Archived decisions

Appendix B - notes of meetings

Cowplain Community School governors	25 September 2008
Crookhorn Community School governors	22 October 2008
Front Lawn Infant & Junior and Sharps Copse Schools	14 November 2008
Havant Borough Council	04 December 2008
Havant Consortium	20 October 2008
The Hayling School governors	13 October 2008
Horndean Technology College governors	01 October 2008
Leigh Park Community Improvement Partnership	20 October 2008
Oaklands Catholic School	08 October 2008
Park Community School governors	03 November 2008
Park Community School parents	03 November 2008
Park Community School staff	03 November 2008
Park Community School pupils	03 November 2008
Purbrook Park School governors	15 October 2008
Staunton Community Sports College governors	04 November 2008
Staunton Community Sports College parents	16 October 2008
Staunton Community Sports College staff	21 October 2008
Staunton Community Sports College students	21 October 2008
Warblington School governors	21 October 2008
Warblington School parents	08 October 2008
Warblington School staff	08 October 2008
Warblington School students	21 October 2008

Appendix C - formal responses to consultation (starts on page 67)

Havant Federation - the response of the Havant Federation of Schools to the Local Authority's BSF consultation	10 November 2008
Leigh Park Community Improvement Partnership	11 November 2008
Responses from the governing bodies of:
Cowplain Community School	05 November 2008
Crookhorn College of Technology	14 November 2008
The Hayling College	21 October 2008
Horndean Technology College	18 November 2008
Oaklands Catholic School & Sixth Form College	24 October 2008
Park Community School	10 November 2008
Purbrook Park School	10 November 2008
Rachel Madocks School	05 June 2008
Staunton Community Sports College	10 November 2008
Warblington School
East Hants District Council
Havant Borough Council
Teachers' Liaison Panel
Portsmouth City Council


	Appendix B BSF - Cowplain Community School meeting

Date	Thursday 25 September 2008
Time	7.00 pm
Location	Cowplain Community School, Waterlooville

Present	Nicola Youern	Chair of Governors - Cowplain Community School
	David Rowlinson	Headteacher - Cowplain Community School
	Steve Head	Governor - Cowplain Community School
	Dean Cox	Governor - Cowplain Community School
	Richard Sherwell	Governor - Cowplain Community School
	Alan Turner	Governor - Cowplain Community School
	Mike Madden	Headteacher - Staunton Community Sports College
	Richard Vaughan	Strategic Planning Officer
	Alex Munro	School Organisation Officer
	Brian Pope	Area Director South East

Apologies

None

Action

1.	NY provided the school overview on BSF to date and advised that they had invited Mike Madden (Headteacher - Staunton Community Sports College) to join the meeting.
2.	AM explained that there had been some changes made by the DCSF to the way authorities could now formulate their BSF programme. It is now possible to consider wider issues affecting an area, rather than just deprivation and GCSE results although these remain the key factors. The maximum funding per wave per authority has also been reduced from £120m to £80m.
3.	Pupil movement across the area was discussed and it was pointed out that the figures in the presentation only represent a snapshot in time. Cowplain was over-subscribed during the last admissions round and changes to the admissions criteria may mean that this could occur more regularly in the future.
4.	The school felt that while the secondary catchment school for the West of Waterlooville MDA had now been set, the schools which pupils finally attended might not be the designated school.
5.	14 -19 will put future pressures on the secondary sector and this needs to be considered carefully in the BSF programme.
6.	It was felt by the governors that their school provides a strong sense of local community and this is very important to maintain. BSF could be in danger of undermining community cohesion in the area if schools were closed. Students should be able to attend a local school, not be forced to travel.
7.	With BSF funding being reduced, it was asked what real impact on facilities this could now have across the Havant area, particularly with the need to re-build Park Community School.
8.	Discussion centred around the possibility of having an all-through school on the Cowplain site, and whether the present three schools were needed. AM advised that governors need to consider this and that perhaps it could form part of their response to the County Council.
9.	Concern was raised about the lack of `vision' in the BSF document recently issued by Hampshire County Council.
10.	It was thought that insufficient consultation had been carried out or planned with other local community services, and this would need to be addressed.
11.	Discussion took place regarding the success of the local Federation and the many benefits it brings to the area. BSF should be seen as an opportunity to raise standards, not to close schools.
12.	It was felt that the consultation process was starting far too late which could lead to a rushed outcome that would not meet the needs of the local schools and communities.
13.	The BSF solution must meet local needs and should not be based on a standardised approach across the county.
14.	Cowplain makes considerable use of the services provided by Staunton Community Sports College and could not provide their current breadth of education if Staunton were to close.
15.	Those present had no strong views about the size of school, only that it must meet local need.
16.	Cowplain Community School will continue to support Staunton Community Sports College fully during this process.


	BSF Consultations - Crookhorn School Governors meeting

Date	Tuesday 22 October 2008
Time	17.30
Location	Crookhorn School


Present	13 members of the governing body
	Julie Wilding (JW) (JW)	District Manager - Education and Inclusion
	Alex Munro (AM)	School Organisation Officer
	Martin Hughes (MH)	School Organisation Officer



	Officers explained the consultation process and informed governors that the government's initial assumed allocation of £120m had been reduced to £80m in order to allow more authorities to enter the BSF programme in the next round. The two key criteria remained - to remove surplus places and to demonstrate that proposals can raise attainment. Reference was made to the significant pupil movement from the eastern part of the area into West Sussex and to schools to the west of the A3(M). The number on roll projections for Crookhorn included additional pupils to take account of the proposed Major Development Area west of Waterlooville. It was unlikely that any school in the western area would be closed. The possibility of all-age provision in the Staunton area had emerged from recent discussions.
	The following issues were raised:
1.	How does the local authority define our catchment area given we are a foundation school?
2.	What is the situation at Purbrook Park? Are the governors happy to consider a reduction to 750 places?
3.	The headteacher reported back on a meeting with the Director of Children's Services on 20 October. The authority must submit an Expression of Interest by 30 November to the DCSF. The reduction from £120m to £80m is a factor in this. There is a lot more to be done in terms of the eastern area to get consensus. Therefore, the first wave could develop potentially 5 (or even 6) schools. One school needs rebuilding - Park Community School. Substantial work is also needed at Warblington. The Crookhorn governors were keen not to disadvantage any individual school.
4.	Do these figures include the assumed increase resulting from the proposed raising of the school leaving age?
5.	Are post 16 colleges included?
6.	What is the timetable for the implementation of BSF?
7.	Little has been said yet about raising levels of attainment.
8.	The Headteacher said that the optimum size school had been discussed by governors and the view was that a school of about 950 places would be acceptable.
9.	"This is a brilliant school. I think increasing the size of the school will be a gift to the community."
10.	How will we attract the additional enrolments?
11.	Will we have an additional 200 pupils?
12.	What level of funding can we expect?
13.	There are major implications for traffic.
14.	The Headteacher said that the school had managed higher numbers in the past. The school was looking at ways of enhancing the facilities, but there had as yet been no consideration of a children's or health centre.
15.	How will the catchment of the new MDA be defined?
16.	Concern was expressed that most of the MDA is in Winchester. Will the pupils go to Winchester? Or to Cowplain?
17.	There are major staff implications to manage the project. Will there be time to deal with this?
18.	Could we include a crèche in any new build? An on-site crèche for staff may enable us to retain good staff.
19.	Should schools in the area share resources, such as a theatre? Is this a county council aspiration?
20.	Long term the development of provision for various diplomas will be shared as part of the 14-19 curriculum. The Federation already undertakes some of this.
21.	There is general consensus amongst the governors that the proposed numbers of about 1,050 are broadly correct
22.	By when do you need our response?
	AM said that a report would go to Councillor Kirk on 26 November for his approval of the overall county BSF strategy. A further report for 18 December would contain more detailed proposals for the Havant area. There would be further consultations in the new year. The meeting closed 18:55


	BSF - Front Lawn Infant & Junior School and Sharps Copse Primary School

Date	Friday 14 November 2008
Time	09:30 - 11:00
Location	Havant Local Office, River Way, Havant

Present	Brian Pope	Area Director - South East
	Bob Eardley	Strategic Planning Manager
	Brenda Johnson	Headteacher, Front Lawn Infant
	Vicky Koerner	Vice Chair of Governors, Front Lawn Infant
	Tina Newman	Headteacher, Front Lawn Junior
	Mike Seddon	Chair of Governors, Front Lawn Junior
	Ann King	Governor, Sharps Copse
	Alison Porter (notes)

