Primary School Provision in Whiteley and the Western Wards Item6

Note of joint consultation meeting of the governors of Sarisbury Infant School, Sarisbury Junior School and Park Gate Primary School

1 March 2005 - 5.00 pm

The meeting was attended by 14 governors and three headteachers.

Questions asked/issues raised by governors:

_ Clarification was sought on how the LEA forecasts the number of four year olds in 2009/10 when some of them may not have yet been born?

_ Several governors asked for reassurance that all future housing developments in the Western Wards had been taken into account when projecting future pupil numbers.

_ The view was expressed that the consultation paper suggested that a decision had already been made in favour of option four. It was explained that this was certainly not the case and the final outcome might not reflect any of the options in the consultation document. Officers emphasised that new ideas may emerge during the consultation process and these will be welcomed .

_ Governors asked about how the high level of surplus at St John the Baptist would be managed in the future. It was suggested that one option would be to close St John the Baptist and build a new faith school in Whiteley. This would resolve the Whiteley issue and remove much of the surplus capacity within the Western Wards.

_ Governors enquired if thought had been given to expanding Whiteley Primary with temporary accommodation just to deal with the forecast bulge. It was felt that this was one possible solution that should be considered/looked at in more detail.

_ It was asked if it would be possible to split Whiteley into separate infant and junior schools on the existing site to cope with the increased numbers. It was explained that whilst this might be technically possible it would be very complicated to achieve and it would require extensive consultation. However, the issue of the need for additional accommodation would still remain.

_ There was discussion about how the £1.4M identified in the full committee paper might be used to support schools in the Western Wards if no additional places were provided in Whiteley. It was envisaged that it would be used to address accommodation issues within these schools.

_ Issues relating to transport were discussed especially with regard to option four. Clarification of the County Council's transport policy was requested.

_ Comment was made about the large number of pupils who do not attend their catchment school in the Western Wards. It was felt that this was linked to the shape of the catchment areas as well as parents' jobs and the provision of childcare amongst other things.

_ Possible catchment area changes were discussed and what effects they might have on future Whiteley parents. Any proposed catchment changes would have to be consulted upon with all schools potentially affected. It was important to bear in mind that primary catchment changes does not mean a change to secondary school catchment areas. Governors pointed out that catchment changes could lead to morale issues arising at age of transfer to secondary school.

_ Governors made the point that given the surplus capacity in the Western Wards any expansion of Whiteley Primary would surely not be a cost effective solution to the problem;

_ There was discussion on the issue of secondary transfer and in particular the pressure option four might put on Brookfield Community School and Language College in terms of increased demand for places.

_ It was explained that whilst the data showed that there were 28 children attending Whiteley Primary School from out of catchment this was historical and there were no longer places available for out of area pupils.