Contact:

Ann Begley, Assistant County Education Officer (School Branch); 01962 846518; [email protected]

Alex Munro, Education Officer (Admissions and Special Projects); 01962 846462; [email protected]

1 Summary

1.1 This report provides details of the outcome of consultations following the review of primary school provision in the Ampfield area, sets out the relevant background and considers key issues that have arisen during the consultations. Ampfield CE Primary School is situated in Knapp Lane, Ampfield, close to the church and alongside the main 3090 Winchester- Romsey road.

1.2 The report considers options for future primary school provision in the Ampfield area and includes the following appendices:

· Appendix 1: notes of meetings held with parents, staff and governors of Ampfield CE Primary School, including the executive summary and recommendations from the report received from the governing body, and copies of the slides used in the presentation made by the chairman of governors;

· Appendix 2: LEA commentary on the school's performance;

· Appendix 3: list of all correspondence and documentation received, the key elements of which are referred to in the report;

· Appendix 4: map of the area under consideration, showing all primary and secondary schools (A); map showing location of CE schools (B); map showing home locations of current pupils (C)

· Appendix 5: Department for Education and Skills (DfES) revised guidance for decision makers on statutory proposals to close rural schools;

1.3 All correspondence, together with the complete version of the governing body's submission, will be on deposit in the Members' Room during the week prior to the Education Policy Review Committee meeting on 12 October 2004, and available in the council chamber on the day of the meeting. All letters and emails have received a personal reply.

2 Background

Recent history

2.1 Paper 2 gives details of the formal consultations which took place in the Romsey and Ampfield areas during May-July 2004. Tables 1 and 2 of Paper 2 show the level of surplus places at Ampfield, but these figures need to be treated with some caution given the particular circumstances which have led to the fall in numbers at the school. There were 23 children on roll on 3 September 2004. The next largest 4-11 Hampshire primary schools are three schools each with 55 pupils.

2.2 During the summer term 2003 the numbers at Ampfield fell very rapidly following a loss of confidence in the management of the school. The headteacher resigned at the end of the summer term 2003.

2.3 The governors in their response to consultations put particular emphasis on the fact that this drop was not caused by generally falling rolls in the area but by a specific set of circumstances which are highly unlikely to be replicated in the future.

2.4 There was some criticism of the LEA at the meeting for parents where it was suggested that there should have been earlier intervention. The LEA was first alerted to problems at the school in March 2003 and a meeting with governors and some parents was held; consultations with the Winchester CE diocese also took place. As a result of these meetings, a formal school review was set up by the LEA. At the parents' meeting, reference was made to an earlier survey of parents' views carried out by the governing body in January 2002. The analysis of this survey was not brought to the attention of the LEA by the governing body until summer 2003.

2.5 It must be stressed that schools are self-managing and that the LEA has limited powers to intervene in schools where performance data show that standards are good. Intervention is expected to be in inverse proportion to success and there were no grounds for the LEA to become involved at an earlier stage. With hindsight it is clear that the then governing body should have sought the LEA's help more promptly. Appendix 2 details the school's current performance.

2.6 The formal school review was completed in late May 2003. The roll in January 2003 was 67 but by mid-June 2003 had dropped to 43. A governors' enquiry panel was then established. The headteacher resigned in July 2003.

2.7 During the autumn term 2003, an approach was made to the governors of neighbouring (2 miles) John Keble CE Primary School (Aided) in Hursley to ask whether they would agree to release their headteacher for part of each week to take responsibility for Ampfield CE School. After careful consideration of the request from the LEA and the Winchester Diocese, the governors decided that it would not be in their school's interest to release their headteacher.

2.8 When it became clear that a link with John Keble School would not be possible, a recently retired headteacher took on the headship of the school for three days a week until the end of the autumn term 2003; he continued to work for one day per week for the rest of the year as mentor to the deputy headteacher who has been acting head on a full-time basis since the start of the spring term 2004.

Numbers on roll

2.9 The current School Organisation Plan (SOP) sets out the County Council's preferred range for sizes of school. The preferred size for a 4-11 primary school is between 1 form of entry (i.e. seven classes of 30 children = 210 places) and 3 forms of entry (630 places). The SOP states that "primary schools should not normally have fewer than 60 pupils".