Apologies

Carol Koerner

Headteacher, Sharps Copse


		Action
1	Update on current status The background was given regarding the BSF consultation and an update to the current status. The DCSF has invited all remaining local authorities to submit an Expression of Interest for the BSF programme, but the guidelines changed during the summer period to include; o Prioritisation of secondary schools into groups for investment up to £100m (£80m for first phase) o Criteria for prioritisation, to include social (tax credit data) and educational need (achieving five A*-C GCSEs including English and Maths). Timetable at present: o Expression of Interest (EoI) to be submitted to DCSF by 30 November, following an Executive Member meeting with Cllr Kirk on 26 November, agreeing the EoI. Prioritisation outcome published early 2009. The EoI will be based on a county approach, rather than focussing specifically on Havant. o Executive Member meeting on 18 December with Cllr Kirk to agree a preferred option for BSF in Havant, following the recent consultation.
2	Primary Capital Programme It was confirmed earlier this month Hampshire has been successful with the Primary Capital Programme (PCP) funding. The Strategy for Change was submitted earlier this year, and agreed by the DCSF without any changes and funding of £9.4m 2009/2010 and £11.8m 2010/2011 awarded. It is hoped to link this funding to BSF and to improve the primary school buildings in the Havant and Gosport areas, targeting those with the greatest need.
3	Preferred Option In order for Cllr Kirk to make a decision for a preferred option, all possible routes need to be explored. The closure of Staunton has been strongly opposed from the consultation. The vision needs to be transformational and innovative, in order for Hampshire to get onto the programme. Deliverability will be a key issue. Possible preferred options (further work for these options would be necessary before they are put forward for Cllr Kirk's consideration): 1) Academy Clarification of Academy: o independently managed, all-ability schools set up by sponsors usually from business, faith or voluntary groups through the DCSF, sometimes in partnership with the local authority. Together they fund the land and buildings, with the government covering the running costs It is possible for LA and further/higher education establishments to be sponsors and if this is put forward, HCC would want to try to encourage this and make it as community based as possible. If Staunton was made into an academy the management and governance of the school were likely to change.
	2) All through school The options around an all age school were discussed. It was confirmed that an all-through school on one site would be unlikely to be supported by the LA and that primary provision needed to serve local communities. The all-through approach needs further exploration. It is the LA view that community backing would need to be secured for such an option for it to be successful.
4	Leigh Park Learning village The Leigh Park Learning Village paper/proposals, put together by the Leigh Park CIP are in line with John Clarke's Secondary Education Vision and the LA views about the development of the Hampshire Children's Trusts. The learning village paper will be key for the Executive Member report.
5	Next Steps It was suggested that visiting an all-through school would prove valuable to get a better understanding of how these options work and see them operating. Brian suggested the following two schools, over a two day period: o Serlby Park - Doncaster. Serlby Park is an Academy with infants through to secondary year groups. o Darlington Education Village - Darlington. The school operates with 1400 pupils aged between 2 - 19yrs. The visits would need to take place early in December, to feed the results into the Executive Member report following the Havant consultation. Cllr Kirk is keen for these visits to take place and this may mean the Executive Member decision scheduled for December 18 is delayed until January. These visits would be funded through the BSF budget and Brian to arrange a suitable date. It was asked whether there could be an incremental approach if, following the visits to the two schools this was a preferred route. It was confirmed that this could be a possibility. Whichever option is chosen, there needs to be a view and understanding that there will be teething problems in order to get to the end result. The option chosen would also need to evolve over time to meet the continuing and changing needs of the community. John Coughlan has stated that he would like to visit some Havant schools to meet with headteachers. A suitable date would be pursued.	BP BP


	BSF consultation with Havant Borough Council

Date	4 December 2008
Time	13:30 - 16:00
Location	Havant Borough Council, Civic Offices, Civic Centre Road, Havant

Present	Bob Eardley	BSF Project Director - HCC
	Howard Short	Property Services Manager - HCC
	Chris Edwards	Capital Projects Manager - HCC
	Flo Churchill	Interim Planning Policy and Urban Design Manager - HBC
	Frank Campbell	Corporate Director - HBC
	Tim Slater	Head of Organisational Development - HBC
	David Bridges	Head of Customer and Support Services - HBC
	Joy Okwuadigbo	Head of Regeneration- HBC
	Nicola Horsey	Acting Head of Library Service - HCC
	Ian Beacham	Education Officer (Sport) - HCC
	Alex Munro	School Organisation Officer - HCC
	Janet Mein	Head of Hampshire's Arts Service- HCC
	Alison Porter	Notes


		Action
1	Welcome and Introductions Everyone thanked for their attendance today. Introductions were given with an overview of their role and link to BSF.
2	Background to BSF and current position
	The background was given regarding the BSF consultation and an update to the current status. The DCSF has invited all remaining local authorities to submit an Expression of Interest for the BSF programme, but the guidelines changed during the summer period to include; o Prioritisation of secondary schools into groups for investment up to £100m (£80m for first phase) o Criteria for prioritisation, to include social (tax credit data) and educational need (achieving five A*-C GCSEs including English and Maths). Timetable at present: o Expression of Interest (EoI) submitted to DCSF on 1 December, following an Executive Member meeting with Cllr Kirk on 26 November, agreeing the EoI. Prioritisation outcome published early 2009. The EoI will be based on a county approach, rather than focussing specifically on Havant. Executive Member meeting on 21 January (deferred from 18 December) with Cllr Kirk to agree a preferred option for BSF in Havant, following the recent consultation. Brian Pope - Area Director, South East and local primary Headteachers visiting all-through schools in Doncaster and Hereford in early December. Findings from these visits will be fed in to the Executive Member report. If an all-through school is chosen it will not be located on one site with primary schools. The DCSF will look at numbers of pupils in the area and the numbers leaving the area to attend education provision, to decide whether an all-age approach is value for money.
3	Strategic aims for BSF investment in Havant
	BSF is not just rebuilding schools, one strand is about community regeneration, improving attainment and investing in the local areas. Aim for today is to look at members of the groups aims and objectives in their area of specialism and see where joint working can be done. Leisure BSF has a statutory requirement for Physical Education, therefore 21^st century schools need to have appropriate facilities in place. A stakeholder group is being set up for the Havant area and the inaugural meeting will take place on 26 January 2009 at Staunton School. The PE Stakeholder group, will look at what can be achieved with working with a variety of partners, what can be done to enhance what we do, specialist facilities and where facilities are located. Ian Beacham will chair this meeting, and would welcome representatives from the Borough Council. The Borough Council confirmed the timing of BSF in Havant is ideal, HBC have just completed their "Approach to Leisure" and will start to look at what can be done to the current leisure site, different formats of delivery and reinvesting in leisure. The current leisure facility is aging and not meeting needs of area. The review of leisure will need to look how to link to needs of areas and MDA demand. Existing leisure trust (independent non-profit making co.), run both facilities here in Havant and Waterlooville. The new contract with them, can be changed to meet changes of the area. HBC have entered into section106 agreement with Waterlooville MDA, for capital investment of £1m. Local football and rugby clubs have approached HBC to develop facilities. Demand for Youth Facilities and community facilities within schools is high, but discussions with local community will need to take place regarding, needs and wants, to ensure they are located appropriately. Value for money study for community centres is underway, including mapping exercise of current availability and location, including those in schools. David to forward outcome to Bob to aid future planning. Health provision Havant Health Centre delivers all health services to Leigh Park. The Health Centre is located on one site but cannot provide quality health care, due to location and the mobility of residents. Mobile facilities are provided, but cannot offer a full range of services. Dialogue with PCT key to future regeneration. Discussions taking place regarding proposals to regenerate proctor and gamble site, working with church and potentially linking it with BSF. Further investment of £40m for new health site on Oak Park school site. Libraries The Government is keen for co-location of services. Havant schools are substantial and provides scope for this to work. If go ahead is given in early 09, collocation of services will need to be discussed as a priority. The library service are hoping to have a joint site with library and school, one is located in Yateley. Five sites in Havant will be used for customer services access channel and open drop-in service. Staff will be trained with wide range of knowledge on both HCC and HBC services are able to help customers. Michelle Smith, responsible for Hantsdirect and will be looking at customer access. Howard requested for Michelle to be included in discussions. Regeneration PUSH have recognised Leigh Park as an area in need of investment. The Leigh Park Task Force group are looking at the areas affected young people, one is childhood obesity this links with the PE Stakeholder agenda, but links need to be made with the PCT. A presentation to the Local Strategic Partnership was requested. Bob to send to Tim. The Leigh Park Task Force has representatives from a variety of partners. However schools, governors, Havant consortium, Children's Services and Adult Services are not represented. HCC is represented by John Rees-Evans in Economic Development. Bob to liaise with Brian Pope, Area Director, South East for local Children's Services rep and will seek a name from Adult Services. Joy to arrange an additional Leigh Park Task force group to receive an input on BSF in January 2009. This has now been arranged for 22 January 09. Future Housing The Local Development Framework (LDF) is to be embedded into core strategy. Next consultation taking place in May, Ian Lawson is the contact from Children's Services. Flo to keep Bob informed. Leigh Park is classed as a strategic site for redevelopment. Strategic sites are those with 250+ new dwellings. Further guidance on housing sites would be welcome to the BSF team. Flo to forward details to Bob. Primary Schools Primary Capital Programme (PCP) funding will be available over the next two years, to improve primary facilities. There is potential, for land to become available if a merger of local infant and junior school takes place. Land would then be available to develop vision of Health provision. Arts Hampshire Consortium is one of 10 national pathfinders for Find Your Talent programme. This programme brings £2m,50k funding. One of the key strands is raising aspiration through creative cultural learning. Consultations will need to take place on how this programme can be delivered to the 0-19 age group. Park Community Schools is one of the targets schools for Havant Borough. Rebuilding of Park could encourage developing the arts facilities. Museums There is a short-term delivery plan of delivery arts and museums on one site. A bid for £5m submitted to build a Cultural Centre, this will be a single building delivering: Arts, Libraries and Museums services. Four potential sites have been highlighted in the bid all located in town centre. The outcome of the bid will be known in February 09. Office Accommodation Howard working with Frank and David to develop an agenda on shared facilities. This will help to improve partnership and future working to ensure facilities meet the needs of the future. Hampshire Workstyles group are reviewing portfolio of offices and facilities in Hampshire, outcomes of this review will available in January 09. The finding will show how staff are delivering services and future scope for development. Funding strategy - how we can support projects with appropriate capital investment / funding, there needs to be a clear view on use of assets and how these are to be used.	*All* DB *BE?* BE BE JO FC FC
4	Co-location
	If funding is awarded, a Strategy for Change document will need to be produced by middle of next year. Each school will need to produce an individual strategy for change. HCC will need to know what is happening on each school site, either concurrently with BSF or otherwise. We will need to start to engage with schools ASAP if we feel we could provide services on their site.
5	Future co-operation
	Havant Swimming Pool - there is potential to redo current swimming pool on the Staunton site, this could be done with joint investment from HCC and HBC. Funding is available outside of the BSF programme. HBC timetable for Cultural Strategy for Leisure, will look at this in early 2009 and BSF will help to aid future decision making. Before a decision could be made regarding the swimming pool at Staunton, consultations/discussions with East Hampshire and West Sussex residents would need to take place, as those living on the boarder would benefit. Schools would also need to be informed of any proposals. BSF PE Stakeholder Group Mike Madden would be the representative for schools. Tim Slater representative for HBC and Joy to seek a rep from the Regeneration team. Co-location of facilities Libraries - Already having discussion for joint working of services. Nicola needs to look at location of schools and libraries before any further thinking can take place. Early 09 for feedback. Community Facilities - There is a short of community facilities in the Denvilles area, near Warblington school. Before looking at rebuilding of school/facilities need to look at what is required. Waterlooville is another shortfall area. Leigh Park Community Centre, Dunsbury Way (next to library) needs to be redeveloped. If the PCT wish to redevelop their facilities as these are located between community centre and library, they could potentially be located on the Staunton site, although Park school is a better location. Youth Service and Connexions centres - Havant has two purpose built/dedicated youth facilities in Wecock and Stakes Hill. Future development of these facilities would require discussions with a representative from the service. Bob to seek name of Youth Rep. It was also asked whether the Registration Service and Diocesan could be located with other community services. Alex Munro to pursue discussions with Diocese.	JO BE AM


