Archived decisions
REVIEW OF PRIMARY SCHOOL PROVISION IN THE NORTH WEST FARNBOROUGH AREA
Before I go into the reasons for the review and my response to points which have raised during it, I would like to emphasise that I have been fully and deeply involved in the Review at all stages. I agreed the basis of the consultation with the LEA officers, attended the consultation meeting with parents and local residents, accompanied members of the Education Policy Review Committee (PRC) on their visits to the schools, have had regular meetings with the officers to receive progress reports and I attended and listened to the deputations, questions and debate at the PRC on Tuesday of this week. In coming to my decision I have taken account of the points which have been raised during this consultation.
May I also at this stage thank and congratulate the governors of Pinewood Infant School for the responsible and professional manner in which they have responded to this consultation.
The decision which I am required to make today is a strategic decision. The review is part of a county-wide review of primary places necessitated by the falling birth rate, the consequent fall in the number of primary aged children in and projected to be in our schools and the clear growth in the number of surplus places and the number and size of small schools. Educating children in small schools is significantly more expensive than doing so in larger schools and the report to the PRC provided details of these costs. The resource which we have available for education is however directly related to the number of pupils. Allowing a proliferation of small schools would inevitably lead to an adverse impact on the resources we are able to provide to children in all our primary schools and would, in turn, raise concerns about sustaining the quality of education. The size of the reduction in pupil numbers across Hampshire is very large and without action to address the problem would equate to 69 one form entry primary schools in the county by 2008. To avoid falling resources and standards there have be school mergers and closures and given that the majority of our schools are good or very good this equally means that good and very good schools will be involved in these changes.
Schools are natural centres for community focus and one of the results of this process will be to reduce the number of schools and this could be construed as being contrary to the Hampshire Community and Local Strategic Partnership Strategies. That however has to be considered against the impact of failing to provide our youngsters with the best possible education and skills for their future lives.
The question has been raised as to whether this particular review would have occurred if Pinewood School had not been burned down as a result of an arson attack. The answer is that it would not have taken place at this time. But this area of Farnborough has been identified for some time as one with a surplus places problem and such a review would certainly have taken place in the next year or two. The fire forced us to bring the review forward in time because it is clearly right that we should consider whether rebuilding a school in these circumstances is a valid use of public money. The fact that the necessary financial resources would be available from the County's self insurance fund does not change the fact that this is public money. It also needs to be remembered that the major contributor to that fund is the Schools Budget and the cost of making good expenditure from it falls on that budget. If money is spent on buildings, it means that less will be available to be spent on children in other ways. Whilst we may all resent the impact which arson has on our decision making process we cannot just dismiss the question of whether the expenditure to rebuild in such circumstances is justified or not.
Questions have also been raised as to the scope of the review and that schools over a wider area should have been included. We have only recently completed a consultation process in the east of the New Forest which covered a larger number of schools and a wider geographical area. In practice we found it necessary to break the consultation down into a number of smaller areas and that the duration of the process and the period of uncertainty was therefore longer. I do not intend to undertake another review of that size and complexity. The important thing in defining the scope of the review is to recognise the natural links which already exist. This review covered the three feeder schools to the Guillemont Junior School and the Manor Infant School which already attracts children from the Pinewood catchment area and has current and projected surplus places. The consultation focused specifically "on the possible closure of Pinewood Infant School" in view of the fire and the rebuilding question and the small number on roll number over the past few years.
I recognise that since it came out of Special Measures Pinewood School has made great progress and is a good school. I also recognise that the Language Impaired Resourced (LI) provision is of high quality and that the children are fully integrated into the school and that there is a close working relationship between Pinewood Infant and Guillemont Junior Schools generally and specifically in respect of the LI children. The 28 pupils registered for admission is September 2004 indicates a continuing level of support from catchment area parents. I do however have to take account of the fact that there are 55 children from within the catchment area who will be starting school in September and that 41 children from the catchment area currently attend other local schools.
The journey to Manor Infants School has been raised by many people. There are three alternative routes available to parents from the major part of the Pinewood catchment area and a further one for those in the north of the area. Clearly the journey involved for any of these routes may be longer than the current journey. However the longest one at 1.6 miles is not dissimilar to that faced by many infant aged children across the county.
The safety of these routes has also been questioned. Although I accept that the bridge route may not be acceptable to all parents it is already used, by choice, by a number of parents whose children attend Manor Infant School. The flooded underpass is a problem which can and should be fixed and there is time for that to be done. Just as there is time for consideration of other improvements which may be considered necessary.