2.10 Without substantial additional resources (see Paper 1, table 1 and Paper 2, table 3), it is difficult for a primary school the size of Ampfield to sustain the range of curriculum and staff development opportunities available in other schools. Attracting high quality staff may also present particular problems and it is more difficult to provide for subject leadership across several subjects over three Key Stages (i.e. Foundation, Key Stage 1 and Key Stage 2).

2.11 Table 1 shows the number of children living in the Ampfield catchment area in September 2003 but attending other schools; the second column shows that only a fifth of pupils attending the school lived within the Ampfield area. (It should be noted that it is entirely coincidental that both columns add up to 30.)

Table 1 (NOR in September 2003)

2.12 Table 2 shows the number of pupils on roll at Ampfield CE School on 3 September 2004 (i.e. a year after the data in table 1) and an indication of the school catchment in which they live. A `dot map' showing the approximate location of current pupils' addresses is included at Appendix 4, map C.

Table 2 (NOR September 2004)

2.13 Information from the Director of Environment, based on data from health authorities and which takes account of anticipated in- and out-flows and other known trends, indicates that five reception age children live within the Ampfield area at present, three of whom have been enrolled at the school this term. The following table (Table 3) shows the children estimated to be living in the Ampfield catchment area and the year they will reach school age. The published admission number (PAN) for the school is 12, indicating the capacity to take 12 children into Year R each year. There are clearly insufficient local children to fill the school.

Table 3

3 Consultation Process

3.1 After meetings with the chairman, other governors and the acting headteacher in the autumn term 2003, formal consultations with governors, staff and parents were carried out as part of the wider Romsey review, as explained in Paper 2. It soon became apparent during the consultations that the issues affecting Ampfield were substantially different from those involving Romsey town schools. For this reason it has been decided to consider the future of Ampfield School in this separate report, linked to Paper 2.

3.2 The consultation document approved in March 2004 served as the basis for consultations on the future of Ampfield CE School. Tables 1 and 2 in Paper 2 give details of the numbers on roll in January 2004 and the projected number of surplus places.

4 Ampfield CE Primary School: review of responses to consultation

4.1 Consultations meetings were held for staff and governors and, a week later, for parents.

4.2 At a meeting on 15 June, attended by sixteen staff and governors, together with the Diocesan Director for Education for the Winchester CE diocese, the chairman of governors made a formal presentation (see appendix 1 for slides used during this presentation and school record of meeting). During the meeting, the following key points were made:

· Alternative schools, particularly CE schools, were full;

· The circumstances leading to the dramatic drop in numbers were exceptional and, if parents could be confident in the future of the school, numbers would soon increase;

· Because of the school's special circumstances, the LEA's forecasts of future numbers could not be relied on;

· The school's reputation was now rising and perceptions of the school were now much more positive;

· Ampfield School offered pupils stability and security.

4.3 At the meeting for parents, attended by about 70 parents and residents, the following points were made:

· Concern was expressed that the County Council was thinking of closing a school where £400,000 had been spent in 1997 to replace temporary buildings and improve facilities for the younger children;

· The LEA was felt to have been slow in responding to the difficulties at the school;

· Questions were asked about future numbers in the area, with particular reference to proposed developments at Abbottswood and North Baddesley;

· Great stress was placed on the role of the school in the community and the Christian values espoused by the school.

· The school had an excellent reputation for catering for pupils with special educational needs.

4.4 The staff, parents and governors referred to other potential options for addressing the surplus places issues, such as a federation with another school, and asked that any decision be delayed for at least two years to allow the school to demonstrate that it could be viable.

4.5 Twenty one letters have been received from parents and other members of the local community. All have received a personal reply. Fifteen letters refer to the high quality of the education offered by the school; the majority of letters also mention the school's CE status and its role in the community. There is also support for the governors' request for a `breathing space' in the belief that this will encourage numbers to grow.

5 Parish and District Councils: review of responses to consultation

5.1 In their letter to the County Council, Ampfield Parish Council states its opposition to the closure of Ampfield CE Primary School. The council stresses that:

· The school is at the heart of the community and an integral feature of the village;

· The recent drop in numbers was the result of a "catastrophic failure of management and leadership at the school";

· The parish council had recently purchased the recreation ground from the local cricket club with school use very much in mind;

· The school is both rural and Church of England and there is therefore a statutory presumption that it should not be closed without good reason;

· The council supports the governors' request for a three year delay in any decision making.