	BSF meeting with Havant Consortium Headteachers and Governors

Date	20 October 2008
Time	13:30 - 15:00
Location	Broadlands Room, Ashburton Court East

Present	John Coughlan	Director of Children's Services
	John Clarke	Deputy Director of Children's Services
	Bob Eardley	Strategic Planning Manager
	Brian Pope	Area Director (South East)
	David Rowlinson	Cowplain Community School
	Dick Sherwell	Cowplain Community School - Governors
	Grahame Sammons	Crookhorn College of Technology
	Phil Johnson	Glenwood
	Glen Strong	Horndean Technology College
	Matthew Quinn	Oaklands Catholic School
	Fred Deeks	Park Community School- Chair of Governors
	Tessa Short	Park Community School
	Ron Short	Prospect School - Chair of Governors
	Keith Clark	Purbrook Park
	David Hankin	Purbrook Park - Chair of Governors
	Jackie Sumner	Rachel Madocks
	Mike Madden	Staunton Community Sports College
	Alan Wilde	Staunton Community SC - Chair of Governors
	Max Bullough	The Hayling College
	Janet Coates-Jones	The Hayling College - Chair of Governors
	Owen Davies	Warblington School
	Keith Chessell	Warblington School - Chair of Governors



1	Pre-amble The meeting was originally called between Children's Services officers and the Havant Federation, to discuss issues raised in recent correspondence. However, it was felt the invitation should be extended to all 12 schools in the Havant Consortium area, following a recent meeting with the DCSF to receive feedback on the Wave 6a submission, and revised DCSF guidance on the management of future waves of BSF.
2	Report on feedback meeting with DCSF and Partnership for Schools on the County Council's BSF Wave 6a submission Hampshire was originally scheduled for inclusion in Wave 7 of BSF but had been invited to join an interim wave 6a. A Readiness to Deliver statement was submitted, but was unsuccessful. Feedback from the DCSF was constructive and the following key points raised: Strengths o Strong in 14-19 work o Emphasis on Havant - reasonable and appropriate o Quality of Member leadership and project governance Further work required: o Progress with school organisation issues was insufficient o ICT Managed service - insufficiently developed o Personalised learning - required further refinement o Special Educational Needs - needed to be articulated in a broader inclusion context o Managing change - strong on theory, but more practical detail required o Progress with a vision for Education Services in Havant insufficient The DCSF intends that all local authorities will be in the BSF programme within the next three years and is currently inviting all LAs to submit revised Expressions of Interest, which for Hampshire will include prioritisation of all secondary and secondary age special schools in the county. Recent changes in Government policy on BSF which limit initial bids to a capital value of £80m meant that Hampshire will need to consider a split of Havant schools when resubmitting the bid and the meeting was necessary to explore alternative options.
3	Next steps to progress a County Council bid for inclusion in BSF and New proposals arising from revised guidance on BSF. The Expression of Interest needs to be submitted by 30 November and will be made up of two components: 1) Brief statement of the County Council's strategic vision for BSF- 2 page A4 summary 2) Review all secondary and secondary age special schools and link in groups by level of capital investment required. The two main criteria to prioritise are Social (tax credit data) and Educational (5 x A* -C GCSEs including English and maths); with this in mind Havant is still top priority. An additional Executive Member for Children's Services decision day has been arranged to approve the Expression of Interest prior to submission. This will take place on 26 November. The following questions were asked: 1) Is there an intention to meet with the special schools executive in addition to the secondary schools executive meeting on the 11 November? BE to liaise with Phil Johnson. 2) Where does the current consultation fit with the Expression of Interest? The current consultation will not have a direct impact as the results will not be fully analysed by the time the Expression of Interest needs to be submitted. The outcome of the current consultation is to be presented to Executive Member on 18 December. 3) Do we know where Hampshire will feature in the rollout over the next three years? At present no, but once DCSF has published the priority list in early 2009, we should have an overview of the entire programme. The following suggestion was put forward for consideration: Split the schools into two groups o Eastern - Staunton, Warblington, Hayling College and Glenwood and; o Western - Park, Crookhorn, Purbrook Park, Oaklands, Rachel Madocks, Cowplain and/or Horndean (final list to be dependent upon the anticipated cost of works against the DCSF's new funding formula for BSF). It was suggested for the Western area be included in phase 1. This would allow further consideration of the school organisation options for the eastern area, including emerging ideas about establishing an all age school in the Staunton area. The following question was raised: o Has the raising of school leaving age been taken into consideration in the proposals? This is being included in the school organisation issues and we are working with post-16 providers in the process. An alternative suggestion was put forward: Hayling College could be included in phase 1, with Cowplain and Horndean moving to phase 2. This would mean two schools that are located near each other, would receive investment at the same time. Phase 2 would include the remaining Havant schools and possibly those located in Gosport/Rushmoor, although final data comparison work has not been completed. If Gosport is included, this would show a geographical coherence. It was noted that all final decision would be made by Cllr David Kirk, in consultation with the Leader - Cllr Thornber. Any comments on the phasing proposals discussed at the meeting should be fed back as soon as possible to Bob Eardley to inform the report to Cllr Kirk on 26 November.
4	Future joint working What happens next? o The current consultation process is ongoing and is key to reaching conclusions on school organisation issues. o Successful BSF projects are dependant upon collective effort throughout the process and the need to work as one, to ensure the outcomes of children and young people are met. o John Coughlan reaffirmed the County Council's wish for positive partnership working with the schools and in particular to improving mutual understanding and local leadership through the Havant office team.


