources to set up the provision at Southwood Infant School. The governors pointed out that none of the Southwood Infant School staff had visited Pinewood Infant School.

A Final Word for the LEA

It was reported by the chairman of governors that the school had received minimal support in the early stages of the review from HCC officers but that this issue had since been rectified. The final point was made that some people within the community considered the decision to have already been made.

General Questions

· A governor sought clarification as to why governors only get to see the report on the outcome of consultations to the Education Policy Review Committee one week prior to the actual meeting.

· The governors were of the opinion that decisions are being made by the elected members without a significant depth of information to do so.