5.2 The Test Valley Borough Council objects to the closure of Ampfield School because, in their view, it would:

· significantly diminish the level and choice of Church of England primary school provision in a rural area;

· undermine the viability of the existing pre-school facility based at the village hall near the school; and

· irrevocably change the character and amenity of the Knapp Conservation Area.

· The Test Valley Community Learning Partnership confined its comments to the proposals affecting Romsey.

6 Members' visits

6.1 Members of the EPRC visited Ampfield CE School on 6 September 2004. The chairman of governors made a short presentation similar to the one made to parents at the consultation meeting. Issues raised by Members included:

· The number on roll;

· The rural nature of the school;

· The possibility of federation with another school;

· Available places in other schools;

· The school budget.

7 Church of England status

7.1 Ampfield is a Church of England controlled school. That is to say that, although it has a religious foundation, all capital and revenue costs are borne by the LEA, which also determines the admission arrangements and employs the staff. The teaching of Religious Education (RE) is based on the `agreed syllabus', as in community schools. Collective worship follows the same principles as voluntary aided schools.

7.2 During consultations, parents expressed concern that local CE schools were full. If Ampfield were to close, the LEA would ask parents to express preferences for alternative schools, including CE schools. Section 13 below deals with this issue in more detail. The consultation paper indicated that John Keble (Aided) CE School is 2 miles away, St Francis CE Primary School (Aided) in Chandlers Ford (3.7 miles) and Romsey Abbey CE Primary School (Aided) (4.3 miles). It must be remembered that these are distances between schools and will vary for individual addresses.

7.3 Map B at appendix 4 shows the location of 16 CE schools (both aided and controlled). All but one (West Tytherley) are within 7 miles of Ampfield CE School but map C indicates that pupils live in a wide area around the school.

7.4 Table 5 sets out information received between 27-29 September from 15 of the 16 CE schools shown on map B indicates the number of places available at that time. Year R is not given because of the gradual build-up of numbers in this year group. A school is deemed to have an available place if the published admission number for that year group has not been reached.

Table 5

8 Early Years Provision

8.1 Table 6 sets out the number of pre-school age children and the provision known to be available for them in the Ampfield and Braishfield ward. Braishfield is 3 miles from Ampfield. The table indicates out the number of pre-school children and the early years education provision known to be available for them (audit June 2003). An early years education place offers 2.5 hours free education per day for 11 weeks a term.

Table 6

8.2 Strategically, Ampfield and Braishfield ward is not a priority location for the development of early years education places. Although for 3 and 4 years olds there was a shortfall of 13 places in June 2003, this shortfall will be reduced to nil by 2006.

9 Winchester Church of England Diocese

9.1 The Winchester CE Diocese has been invited to respond formally to the consultations. The Diocesan Board of Education met on 30 September and heard presentations from the chairman of governors and the County Council representative on the Board, followed by questions. The Diocesan Director of Education is a member of the EPRC and will speak at the meeting on 12 October.

10 Strategic Considerations

10.1 The County Council's responsibility is to take a strategic view of the most sustainable way to provide school places for the area. In planning new schools in urban or suburban areas, the County Council would not consider establishing a primary school the size of Ampfield. In small rural communities where practical alternatives are not available, small village schools are supported, with the extra costs partly offset in some cases by savings on transport. A balanced decision has to be made. There are rural villages which do not have schools but whose children are transported to schools which have educationally viable teaching groups. (The statutory distances beyond which home to school transport to a designated school is provided free of charge to parents are two miles for children under eight and three miles for older children).

DfES `Guidance on Statutory Proposals for Decision Makers'

10.2 It is important for the committee to take note of recently revised guidance on the closure of rural schools in the DfES `Guidance on Statutory Proposals for Decision Makers'. This guidance is given in full in Appendix 5. When considering the closure of a rural school, the LEA must provide evidence to the School Organisation Committee that they have carefully considered the following points:

Transport implications:

10.3 The information in this paper indicates that the majority of pupils attending Ampfield CE School live outside the catchment area, with no entitlement to transport, and that the school does not primarily serve its local community. The guidance is based on the premise that closure of a rural school will involve transporting pupils to schools further away. The proposal to close the school would reduce traffic in the area although some parents might still choose to transport their children to other schools.