	Hayling College Governors - Notes of BSF Consultation Meeting

Date		Monday 13 October 2008
Time		18:00
Location		Hayling College

Present	Members of the Governing Body
	Max Bullough	Headteacher, Hayling College
	Ann Begley	County Services Manager (Organisation)
	Alex Munro	School Organisation Officer
	Brian Pope	Area Manager, Education and Inclusion
	Julie Wilding	District Manager, Education & Inclusion
	Mike Madden	Headteacher, Staunton Community Sports College
	David Rowlinson	Headteacher, Cowplain Community School



	After a brief presentation by Alex Munro, the following comments were made and questions asked:
1	Governors were concerned at the very limited timescales for the consultation process.
2	AB referred to the importance of recent 14 -19 developments.
3	AB also referred to a recent visit to the DCSF where officials had advised that Ministers would wish to scrutinise closely any proposals retaining or establishing small schools, defined in this context as below 750 pupils. She also said that the new criteria could well mean that the local authority's initial approach of basing BSF on the consortium structure might no longer be appropriate.
4	The DCSF would rank order authorities' Expressions of Interest and this would form the basis of the next allocation round. The fact that a maximum of five schools within any bid was now being suggested clearly had important implications for Havant. It was also important to merge as many different funding streams as possible, bearing in mind that local authorities were required to contribute 10% of project costs.
5	Governors were concerned at the worry caused by the local authority's options and asked why it was necessary to split the area into two sectors. Communities needed their own school to support community identity.
6	Whilst recognising that this did not figure within the local authority's options, the Chairman stressed that, if Hayling College were to close, this would be a disaster for the area.
7	The Chairman continued that the argument in favour of closing Staunton was not strong and emphasised the significant work carried out by the Havant Federation over the past four or five years.
8	She said that results had improved as a result of the Federation's work and that it was wrong to lose all this "for the sake of numbers".
9	BP referred to the Government's National Challenge Programme, with particular reference to Staunton. A substantial amount of government money was now available to support Staunton and make significant inroads into its poor performance. The 30% target had to be reached by 2011.
10	Officers were asked how the outcomes of the consultation process would be assessed and translated into the next report.
11	The importance of the Expression of Interest, which had to be with the DCSF by 30 November, was recognised. It was important that there was sufficient detail both in terms of vision and project content to enable it to be properly assessed by the DCSF. If Hampshire was accepted into the next wave of BSF, it was essential that the Authority was "ready to deliver".
12	BP referred to discussions about the possibility of establishing an all-through school on the Staunton site, including children's centre and both primary and secondary education.
13	The Head of Cowplain Community School said that the Havant Federation offered all the advantages of a large school. Of the 48 options offered by Federation schools, 37 were available at Staunton.
14	The Headteacher of Staunton Community Sports College asked whether there had been any discussion about the possibility of relocating any special school to a secondary school site.
15	The Headteacher of Hayling College said that it was inappropriate that a document entitled Building Schools for the Future should set out to consult on the closure of schools and that the authority had shown a distinct lack of interest in the Federation's suggestions. If Staunton were to close, this would adversely affect Hayling pupils. AM undertook to revisit the figures submitted by the Federaton.
	Officers left the meeting at 8.00 pm.


	BSF consultations - Horndean Technology College Meeting with governing body

Date	Wednesday 1 October 2008
Time	7.00 pm
Location	Horndean Technology College

Present	Glen Strong	Principal - Horndean Technology College
	Members of the Governing Body	Horndean Technology College
	Richard Vaughan	Strategic Planning Officer
	Alex Munro	School Organisation Officer
	Brian Pope	Area Director, Education and Inclusion
	Ann Begley	County Manager (Organisation)

1.	Introductions and welcome from the Chair of Governors with a brief overview of the college's involvement in the BSF process to date.
2.	AM provided some further background to BSF and set out how the meeting might be shaped and the outcomes that might be sought.
3.	AM explained that there had been some changes made by the DCSF to the way authorities could now formulate their BSF programme. It is now possible to consider wider issues affecting an area, rather than just deprivation and GCSE results. The maximum funding for the next round of BSF per authority had also been reduced from £120m to £80m.
4.	AB confirmed that, whatever the level of funding received from the DCSF, it would not be 100% of the delivery cost. This would mean that the County Council would have to find a proportion of funding itself.
5.	Pupil movement across the area was discussed and it was pointed out that the figures in the presentation only represent a snapshot in time (Jan 2008). The college was concerned about the direct pupil loss to The Petersfield School but the principal was confident, following the recent open evening, that this trend was beginning to be reversed.
6.	Concern was raised that the projected size for the college being tabled in the presentation was different from that discussed with officers at a recent meeting. The college, while not overly concerned about the exact size of the school following BSF, would want to ensure that it had sufficient capacity to meet all local demand.
7.	The college had worked very hard over recent years with the County Council to manage surplus capacity, but was concerned that this had been driven more by them than the authority.
8.	Investment in the college's facilities remained ongoing but, in order to ensure that it did not invest in opposition to anything BSF might change, staff were working closely with Richard Gooden, the lead architect for BSF. AB made the point that, given the BSF timescales, continued local investment in facilities should be maintained.
9.	Consideration needed to be given to the effect that any closure of Staunton Community Sports College Park would have on Horndean. Would there be a shift of pupils to Horndean? (AM would look into this and feedback to GS).
10.	BP set out the current position with National Challenge and confirmed that the BSF consultation was considering all options.
11.	Discussion took place regarding issues relating to Warblington School and the possible consequences if it were closed.
12.	AM advised that the authority had not, at this point, considered any options that might exist with the Petersfield School. This was because the review area had to be limited
13.	The college is keen to ensure that the 14 - 19 agenda is carefully considered within BSF and that clear consultation takes place with all providers, not just schools.
14.	Clarification was provided on the timescales for a response on the consultations from the governors to the County Council. It was accepted that the timeframe was very short but that all parties had to work within the dates set by the DCSF. Failure to meet their deadlines could mean a funding opportunity was lost.
15.	It was agreed that the college needed to focus its response on points and issues that are pertinent to it and the community it serves. However, wider agenda items could also be raised.

Leigh Park Community Improvement Partnership (CIP) meeting

Wednesday 22 October 2008

Warren Park Primary School.

A note of questions/points raised during the meeting.

1) Have the proposed building plans been taken into account in the surplus place forecast data?

2) Has the MDA been included in the data?

3) Why have the school buildings been left to get into a condition, where they require £10m worth of investment?

4) When will Havant see the money starting to be invested in the area?

5) The way this has been dealt with in the media is wrong - parents asking and telling us what is happening before we have been informed by the LA. It is not helpful for the community.

6) What is the impact on primary schools? It is felt that the primary school voice is not being heard. Primary schools want to work with the LA to move agenda forward.

7) How is this process transformational?

8) This group (CIP) are working well with extended services, however following a meeting with John Clarke and Peter Denny we were presented with information that was out of date and an insult.

9) Do we need to have resolved all the school organisations issues before receiving funding?

10) We do not want a repeat of the closure of Park House where decisions were made without consultation.

11) There needs to be greater communication between schools, LA and community.

12) DSCF need to look at the schools in the Havant community - they all have individual DSCF numbers.

13) Should the views of the CIP be put in writing to the LA?

14) There is still on the table the issue of closing Staunton in 3yrs time.

15) Movement of pupils to Warblington has raised concerns with Police and Fire services.

16) The BSF programme only shows number crunching - there is nothing positive for improving education especially in the time frame given.

17) 14-19 Consortium - Does BSF understand the plans that have been put in place for 2013? Nobody has invited us to share our views/thoughts.

18) Is it possible to get Cllr Kirk to visit Leigh Park so that he can see what is happening and how the community work together?

19) How can the decision/future of schools Havant be left to one person? (Cllr Kirk)

20) If an All-age school goes ahead, this would mean an either or situation - close Staunton and keep primaryies open or keep Staunton open and close the 3 primary schools. At no stage have primary heads been asked their thoughts.

21) If Staunton closes - there is an assumption pupils will move to either Park or Warblington or a bigger shift to West Sussex. It could also mean either Park or Warblington end up in National Challenge because their results could go down.

22) What happened to Leigh Park Secondary that would be based on two sites?

23) Why have John Coughlan and John Clarke not been to visit primary schools in the area?

24) Are all 3 of the National Challenge schools closing?

25) How can you decide what to build at Park without consultation on requirements?

26) This process is still a numbers game.

27) The integrity of LA needs to be looked at. In section 1.2 & 1.4 of committee report (quoted) - BSF is a transformational process. But you're saying it is down to numbers?

28) Are conversations with key players at HCC and DCSF taking place? Would it help if the CIP spoke with them?

29) New headteacher at Park has been appointed - but there are no guarantees they will be the same/do the same job as the former headteacher. This could mean there is a greater shift in pupils as the results would not be the same. A Leigh Park Secondary would overcome this.

30) The is a large pupil movement from Emsworth to West Sussex - Chichester. Any changes that happen to Warblington may not entice them back into Hampshire.