The problem which would be faced by parents with children of both infant and junior aged children is by no means unique. Southwood is 1.6 miles from Guillemont and involves crossing the motorway and a railway and Parsonage Farm is 0.7 miles from Guillemont and also involves crossing the motorway. Clearly parents can co-operate in accompanying their children to the two schools and I recognise that some parents in this situation may well choose Manor Junior School for their junior school. This would obviously impact on the numbers at Guillemont Junior School but even if all the parents chose this approach (and I consider that very unlikely) Guillemont would still remain a viable two form entry junior school.
I've already commented on the quality of the LI Resourced provision at Pinewood School. Concern has been expressed as to the impact of transferring this to Southwood Infant which has no real experience of dealing with youngsters with this type of need. The proposed transfer would not occur until September 2006 and training would be put in place to ensure that staff were in a good position to meet the needs of these children. It is also possible that the specialist staff from Pinewood could be employed by Southwood. Southwood is a feeder school to Guillemont and there is no reason why the close co-operation between Pinewood and Guillement with respect to the LI children should not be achieved following transfer of the provision. With regard to the physical space for the LI provision at Southwood Infant I accept the assessment of our Educational Psychologist on this matter and her report is positive that the space available is adequate.
The question of what will happen to the Pre-School and the Mother and Toddler Group in the event of closure of Pinewood has also been raised by many people and by the Pre-School providers. As was explained at the PRC, in the event of closure of the school it would be our intention that the Pre-School should continue to operate within its current premises and that we are confident that the associated funding issues can be addressed, for example by involvement of other users in the remaining space. Given that the Pre-School is full, has a sizeable waiting list and that many such operations are based on non-school sites and that professional support from Hampshire's early years team is provided in such cases there is no reason why the Pre-School should not continue to be successful. The remaining building would have space for the Mother and Toddler Group and with support from Rushmoor Borough Council further community provision on the site for other groups would clearly be possible.
Two alternatives were put forward at the PRC on Tuesday - building a replacement 90 place infant school on the Guillemont site or as an extension to the current building and redesignation as a primary school or alternatively the removal of classrooms from other schools with surplus places. Building additional capacity on the Guillemont site still represents expenditure of public money on places which are not required within the area. "Mothballing" of individual classrooms has been found to have a most unsatisfactory long term effect. The LEA will of course continue to review the situation of any school with surplus places to see if redesignation as specialist space or alternative use such as pre-school use represents an appropriate use of the space. The argument was advanced that the Pinewood Estate is a village and therefore that our policy of preserving village schools should apply. I find it impossible to consider this estate as a village - it is part of a fairly densely populated urban area - albeit on the edge it. As a general point our policy does not apply just because an area is a village. Distance from alternative schools and the isolation of the community are major factors which have to be considered.
The costs specified in the report of rebuilding a 90 place infant school on the Pinewood site were challenged. The figures are those provided by our Property Business and Regulatory Services and have not been influenced by the Education Department. They represent their initial projected costs. The key point however is that even if these costs were substantially reduced rebuilding would still represent use of public money to build surplus places. In a similar manner the current capacity of Pinewood Infant School as detailed in the officers report has been challenged. The report however correctly reflects the capacity of the school using the DfES definitions - definitions which we have to accept and operate under. However, the current capacity is far less significant than the number and proportion of surplus places which would exist in the area if a 90 place infant school were built. By January 2009 the forecast is that there would be 148 surplus infant places in a total of 711 such places locally. This surplus of 20.8 % would be substantially above an acceptable level. Building these additional places would also maintain the imbalance between infant and junior places. By the same date the number of surplus junior places is forecast to be 58 (8.1% of capacity).
Having taken account of all the points which have been raised during this consultation my decision is that public notices should be published to close Pinewood Infant School with effect from the 31st August 2006. That we should redesignate the catchment area of Pinewood Infant School to Manor Infant School and relocate the Language Impaired Resourced provision to Southwood Infant School from the 1st September 2006. That we should retain the facilities for early years provision on the existing site and explore the opportunities, in partnership with Rushmoor Borough Council and other appropriate agencies, for further development of community provision on the existing Pinewood site.
I recognise that this decision will cause great disappointment to many individuals. However, I am convinced that it is the right strategic decision in the interests of maintaining high quality primary provision in Hampshire.