The overall and long term impact on local people and the community:

10.4 An analysis of the responses received from parents and others, and comments made at the consultation meetings, shows that this is a major concern amongst local people. There is no hall or playing field on site. The school makes use of the parish recreation ground (10 minutes' walk) and The Glade, an open area near the church on the school side of the A3090 Winchester Road (7 minutes). The village hall (5 minutes) is used for physical education (PE); the parish room, behind the church, can be used by younger pupils. The school buildings are currently not used by the community.

Alternatives to closure:

10.5 Reference has been made in paragraph 2.7 to discussions with the governors of John Keble CE School (Aided). The governors were reluctant to release their headteacher to work at Ampfield for some of the week. Formal federation with another school would involve the headteacher's time being divided between two separate sites, with the need for the formal appointment of staff in both schools to take responsibility for the site in the headteacher's absence.

10.6 A federation might give some short-term stability to Ampfield but would have to be seen as an interim solution to be reviewed after an agreed number of years. Federation would not guarantee an increase in numbers on the Ampfield site; nor would it fully address the issue of heavy additional costs of educating pupils at Ampfield. Federation has been attempted where both schools are of comparatively equal status in terms of numbers and are reasonably close to each other and where, because of their size, a sharing of expertise and facilities would be beneficial. If John Keble, for example, were to work as a federation with Ampfield, it would be difficult to see what the balance of advantage to pupils would be in educating the small number of Ampfield catchment children at that site rather than with their peers on the Hursley site.

10.7 There is one federated primary school in Hampshire. This is Western Downland CE (Aided) School, close to the border with Wiltshire in the New Forest, west of Fordingbridge (NOR September 2004 - 172). This school operates on two sites under one headteacher - with three Key Stage 1 classes on the Damerham site and a four Key Stage 2 classes at the Rockbourne site, two miles away. The school has sufficient pupils to be able to form separate, viable classes for each primary age group. The school receives a split site allowance representing 12% of its budget. There are insufficient pupils in the Ampfield area to be able to replicate the Western Downland structure.

10.8 The DfES guidance states clearly that there is a presumption against the closure of rural schools. The evidence shows that the situation at Ampfield does not match the assumptions upon which this statutory guidance is based.

Denominational schools

10.9 The guidance to SOCs in relation to denominational schools reads as follows:

In deciding proposals to close or reduce the capacity of denominational schools, the effect that this will have on the balance of denominational and non-denominational provision should be considered. The Adjudicator should not approve proposals for the closure of a denominational school where the relevant church SOC group had voted against its closure and it is clear that the closure, in conjunction with any related changes, will reduce the proportion of such denominational places within the LEA, unless the school is failing or severely undersubscribed.

10.10 By definition, the balance of denominational and non-denominational provision will be affected if a denominational school is closed and no similar school is opened. This paper gives details of current numbers at Ampfield School and, in paragraph 7.4, the number of places available in CE schools. The guidance makes it clear that if a denominational school is severely undersubscribed closure may be considered by an Adjudicator even if the relevant church SOC group has voted against closure.

10.11 Table 7 assesses the DfES guidance in relation to Ampfield CE School. It shows that none of the criteria supporting a presumption against closure is fulfilled.

Table 7

11 Capital Strategy

11.1 There are no implications for the capital programme. Pupils and staff continue to benefit from the building maintenance and improvement works carried out over the past ten years by the LEA and governors; no further work is planned. There was criticism at the consultation meeting with parents of the LEA's decision to carry out improvements at the school and the LEA's apparent readiness to `write off' this money if the school were to close. The Council's policy is to ensure that the capital programme is used to enhance the learning environment for existing children and not to plan on the basis that a school might close and therefore not be improved. Pupils at Ampfield School have benefited from the enhanced facilities since 1997.

11.2 No building works would be needed at other schools to accommodate children who would otherwise attend Ampfield School.

11.3 The site of Ampfield CE Primary School is held on trust for educational purposes by trustees. It would be for these trustees, in conjunction with the diocese, to determine the future of the site if the school were discontinued. It is likely that any sale proceeds would have to be used for educational purposes within the parish and the diocese.