	BSF consultation meeting Oaklands Catholic Voluntary Aided School - governors

Date	Wednesday 8 October 2008
Time	15.30
Location	Oaklands Catholic Voluntary Aided School

Present	Matthew Quinn	Headteacher - Oaklands Catholic Voluntary Aided School
	Paul Quinn	Chair of Governors - Oaklands Catholic Voluntary Aided School
	Peter Ferguson	Governor
	Alice Stubbs	Governor
	Philip Wade	Governor
	Peter Brookes	Governor
	Judith Hoar	Governor
	Richard Vaughan	Strategic Planning Officer
	Alex Munro	School Organisation Officer
	Brian Pope	Area Director, South East



1	Introductions and welcome - PQ gave a brief overview of the school's involvement in BSF process to date.
2	AM provided some further background to BSF and set out how the meeting might be shaped and the outcomes that might to be looked for. (Action: AM to provide electronic version of slides to school.)
3	AM explained that there had been some changes made by the DCSF to the way authorities could now formulate their BSF programme. It was now possible to consider wider issues affecting an area, rather than just deprivation and GCSE results. The maximum funding for the next wave per authority had also been reduced from £120m to £80m.
4	Discussion took place regarding the issue of standards and Contextual Value Added and their significance in planning for BSF. BP provided an update on the National Challenge programme in Hampshire.
5	AM explained the significant movement of pupils in the area, particularly the high numbers lost to West Sussex schools. Whilst future movement into or out of this area cannot be accurately predicted, some allowance must be made as part of BSF planning.
6	The new West of Waterlooville MDA was discussed in relation to its potential impact on secondary numbers in the future. This had been taken into account in the planning of BSF, although the question of when development might start due to the financial pressures being faced in the housing sector was difficult to predict.
7	It was confirmed that the County Council must submit its Expression of Interest to the DCSF by 30 November. This document must state the authority's educational vision for the future as well as an achievable investment programme.
8	Concern was raised about the continuing low achievement of students at Staunton Park.
9	A governor asked whether the types and levels of qualifications students were obtaining at both Park and Staunton Park were really enhancing their life chances.
10	AM confirmed that, as part of the BSF process for Oaklands, the relationship between the Net Capacity figure and the Published Admission Number needed to be resolved.
11	The school confirmed that they always publish notices regarding the above, as required in the School Admissions Code.
12	The governors confirmed that, in the future, they would like to admit up to a total of 1300 pupils, including 180 students in the 6^th form.
13	A main concern for the school was the condition of its science accommodation, which is very poor and in urgent need of replacement. They would like to see this form part of BSF if at all possible.
14	Ofsted had approached the school to ask if they would take on a second specialism and this was something currently being considered.
15	The school has a clear and agreed strategic development plan and would seek to ensure that any investment through BSF dealt with its main issues. A top priority would be the science accommodation but, if funding allowed, other areas could easily be identified and agreed.
16	A response from the school on BSF following this meeting would be made prior to half-term.


	BSF consultation meeting with Park Community School Governors meeting

Date	Monday 3 November 2008
Time	17:00 - 18:00
Location	Park Community School

Present	Bob Eardley	Strategic Planning Manager
	Alex Munro	School Organisation Officer
	Brian Pope	Area Director - South East
	Julie Wilding	District Manager - Havant
	Chris Anders	Headteacher-designate
	Fred Deeks	Chair of Governors
	Tessa Short	Vice-Chair of Governors
	Virgina Steel	Governor
	Harry Hatley	Governor
	Deborah Morris	Governor
	Gordon Bird	Governor
	Lucy Manning	Governor
	Alison Porter	Support Services Manager (notes)



	After a brief presentation by Alex Munro and Bob Eardley, the following comments were made and questions asked:
1.	Can you explain the 794 number on roll?
2.	Will phasing be mentioned at the parents meeting? Can ensure the same message is being heard?
3.	There has to come a point when you cannot attain the 5 A*-C GCSEs grades. Where could diplomas be offered?
4.	Havant College Skills Centre, what is the impact of this? This is not being talked about at present. This would also mean the two communities working together.
5.	At what point do you think you would not be able to offer the same level of personal support? Above 1000 or below 900?
6.	There is a cost element involved in the above point.
7.	Rolling lunch break with year groups means there is no pressure on the site. Students feel this is a good working model.
8.	Park is in an unusual position with diplomas, offering level 1 rather than level 2. Park has made the current system succeed.
9.	Important to remember specialising in performing arts has seen students grow. Also had to offer another specialism of Science and Engineering as this is a more academic subject.
10.	Science is offered at four different levels, other subjects have alternative options as well. If the school got smaller, we would not be able to offer these.
11.	Highbury College and Park are the only two establishments offering certain diplomas.
12.	Governors are 100% behind Park being retained. Geographically it is well located and a high performing school.
13.	What do we do for the community and to educate the community to support their children - desire to get involved in family learning. However we are not able to do this with current building and facilities.
14.	How do we do more for those not in the 11-16 age bracket?
15.	With regards to BSF , what does a BSF school look like?
16.	To get the parents over the doorstep has been hard work, but the community staff have done well. Parents get to understand what children do and want to learn themselves. This is transformational.
17.	Leigh Park should grab this opportunity.
18.	Community and students need to have "can do" attitude.
19.	If BSF is done properly, there will be more winners than losers.
20.	Movement within LA to establish Children's Trusts which would be managed locally by the Headteacher.
21.	Park is not a school fighting to stay alive.
22.	Need to think positively as this is a once in a lifetime opportunity.
23.	Teaching staff more worried about pupils and their education, rather than the school.


	BSF - Park Community School Parents meeting

Date	Monday 3 November 2008
Time	18.30
Location	Park Community School

Present	Bob Eardley (BE)	Strategic Planning Manager
	Alex Munro (AM)	School Organisation Officer
	Julie Wilding (JW)	District Manager, Havant Local Office
	Chris Anders (CA)	Headteacher - designate
	14 parents

1.	Alex Munro made a brief presentation, based on the blue consultation document.
2.	The following comments were made and questions asked:
3.	If Staunton were to be all-age, how would this help the surplus places in Warblington?
4.	A lot of our pupils go out of the area. Why do the parents go out of the area and why don't we get them back?
5.	Will an all-age school affect this school?
6.	How long have Staunton got in their current situation?
7.	How will you ensure that standards remain high at Park, especially if there is a split site?
8.	Will an all-age school make the children insular?
9.	Is the amount of pupil movement between schools high within the area?
10.	What is the timescale as a period of uncertainty is not good for schools?.
11.	Is the Expression of Interest before the Preferred Option. Does this prejudge the outcome of the consultation?
12.	You have had about 1,000 responses. Would you have expected more?
13.	I haven't received the blue document as a primary parent, only as a secondary. Why is this as the decisions will affect the primary pupils more?
14.	Are there any all- through schools in Hampshire?
15.	If you have an all-through school and Park continues, what happens to Warblington?
16.	All through schools. If the continuity is so good why aren't there more of them?
	Meeting closed - 19:40


	BSF consultation meeting with Park Community School staff

Date	Monday 3 November 2008
Time	14:30 - 16:00
Location	Park Community School

Present	Bob Eardley	Strategic Planning Manager
	Alex Munro	School Organisation Officer
	Chris Anders	Headteacher-designate
	Bob Carter	Acting Headteacher
	Fred Deeks	Chair of Governors
	Tessa Short	Vice-chair of Governors
	Approx 55 staff
	Alison Porter	Support Services Manager (notes)



	After a brief presentation by Alex Munro and Bob Eardley, the following comments were made and questions asked:
1	There is a clear dividing line at the Petersfield Road. Could West Leigh be served by its own secondary school?
2	If one school closes would teachers have to reapply for their own jobs?
3	You state that 1 in 3 desks will be empty. Will this impact on the number of pupils we are allowed to admit?
4	What has happened to the money that was allocated/earmarked 4-5 years ago to rebuild the school?
5	What about the facilities we have here at Park - would these be reinstated when the school was rebuilt?
6	What about the facilities we desperately need ie: hospitality equipment for community and students in the evenings?
7	You mentioned you wanted to look closely at the school's devolved capital funding. What does this mean?
8	What is the time span from today to rebuilding the school? There are things we would like to do to improve things but not if the school is due shortly to be rebuilt..
9	What is the maximum number this site could hold?
10	Would transport be provided for residents to access Staunton?
11	You state 900 pupils are leaving this area to go to schools in West Sussex and west of the A3(M). Where are the proposals to stop this and keep pupils in Leigh Park schools?
12	If we need to attract 900 pupils back, is it up to us (teachers) to do it? You will need to up the capacity in order to allow this to happen, otherwise it is not worth doing.
13	How is this message being relayed to Staunton and Warblington?
14	Would the West of Waterlooville MDA and the building of a new primary school mean more pupils would stay in the area? Could / should you not put a cap on the number of pupils over there to keep pupils in Leigh Park.
15	Given that our views are being noted on the closure of Staunton, I urge colleagues to give views / comments on Staunton.
16	What you say in the blue consultation book is factual and useful, but the transformational agenda is not being mentioned. I wish our staff would mention the transformational education vision.
17	It is very difficult to bounce ideas in a meeting like this, to give transformational ideas for education in 20-40 years time.
18	There was a vision of Staunton being transformed into an all-through school. What has happened to this?
19	In this context, what is the impact on primary and secondary schools? Would this be a viable option?
20	Have the numbers been looked at?
21	It is disappointing there is no mechanism in place to reduce class sizes.
22	The success of this school has been to put more on to further education.
23	The community aspect is vital and needs to be included and promoted.
24	You mentioned if we kept Park as it is, we wouldn't need to reapply for jobs. What about if Park became an academy - would we then have to apply as this would be another type of school?
25	We have worked very hard and should look after ourselves and our school.
26	What is happening on the 14-19 agenda?
27	Are we working with Havant Borough Council to see what they are developing in the community?
28	We work as a consortium not as an individual school.
29	We are good schools and don't need you tell us. We are here to stay.
30	Got support from Staunton and other federation schools
31	How do we go forward? Can we respond as individuals or as groups?


	BSF consultation meeting with Park Community School students

Date	Monday 3 November 2008
Time	13:00 - 13:30
Location	Park Community School

Present	Alex Munro	School Organisation Officer
	6 Students	Representing Years - 8,9,10 & 11 (x3)
	Chris Anders	Headteacher-designate
	Tessa Short	Vice-chair of Governors
	Alison Porter	Support Services Manager (notes)

It was noted that students had attended this meeting in uniform on a school closure day.

They were thanked by Alex Munro



	After a brief presentation by Alex Munro, the following comments were made and questions asked:
	What do you think about the school? What are the good points?
1	Really good. The school allow us to show and display work
2	Have not attended lessons at other Federation schools to do alternative subjects.
3	Started courses early and able to change if we do not like them. We choose our options in year 8 so in Y11 we are able to do more 1 year courses. We wouldn't have bothered doing this if it was not good. We got A grades.
4	I joined Park in year 8. Teachers are really helpful and made me welcome. I have settled in really well and do not miss my other school.
5	Better to do GCSEs early.
6	Cannot think of people who have moved to another school and preferred it. Most people come back as it is better here.
7	Teachers will push you if they think you can do better.
8	We have 30 pupils per class.
	Buildings - What do you have here that you would like to keep? What would you like to see in the new building?
10	Can they keep this building while the work is going on?
11	More instruments and they need to be looked after better. Only have two drum kits.
12	More facilities and practice rooms
13	Performance space and able to be flexible.
14	Used to be an Arts school - but hasn't got the facilities to suit the need.
15	Big step to go to college, so if facilities were better it wouldn't be as big a step.
16	Outside shelter where we can get fresh air even if it is raining. Needs to be big enough for lots of people and to have more than one.
17	Media suite is great and is used for butterfly broadcast - can this be kept or replaced?
18	Shed for PE equipment which is near the courts, so we don't have to carry equipment.
19	Heating and air conditioning in class rooms.
20	Better lighting.
21	More language subjects such as Chinese and Japanese rather than just French and Spanish.
22	Solar panels in the roof.
23	Bike racks with locks and sheds that lock.
24	Windows and doors that kept heat in the building.
25	More recycling - paper.
26	We go off the school site for additional PE activities such as bowling or ice Skating (This is the older year groups only)
27	We have to share the facilities when it is raining and use either the gym or sports hall.
28	Larger fitness suite.
29	We currently use the MUGA for netball and hockey; we don't use the other area much.
30	We only have one football pitch.
31	We do the following activities in the sports hall - cricket, trampolining, volley ball, bleep test and cooper run.
32	All year groups have a 25 min lunch break and it is split so we are not grouped together (11:25 - 13:00)
33	Would like better toilet facilities> Only have 1 boys and 1 girls which are not working properly and they are not very good.
	If the building was bigger would it be OK to have more pupils?
34	If the building was new and bigger, then another 100 pupils would be OK.
35	It would be a good thing as there would be more teachers and more classes


	BSF meeting with Purbrook Park Governors

Date	15 October 2008
Time	18:30 - 20:30
Location	Purbrook Park


Present	Members of the governing body
	Keith Clark	Headteacher, Purbrook Park School
	Alex Munro	School Organisation Officer
	Bob Eardley	Strategic Planning Manager
	Brian Pope	Area Director, Children's Services, Havant
	Max Bullough	Headteacher - Hayling College
	David Rowlinson	Headteacher - Cowplain Community School


After a brief presentation by officers, the following comments were made and questions asked:
1	Keith Clark emphasised the importance of the 14-16 curriculum and the role of the Federation in offering 48 courses across the six schools of the Federation
2	He also said it would make no sense to reduce Purbrook Park to 750 places if places were not available in other schools. The school had no formal catchment and therefore it was important to ensure that all pupils whose parents wanted them to attend the school were able to do so.
3	The Head referred to a meeting that had taken place two years previously between Federation representatives and local authority officers at which the Federation representatives had urged the local authority to take action to tackle the surplus place issue. The Head said that, at that stage, the local authority appeared to have no overall strategy but that the Federation would be involved in further discussions.
4	He added that he wished the current process felt that there was more listening and that things had not already been decided. He also referred to an exchange of letters between the Federation and the Director of Children's Services.
5	Bob Eardley emphasised the need to reduce places in order to qualify for BSF funding. He referred to a possible all-age approach which was being developed in the eastern part of the Havant/Horndean area and emphasised that the DCSF was insistent that any projects should show how they would raise pupil achievement.
6	Brian Pope made further comments about the philosophy of all-through schools, explaining that improved attainment would remain a key criterion regardless of what structures eventually emerged. He also referred to the possible development of locally based children's trusts.
7	A governor asked whether student numbers would drop on the eastern side of the area, adding that parents were fully entitled to send their children to West Sussex if they felt that was appropriate.
8	There was further discussion about number on roll issues on the eastern side. The DCSF demands in relation to the reduction of surplus places could not be ignored.
9	Bob Eardley referred to the need for the local authority to submit an Expression of Interest to the DCSF by 30 November, taking into account the need to revise the Authority's current BSF strategy in the light of the reduction of funding for the next wave from £120m to £80m. As a result of this, he said it would now be necessary to take a view about the phasing of work within the Havant/Horndean area. Keith Clark said that it would be wrong to rush forward and make mistakes but he said that the local authority could not afford to lose the money available.
10	Bob Eardley said that it was important for the governors, in their formal response to the consultations, to comment on their preferred size for the future Purbrook Park. Brian Pope that that, as part of this, the governors should indicate how they felt the substantial investment funding available might best be used at Purbrook Park.


	BSF consultation meeting with Staunton Community Sports College - Governors meeting

Date	Tuesday 4 November 2008
Time	18:00 - 20:15
Location	Staunton Community Sports College


Present	John Clarke	Deputy Director Children's Services
	Bob Eardley	Strategic Planning Manager
	Brian Pope	Area Director - South East
	Ann Begley	County Manager (Organisation)
	Mike Madden	Headteacher - Staunton Community SC
	Alan Wilde	Chair of Governors
	Max Bullough	Headteacher - Hayling College
	Members of the full governing body at Staunton Community Sports College
	Alison Porter	Support Services Manager (notes)