12 Revenue Implications

12.1 The closure of Ampfield School would result in revenue savings from the reduction in fixed allocations for the school, chiefly the posts of headteacher, administrative and caretaking staff. This funding would remain within the Schools Block, supporting the County Council's scheme of local management for all schools.

12.2 Table 3 in Paper 2 shows the high level of subsidy accorded to Ampfield by the local management formula compared to pupils in other schools. The £9,823 per pupil allocation at Ampfield in the 2004/05 budget can be compared to £2,752 at John Keble (based on 106 pupils for budget purposes) and £2,944 at Braishfield Primary School (101 pupils).

13 Catchment areas and admission procedures

13.1 If Ampfield CE School were to close, the catchment area would have to be allocated to another school or schools. Reference has already been made to discussions with the governors of John Keble CE School (Aided). Approximately 40% of pupils attending the school live within its catchment area. It would be possible, therefore, for the school to absorb all, or part of, the Ampfield catchment area over time. The John Keble catchment area forms part of the Kings' School, Winchester, area for secondary education.

13.2 Braishfield Primary School is also close to Ampfield (3 miles). Of the 100 pupils on roll in January 2004, 40 came from its catchment area, with a further 26 from Cupernham and 8 from the catchments of Romsey Infant and Junior Schools. It would be possible, therefore, for Braishfield School to absorb all, or part of, the Ampfield catchment area over time. The Braishfield area forms part of The Romsey Community School area for secondary education.

13.3 Braishfield was inspected by Ofsted in 2003 and judged to be an effective school; John Keble was inspected in 1999 and judged to be a school with significant strengths, far outweighing its minor weaknesses.

13.4 Both Braishfield and John Keble Schools offer a high standard of education with standards well above national and county averages.

13.5 The Hampshire Admission Forum has approved a procedure which worked well recently in relation to another school closure whereby pupils displaced from any school are included within the main admission round decision timetable. In other words, decisions about future placement would be taken in the January before planned transfer as part of the main procedures for admission to Years R, 3 and 7, rather than in the following June as would normally be the case for year groups not involved in school transfer. If Ampfield were to close, the county admissions team would work with individual parents to find alternative places.

13.6 Some alternative schools preferred by parents might be full. The admissions team would consider whether it was nevertheless appropriate to place an individual child, with the governors' agreement, above number. Every effort would be made to avoid the need for parents to have recourse to the independent appeals panel although parents might wish to do this in some circumstances.

14 Implications of consultation outcomes

14.1 The consultations have been carried out by all parties in a spirit of openness and cooperation. The LEA was already closely involved with Ampfield School before the start of the formal consultation period and, since that time, there has been a steady exchange of information and views.

14.2 There is no doubt that pupil numbers are at the heart of this debate. The governors argue that the circumstances leading up to the major drop in numbers were atypical and that, given stability, numbers will rise again to previous levels. They specifically ask the Council to consider a three year respite (until July 2007) before any decision is taken in order to allow the school to prove its long-term viability and restore parental confidence.

14.3 If the school does not recover, then the present governing body emphasise that they will raise no objections to its closure and suggest that this could be done within a matter of months. Even if the governing body in office at the time were to maintain this view, formal consultations would still be required and the matter formally considered by the EPRC, Executive Member and, if objections were received, by the School Organisation Committee, in accordance with the prescribed timescales.

14.4 Before agreeing to any such delay, it would be necessary to set out clearly the conditions under which the school would either be allowed to continue or the County Council would take action to close the school. The SOP suggests that a minimum of 60 pupils might be taken as a base point, even though it also makes clear that the preferred lower limit for a 4-11 primary school is 210 pupils. It would be necessary to stipulate exactly when the pupil count would be taken. In practice, even though January figures are used by the DfES and LEAs for planning purposes, the position would be clear from the preceding September.

14.5 A review of the school could be triggered by numbers on roll in September 2006 but, given the statutory requirement to consult fully, even though the governors and diocese might indicate that they will raise no objections to closure, it would be very difficult to complete all procedures in time to give parents a term's notice of closure. In addition, there would not be time for the special admission arrangements outlined in section 13 to be implemented.