	A statement by Chair of Governors, Alan Wilde, was read at the meeting. A copy is attached to these notes. (NB - a version of these notes with comments from the headteacher follows this document.) After a brief update by Bob Eardley on the current position, the following comments were made and questions asked:
1.	What size would an all-through school need to be in order to deliver a viable curriculum for young people to succeed?
2.	Currently looking at an all-through CIP, which would involve all secondary schools, not just Staunton. This would need to tackle existing barriers to learning and family learning.
3.	Need to be confident it is different to EAZ and CIP. We need to ensure schools do not keep failing.
4.	Timescale - if Staunton is included in the first phase we need to have clarity on school organisation issues by January 2010. This would mean these issues would need to be addressed in the coming year.
5.	Current bid - If we presented to the DCSF (in the current bid) two small secondary schools located very near to each other, this would prove very challenging and would require a lot of work to ensure it was presented properly.
6.	There is currently a feeling among the governors at Staunton that the LA is going for the easy option. We feel we need to work together.
7.	The local authority is trying to get money to build schools in Hampshire, and we need to get this resource into Hampshire as it is for the county not one particular area. We have the same views as governors - we need to build educational solutions.
8.	How can you rebuild Park Community School when you do not know what is happening in the rest of Leigh Park?
9.	Why can the school organisation issues not be sorted within one year? One year is a very long time.
10.	We would prefer two small schools.
11.	We recently attended a meeting at Warblington and they have stated they do not want our kids at their school!
12.	It seems like the LA has already made its mind up to keep Park and Warblington Schools.
13.	Have you taken into the West Of Waterlooville MDA?
14.	As County Councillors are voted by the people for the people - why don't they listen to us?
15.	When Park is rebuilt - what will happen to the students? Will they have to move school temporarily?
16.	It is not a coherent community, there are two separate communities.
17.	If you close the school there will be 300 pupils required to travel 3 miles to the nearest school. Has the carbon footprint been taken into consideration?
18.	The Police and Fire and Rescue service have already stated that the routes will be dangerous? Are you listening to this?
19.	BSF is not just about buildings - it is also about infrastructure.
20.	If Staunton closes and pupils go to either Park or Warblington, the students will not be able to participate in after school activities due to travelling.
21.	You will be taking away a large part of the community. For what purpose?
22.	You need to get a colleague to look at the route that the young people will be required to take (in rush hour). It is very dangerous.
23.	You keep talking about rebuilding Park. There is still a need for provision on this site, or can Park and Warblington accommodate this?
24.	Would you look at a split site school?
25.	An all-through school would to meet other agendas.
26.	How will moving young people to Park or Warblington meeting the educational agenda?
27.	We are in a deprived area, yet once again we are having something taken away from us.
28.	At Staunton, we have 75% of pupils with SEN needs. Other schools have said this would very challenging. It is likely the pupils will not stay at the other schools. The only reason they stay here is due to the excellent pastoral support they are given.
29.	What about turning the proposals around with Warblington children coming to Staunton, has this been looked at?
30.	We have larger playing fields than the other schools in the area.
31.	We have worked very hard to build Staunton into the school it is now.
32.	Parents would have to give up work in order to transport their children to other schools.
33.	Pupils will not turn up to school if they miss the bus and they will not walk the 3 miles.
34.	What proportion of the 178 pupils going to Warblington drop out?
35.	The way the numbers have been split with the A3(M) has skewed the figures.
36.	Could the catchment areas be changed for Crookhorn and Warblington?
37.	Does HCC want to create a flaw in the BSF programme by closing a good school? I have been to a school up north and they kept it open for 500 pupils. They realised that by closing it, they wouldn't go to school.
38.	Have you got yourself into a situation which you cannot get out of?.
39.	Cllr David Kirk listens to advice from his officers (ie you!). You need to put an option across to him that will work and you can work to.
40.	Would you have started with numbers if you had your time again?
41.	We keep talking about community, we have a very strong school community. We have 45 community groups who use this site, such as nursery, health and sports.
42.	Do we get any credit for increasing health and fitness in the area?
43.	We can do better if we work as a whole community and a learning community by establishing a local Children's Trust.
44.	How do you get from here to there?
45.	If we intervene at a lower level (younger age), by the time they get to secondary school things will have improved.
46.	The way work is presented to the pupils needs to be clearer. Even parents struggle to understand and complete the work Y9s are being given.
47.	Need to say what we can achieve in 1, 2 and 3 years time. Mike Madden and the community have build good foundations by a common vision.
48.	You have come here to get the views of the community - I do not see anyone from DCSF.
49.	Students are able to attend summer catch-up classes, to allow the pupils to catch up on work which they have missed during the term for one reason or another. This has allowed them to get the grades they need to get into college. How many other schools provide this?
50.	Co-location of schools in Leigh Park? Have these discussions taken place?
51.	Tougher discussions with special schools need to take place regarding co-locating. What can they bring to the area? Young people do get benefits from working together.
52.	In practical terms, if we knock down a building, will this reduce surplus places? Or do we have to do something else?
53.	Size of school - how relevant is this? Why can we not fight for two 500/600 place schools?
54.	Could we take that debate to the DCSF?
55.	We do have more pupils on site during the day, due to the 14-19 agenda, Federation work, links with South Downs college. Is there know way of factoring this into the numbers?
56.	Based around the DCSF numbers - what would happen if we became Park Community, based on two sites?
57.	Are there any thoughts of rebuilding Park on a smaller scale?
58.	If 400 pupils go to Warblington - what will happen at lunch time? Have you thought of the impact on the local community? For example pupils visiting local shops, going into Havant, not returning to schools?
59.	What is the DCSF's opinion on placing pupils in a school where they are not welcome? And it has been stated they are not welcome.
60.	If Staunton does shut, what will happen to the 75% of students with SEN. Warblington does not have the facilities to cope, Glenwood is at full capacity. What will happen to them? They will not be able to cope in another school.
61.	If Staunton does shut, we will need another special school.
62.	Need to take the community into consideration. By shutting the school, how does this benefit them?
63.	Do you think by shutting a school, it will tick the boxes for DCSF?
64.	Will it be cheaper to build another special needs school or keep Staunton open, where they are happy?
65.	Successful collaboration within the community and successful track record - what weight does that carry with the DCSF?
66.	We are a learning organisation. If we get it wrong, we will correct it and learn from it.
67.	By saying the school is going to close, we are starting to lose teachers and good teachers.
68.	Will teachers get the same treatment and the pupils if they go to Warblington?
69.	Can we get more positive guidance from the DCSF?
70.	If we went to an all-through school, there will still be the issue with Warblington.
71.	All-through school on one site - what would happen if we knocked down one of the buildings to reduce surplus places?
72.	Family learning - Would a parent who sat in on GCSE lessons during the day be counted in the surplus place figures?
73.	What would DCSF's view be on high truancy levels?
74.	This school has already transformed children's lives
75.	What are we taking away? What is the preferred option?
76.	Will we get the options before the Executive Member meeting?
77.	Will we get the option to meet with you before the Executive Member meeting?
78.	Will this go to Cabinet?
79.	Can we make representations to the Secretary of State?
80.	What happens if the government changes (when the elections take place). Will this funding get withdrawn?
81.	Need to recognise. if there is no BSF, the school organisation issues will need to be addressed.
82.	Would like to think the LA officers are on our side.

Version with notes by Headteacher, Mr Mike Madden


	BSF consultation meeting with Staunton Community Sports College - Governors meeting

Date	Tuesday 4 November 2008
Time	18:00 - 20:15
Location	Staunton Community Sports College


Present	John Clarke	Deputy Director Children's Services
	Bob Eardley	Strategic Planning Manager
	Brian Pope	Area Director - South East
	Ann Begley	County Manager (Organisation)
	Mike Madden	Headteacher - Staunton Community SC
	Alan Wilde	Chair of Governors
	Max Bullough	Headteacher - Hayling College
	Alison Porter	Support Services Manager (notes)
	Members of the full governing body at Staunton Community Sports College:
	Ray Passfield	Alison Kelly
	Andy Ford	Peter Poulton
	Peter Vince	Dino Theophanous
	Anne Rowlinson	Michelle Anderson
	Michael Cooper	Ralph Cousins