14.6 There are insufficient children in the local community to support a minimum roll of 60 pupils. The school is reliant on out of catchment pupils, transported to the school by car, at a time when pupil numbers in the area continue to fall and places are available in other schools. Braishfield Primary School and John Keble CE School (Aided) are both well placed to cater for Ampfield catchment pupils in the future. Financial information set out in Paper 2 shows the extent of the additional support being given to Ampfield School.

14.7 The governors have said that they would willingly hand back some of this additional funding to the LEA, but the formula has been approved by the County Council and the DfES and, even if the level of additional support were reduced for schools where rolls dropped rapidly, some form of extra financial help would nevertheless continue to be needed.

14.8 The chairman of governors has put forward figures (added to the governors' submission in appendix 1) suggesting that the costs of keeping the school open are less than stated by the LEA.. The County Treasurer has assessed these figures using the standard LEA methodology. Although there are some differences of detail in the figures, the LEA accepts the general validity of the chairman's figures in relation to the budgetary effects of a rising roll. On the other hand, however, the LEA does not accept the chairman's argument in the text accompanying his figures that, because of presumptions against closure, it is therefore legitimate to deduct the additional support given to the school in order to claim that net costs are less than stated.

14.9 The focus of this review has been the significant surplus of places in the wider Romsey area. The closure of Ampfield would reduce this surplus by 61 places (i.e. capacity 84 places minus current roll 23)

15 Concluding comments

15.1 The governing body has asked for a three years' delay to give them the opportunity to prove that the circumstances leading to the dramatic drop in numbers in 2003 were indeed exceptional and that, with the threat of closure lifted, numbers would rise. If the numbers did not rise, the governors would raise no objection to closure. Paragraphs 14.3 - 14.5 discuss this scenario but conclude that, in practice, the offer would be difficult to implement in the timescale envisaged by the governors. The school would still be small and figures set out in Paper 2 show that the 84 places at Ampfield are no longer needed. There are insufficient catchment pupils to justify the claim that it is needed to serve the local community.

15.2 Governors and parents have stressed the CE status of the school. This paper shows that places are available in other CE schools accessible to parents' addresses.

15.3 Paper 2 shows clearly the level of additional subsidy the school currently receives. If numbers rose, the amount of this additional support would gradually diminish, although the local management formula's protection of all small schools would of course remain.

15.4 It is acknowledged that the circumstances leading to the rapid drop in numbers at the school were unusual. In itself, this illustrates the potential vulnerability of small schools. However, given the need to reduce surplus places in the wider Romsey area and, in particular, the low number of potential pupils living in Ampfield itself, it is difficult to see grounds for the continuing to maintain the school.

16 Views of the local county councillor

16.1 The local county councillor has indicated that he wishes to speak at the Education Policy Review Committee meeting on 12 October 2004.

17 Process and Timescales

17.1 If the Executive Member for Education decided to publish notices proposing the closure of Ampfield School, the representations period would run for six weeks. If there were objections to the proposals, these would be considered by the School Organisation Committee in 2005. The closure of the school could be effected by 31 August 2006.

Recommendations

To advise the Executive Member for Education on a proposal to:

a) close Ampfield CE Primary School with effect from 31 August 2006;

b) establish a task group to work proactively with governors and staff to prepare for closure;

c) work with individual families to identify alternative schools for pupils attending the school at the time of closure; and

d) consult the governing bodies of neighbouring schools about catchment area changes.

Section 100 D - Local Government Act 1972 - background documents

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

NB: the list excludes

1. Published works

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

None.

Item 11 d -appendix 1 Notes of consultation meeting with Ampfield CE Primary School staff and governors

15 June 2004 - 7.00 p.m.

The meeting was attended by 16 governors and staff and the Diocesan Director of Education.

The chairman of governors made a presentation to the meeting about recent events at the school, the measures being taken to improve the school's popularity and aspirations for the future. The slides used in the presentation are attached to these notes.

Richard Lindley, Director of Education for the Diocese of Winchester, explained that he was attending the meeting in that capacity, rather than as a member of the group of LEA officers. He explained that the diocese was represented both on the Education Policy Review Committee and on the School Organisation Committee. He said that following his impending retirement, his successor and the Diocesan Board of Education would need to take a position on the proposals for the future of the school; this was likely to happen during the autumn. He invited governors and staff to contact him if they wished.

17.2 Alternative local schools

There was concern from several speakers over the fact that there were no realistic alternatives to Ampfield for parents wishing to send their children to a Church of England school, as such schools in the area were full. Governors believed that this point had not been fairly represented in the consultation paper.

Questions were asked about whether other Church of England schools would be expanded to meet the additional demand and there was concern that giving preference to children displaced form Ampfield would disadvantage other children. Governors and staff believed that there was clear evidence of a shortage of places in Church of England schools locally and that parental choice would be significantly reduced if the school were to close.

The acting headteacher commented that a high proportion of prospective parents who had visited the school had said that they wanted a church school for their children. She also asked for clarification of what would be involved in the Members' visit.

The chairman of governors emphasised very strongly that the circumstances at Ampfield were fundamentally different from those in the other schools in the Romsey area review. He believed that in the context of demand for places at Hursley and Romsey Abbey schools, there would be no difficulty in Ampfield reaching its Planned Admission Number.

17.3

17.4 Pupil number forecasts

Concerns were expressed about the feasibility of accurately forecasting pupil numbers at school level, particularly given the specific circumstances at Ampfield. Similar schools were forecast to be full.

The chairman of governors reported that he had had discussions about the proposed Abbottswood housing development, which was likely to be at the higher end of the anticipated dwelling numbers range, with a significant proportion of social housing, which could be expected to produce a higher than average yield of children

A member of staff said that she was surprised that the future demand for places in the area was considered low by the LEA, because she had had to visit five schools to take her three children. This experience undermined the integrity of the LEA's forecasts, which appeared not to be borne out in reality. It was particularly difficult to find places in Year 3.

New housing being built in North Baddesley was discussed and questions were asked about how this would affect the North Baddesley schools, which were already full in lower year groups. Knightwood and St Francis, Valley Park were also full and other housing developments in the Knightwood area were mentioned. Against this background, it was difficult to see where the additional children would find school places.

17.5 Recent events at the school

LEA representatives were questioned about whether the closure proposal would have been brought forward if the school had not recently experienced problems. It was seen as unfair to judge the school in the context of its recent difficulties, as in the past it had been popular and full.

The governing body would be making a detailed submission of its views to the LEA. Concern was expressed over the procedure which required one councillor to take the decision on closure. It was seen as crucial that the special circumstances of the school were taken into account when the decision on its future was being considered and taken.

There was a general view that the reputation of Ampfield was now rising and the perceptions of the community and of the parents of potential pupils there and elsewhere were now much more positive. A lot of interest in the school had been expressed recently and more parents would be likely to commit to the school if the closure proposal were withdrawn. It was seen as remarkable that six children had signed up for September in the context of the possible closure.

17.6 The area review process

A governor questioned whether the school would have sight of the draft report to the Executive Member for Education. The school was under pressure to talk to the press, which has been resisted. There was concern that the message had been given in the wider area review consultation that the LEA had made up its mind that Ampfield should close.

The Chairman of Governor asked what was the most likely date if the school were to close and what would happen to the staff in the event of closure. It was important for staff to take away a positive message from the meeting and to know how long the process would take. This was necessary for them to continue to consolidate and improve the school; otherwise there was a risk of morale declining.

A member of staff stated that in over four years at the school she had got to know the children and was able offer them security. They did not like change and sought stability, which was offered by Ampfield. This was apparent to anyone visiting the school.

The chairman of governors said that the school now supported an amalgamated primary school to replace Romsey Infant and Junior schools.

Item 11 d -Appendix 1 Notes of consultation meeting with Ampfield CE Primary School parents and residents

21 June 2004 - 7.00 p.m.

The meeting was attended by approximately 70 parents and residents, three county councillors and the Director of Education for the Diocese of Winchester.

The chairman of governors made a presentation to the meeting about recent events at the school, the measures being taken to improve the school's popularity and aspirations for the future. The slides used in the presentation are attached to these notes.

17.7 Financial issues

Councillor Dowden asked why £500,000 had been invested in the school recently and pointed out that the County Council would receive nothing if the school were to be closed. Another questioner asked whether County Council was prepared to write off the £500,000. This was seen as irresponsible in the context of a likely increase in pupil numbers at the school.

A comment was made that the costing of education per child had demonstrated that while costs had increased as numbers fell, this would be reversed if numbers rose

17.8 Recent events at the school

A questioner asked why it had taken the LEA 18 months to identify the school's recent problems. There had been no monitoring by the LEA of difficulties at the school and no response to the loss of pupils.

The grandfather of a pupil said that he was surprised to find out about the loss of pupils at the school and was surprised that the LEA's systems had not discovered it. He asked whether systems had changed to ensure that such issues are picked up by the LEA. Another questioner said that the LEA should have been aware of the loss of 20 pupils from a small school. Further concerns were expressed about whether systems were in place to monitor the number of pupils at a school.

A parent said that she had had two sons in the reception class at Ampfield. She lived in Romsey, but had been brought up in Ampfield. One of her children had been moved from the school because he now had no friends at Ampfield and as a result she was transporting her children to two schools. She thought that not enough emphasis was being put on the fact that the school was not definitely going to close.

A governor defended the LEA's role in the school in the context of the government policy of inverse involvement with schools, which meant that schools without difficulties received only minimal contact. He said that governors should shoulder part of the responsibility for not acting earlier. He stressed the importance of ensuring that if the school remained open there were enough children to provide peer group support.

17.9 Pupil numbers

A parent asked whether the proposed housing development at Abbottswood had been taken into account in reviewing the future demand for places. The reasons for building Knightwood Primary School were questioned, as it bordered the Ampfield catchment area and there were spare places in the area.

A questioner asked whether future pupil numbers would be monitored and the latest ones taken into account during and after the consultation, in preference to those used in the report approving consultation. In spite of recent problems, pupil numbers were increasing.

A parent asked how many pupils the LEA considered would be needed to keep the school open.

17.10 Alternative local schools

Concern was expressed about whether all the children from the planned Abbottswood development could be accommodated in the Cupernham schools. These schools would not be suitable for parents seeking a Church of England school.

A parent from the North Baddesley area said that new housing there was likely to generate a demand for places at Ampfield, which was a very attractive school.

A parent stated that, of the schools included in the local area review, only Ampfield had a Church of England involvement. If the decision were taken to close the school, the effect would be to remove the Church of England option from parents, because Hursley Primary and Romsey Abbey Primary were full.

17.11 Community issues

The parish priest, who is also a governor of the school, said that there was a broader perspective to possible closure, which it was important to take into account, concerning local people and their values. He considered that a disservice was being done to the community if the opportunities offered by small schools were not embraced. He believed that the Christian ethos offered by the school had nurtured and supported local children and given them important values on a one to one basis. There was also a community dimension which involved sharing. This moral dimension was very important and the potential to achieve something excellent at the school should not be lost. The comment was made that residents treasured the school as a focal point of the community; its removal would take the heart out of the village.

A parent wishing to send her child to Ampfield in September pointed out that living in a small community was a special thing and that the school was an essential part of it. She believed her son should attend a school in the community in which he lived.

The parish priest echoed this and said that fear about the future had a corrosive effect. He wanted to be able to leave the meeting with the assurance that the school would remain open. Assurance on this needed to be given as quickly as possible, to give the confidence needed for the school to prosper. He asked the Director of Education for Winchester Diocese what the diocese's position was likely to be in response to the closure proposal.

17.12 Area review process

A questioner sought clarification of the LEA's overall agenda and in particular whether a school in the area needed to close. If Ampfield were to close, money already spent on the school could not be distributed to other schools. The LEA could consider the redistribution of pupils from other local schools to Ampfield.

A questioner asked whether parents needed to write to the County Council to stress their case for retention of the school and the parish priest asked whether everyone in the community who wished to express a view, not only parents, should do so. The chairman of governors was concerned about the production of a very large volume of paper, which could overload decision-makers.

The chairman of governors thanked attendees for the support they were giving to the school. He stressed that the school was open and had places, but the greatest difficulty was to build mutual trust and belief to build up pupil numbers. It would be sad if the school closed, as the demand for places was really there. He said that the school needed to be able to reassure the LEA about its future numbers. He also pointed out that, although there may be sufficient places in other local schools in 2009 to accommodate Ampfield pupils, there was insufficient capacity in the intervening years. He said that if given the chance to remain open, the school would offer to close after two years if numbers did not increase. If the LEA agreed this approach, there would be sufficient time for pupil numbers to build up.