	A statement by Chair of Governors, Alan Wilde, was read at the meeting. A copy is attached with these notes. After a brief update by Bob Eardley on the current position, the following comments were made and questions asked:
1.	What size would an all-through school need to be in order to deliver a viable curriculum for young people to succeed? MMA made clear that the school is already the same size as it would be in 2018 and that we currently offer 37 different path ways and with the Federation this rises to 48 - so for this reason does not believe that a small school is necessarily an issue.
2.	Currently looking at an all-through CIP, which would involve all secondary schools, not just Staunton. This would need to tackle existing barriers to learning and family learning. MMA said that he was supportive of all through educational provision but this could only be realistically achieved if there was a strong commitment from all in the partnership and that Leigh Park should be considered as a whole not split between 2 secondaries and their link primaries.
3.	Need to be confident it is different to EAZ and CIP. We need to ensure schools do not keep failing. The Leigh Park Learning Village is a development and extension of the EAZ and CIP and sees schools potentially taking greater collectively accountability for progress and achievement across the partnership. MMA also felt that if colleagues had looked at the narrowing of the gap since the EAZ was established they would see significant progress had been made already.
4.	Timescale - if Staunton is included in the first phase we need to have clarity on school organisation issues by January 2010. This would mean these issues would need to be addressed in the coming year. MMA felt that to do proper consultation to have a clear view within a year would be a very tight timescale and would very much depend upon the pace at which the community worked and would not be dictated by schools.
5.	Current bid - If we presented to the DCSF (in the current bid) two small secondary schools located very near to each other, this would prove very challenging and would require a lot of work to ensure it was presented properly. MMA felt that similar reorganisation had been achieved in Portsmouth and felt that the LA should be strongly advocating on school's behalf to ensure that education is transformational and communities are not damaged longer term. Also it was felt that the East West split was not helpful and that Havant should be considered as a whole when dealing with surplus places.
6.	There is currently a feeling among the governors at Staunton that the LA is going for the easy option. We feel we need to work together. Brian Pope was unequivocal in his assertion that this was a genuine consultation.
7.	The local authority is trying to get money to build schools in Hampshire, and we need to get this resource into Hampshire as it is for the county not one particular area. We have the same views as governors - we need to build educational solutions.
8.	How can you rebuild Park Community School when you do not know what is happening in the rest of Leigh Park?
9.	Why can the school organisation issues not be sorted within one year? One year is a very long time.
10.	We would prefer two small schools which serve their local communities and are representative of their local communities.
11.	We recently attended a meeting at Warblington and they have stated they do not want our kids at their school! It was further discussed that in effect if around 177 students already attend Warblington from Leigh Park and another 3 - 400 go there, then effectively Warblington will be a Leigh Park sitting outside the community it serves. It was also stated that more parents from Warblington would very likely send their children into West Sussex if this were to happen.
12.	It seems like the LA has already made its mind up to keep Park and Warblington Schools.
13.	Have you taken into the West Of Waterlooville MDA? The LA said they had taken into consideration the MDA however the LA were asked if they were aware of the 6,300 minimum new homes to be built in south Havant.
14.	As County Councillors are voted by the people for the people - why don't they listen to us?
15.	When Park is rebuilt - what will happen to the students? Will they have to move school temporarily?
16.	It is not a coherent community, there are two separate communities. This is a perception amongst some people within these communities however the 2 schools do transfer many children between them and see themselves as serving a common community of Leigh Park.
17.	If you close the school there will be 300 pupils required to travel 3 miles to the nearest school. Has the carbon footprint been taken into consideration?
18.	The Police and Fire and Rescue service have already stated that the routes will be dangerous? Are you listening to this? The students will have to cross a busy road and be walking on narrow pavements.
19.	BSF is not just about buildings - it is also about infrastructure. It was considered that there would be considerable congestion at Warblington due to the level crossing gates which at peak times can open and close with very little traffic movement. This would be a problem for the school and local residents.
20.	If Staunton closes and pupils go to either Park or Warblington, the students will not be able to participate in after school activities due to travelling.
21.	You will be taking away a large part of the community. For what purpose?
22.	You need to get a colleague to look at the route that the young people will be required to take (in rush hour). It is very dangerous.
23.	You keep talking about rebuilding Park. There is still a need for provision on this site, or can Park and Warblington accommodate this?
24.	Would you look at a split site school?
25.	An all-through school would to meet other agendas.
26.	How will moving young people to Park or Warblington meeting the educational agenda? There was a feeling, and it was something that students had fed back to officers, that if they had to get a bus or travel a longer distance to school they would be far less likely to stay for after school clubs and events and some of the poorer attenders who may now arrive late, may not attend at all. In truth Warblington in absorbing a large number of additional students could itself become a National Challenge School.
27.	We are in a deprived area, yet once again we are having something taken away from us.
28.	At Staunton, we have 75% of pupils with SEN needs. Other schools have said this would very challenging. It is likely the pupils will not stay at the other schools. The only reason they stay here is due to the excellent pastoral support they are given.
29.	What about turning the proposals around with Warblington children coming to Staunton, has this been looked at?
30.	We have larger playing fields than the other schools in the area.
31.	We have worked very hard to build Staunton into the school it is now.
32.	Parents would have to give up work in order to transport their children to other schools.
33.	Pupils will not turn up to school if they miss the bus and they will not walk the 3 miles.
34.	What proportion of the 178 pupils going to Warblington drop out? This number of 178 previously gives the impression that this is a primary secondary transfer issue but MMA stated having looked at the students currently in our primary feeder schools that the vast majority attend Park and Staunton and therefore the movement from Leigh Park may happen prior to starting primary or potentially at another time of transition.
35.	The way the numbers have been split with the A3(M) has skewed the figures.
36.	Could the catchment areas be changed for Crookhorn and Warblington?
37.	Does HCC want to create a flaw in the BSF programme by closing a good school? I have been to a school up north and they kept it open for 500 pupils. They realised that by closing it, they wouldn't go to school.
38.	Have you got yourself into a situation which you cannot get out of?.
39.	Cllr David Kirk listens to advice from his officers (ie you!). You need to put an option across to him that will work and you can work to.
40.	Would you have started with numbers if you had your time again?
41.	We keep talking about community, we have a very strong school community. We have 45 community groups who use this site, such as nursery, health and sports.
42.	Do we get any credit for increasing health and fitness in the area? MMA pointed out that as the School Sports Partnership responsible for the 50 primary and secondary schools in Havant and Waterlooville which accounts for 17,000 young people has had an influence and impact on standards of achievements as well as emotional health and well being and has any credit been given to the school who set up and run this partnership. Similarly this partnership is borne out of a sports college and if Staunton were to close there would be a lack of diversity and choice as the only sports college in the area.
43.	We can do better if we work as a whole community and a learning community by establishing a local Children's Trust.
44.	How do you get from here to there?
45.	If we intervene at a lower level (younger age), by the time they get to secondary school things will have improved.
46.	The way work is presented to the pupils needs to be clearer. Even parents struggle to understand and complete the work Y9s are being given.
47.	Need to say what we can achieve in 1, 2 and 3 years time. Mike Madden and the community have build good foundations by a common vision.
48.	You have come here to get the views of the community - I do not see anyone from DCSF.
49.	Students are able to attend summer catch-up classes, to allow the pupils to catch up on work which they have missed during the term for one reason or another. This has allowed them to get the grades they need to get into college. How many other schools provide this?
50.	Co-location of schools in Leigh Park? Have these discussions taken place? MMA asked why in the original EOI there was an indication of co-locating a secondary special school on a secondary school site, and why no further work seems to have been done around this as clearly it would have benefits for those young people who would have access to wider provision, a greater sense of inclusivity and it could be to the mutual benefits of both schools as the special schools would have greater expertise in supporting young people with learning difficulties which is 76% of SCSC's students.
51.	Tougher discussions with special schools need to take place regarding co-locating. What can they bring to the area? Young people do get benefits from working together.
52.	In practical terms, if we knock down a building, will this reduce surplus places? Or do we have to do something else?
53.	Size of school - how relevant is this? Why can we not fight for two 500/600 place schools?
54.	Could we take that debate to the DCSF?
55.	We do have more pupils on site during the day, due to the 14-19 agenda, Federation work, links with South Downs college. Is there know way of factoring this into the numbers? Currently around 59 additional students not only from Federation but also from Bohunt, Amery Hill and Petersfield attend during the week.
56.	Based around the DCSF numbers - what would happen if we became Park Community, based on two sites?
57.	Are there any thoughts of rebuilding Park on a smaller scale?
58.	If 400 pupils go to Warblington - what will happen at lunch time? Have you thought of the impact on the local community? For example pupils visiting local shops, going into Havant, not returning to schools?
59.	What is the DCSF's opinion on placing pupils in a school where they are not welcome? And it has been stated they are not welcome.
60.	If Staunton does shut, what will happen to the 76% of students with SEN. Warblington does not have the facilities to cope, Glenwood is at full capacity. What will happen to them? They will not be able to cope in another school.
61.	If Staunton does shut, we will need another special school.
62.	Need to take the community into consideration. By shutting the school, how does this benefit them? Diversity and choice is a key aspect of BSF, this would lead to no choice for many students as Park is full so their only choice would be Warblington.
63.	Do you think by shutting a school, it will tick the boxes for DCSF?
64.	Will it be cheaper to build another special needs school or keep Staunton open, where they are happy?
65.	Successful collaboration within the community and successful track record - what weight does that carry with the DCSF?
66.	We are a learning organisation. If we get it wrong, we will correct it and learn from it.
67.	By saying the school is going to close, we are starting to lose teachers and good experienced staff. Currently the school is 20% down on numbers for next year and this could be due to the uncertainty and anxiety caused by this process.
68.	Will teachers get the same treatment and the pupils if they go to Warblington? MMA made clear that the staff had no protection with regards future employment under any reorganisation system.
69.	Can we get more positive guidance from the DCSF?
70.	If we went to an all-through school, there will still be the issue with Warblington.
71.	All-through school on one site - what would happen if we knocked down one of the buildings to reduce surplus places?
72.	Family learning - Would a parent who sat in on GCSE lessons during the day be counted in the surplus place figures?
73.	What would DCSF's view be on high truancy levels? Children who fail to catch buses are less likely to attend.
74.	This school has already transformed children's lives
75.	What are we taking away? What is the preferred option?
76.	Will we get the options before the Executive Member meeting?
77.	Will we get the option to meet with you before the Executive Member meeting?
78.	Will this go to Cabinet?
79.	Can we make representations to the Secretary of State?
80.	What happens if the government changes (when the elections take place). Will this funding get withdrawn?
81.	Need to recognise. if there is no BSF, the school organisation issues will need to be addressed.
82.	Would like to think the LA officers are on our side. And once again advocate strongly on our behalf to represent our views passionately with the DCSF.


	BSF - Staunton Community Sports College meeting Meeting with parents

Date	Thursday 16 October 2008`
Time	17.30 - 19.30
Location	Staunton Community Sports College

Present	John Clarke	Deputy Director - Children's Services Department
	Bob Eardley	Strategic Planning Manager
	Richard Vaughan	Strategic Planning Officer
	Alex Munro	School Organisation Officer
	Brian Pope	Area Director - Education and Inclusion(South East)
	Julie Wilding	District Manager - Education and Inclusions (South East)
	Mike Madden	Headteacher - Staunton Community Sports College



1.	Introduction from the headteacher setting out the format for the meeting and its intended purpose.
2.	JC gave an overview of the decision making process and reminded all that it was the responsibility of elected members to take any final decision, not officers.
3.	AM went through the BSF proposal and highlighted the following key points:
4.	a) Funding reduced from £120m down to £80m. This means that all the Havant schools will not be able to be included in the next phase of funding.
5.	b) Funding is not automatic: the bid must demonstrate how we will improve standards, reduce surplus capacity, provide different types of schools, ensure value for money and create a framework for future wider service opportunities.
6.	c) Pupil movement in the wider Havant area is very significant with over 400 Hampshire pupils attending schools in West Sussex and more than 500 moving from the eastern sector of the review to attend schools to the west of the A3(M).
7.	d) Central Government has concerns over small urban secondary schools, so doing nothing about future numbers at Staunton is not an option.
8.	MM outlined the very good work that the Federation had been doing in the area and, how successful this had been in bringing the local schools together to provide improved opportunities for students.
9.	MM explained that discussions were underway between the LA, primary feeders and Staunton Park to look at the option of an all through school for the Staunton Park area, this could provide:
10.	a) Formal links between secondary and primary
11.	b) Continuity of learning for pupils
12.	c) Improved planning and lesson provision
13.	d) Increased learning opportunities.
14.	Such a school could be on more than one site; it does not have to mean the relocation of primary provision onto the secondary school campus.
15.	A concern was that such an option would take a considerable time to plan and implement. The timescale for BSF does not necessarily allow such time.
	Questions / comments from the floor
16.	Recent Ofsted report praised the school for the good work it is doing so why is Hampshire considering its closure? BE explained that the rules governing BSF are set by central government and, in the case of Staunton Park, the very high levels of surplus have to be dealt with.
17.	JC made the point that attainment levels in the primary sector also need improvement.
18.	Staunton is committed to supporting students with Special Educational Needs; its closure would leave such students with nowhere to go. BP recognised this fact and reinforced the fact that we are all in the business of improving outcomes for students.
19.	The school operates in a very diverse community and fully supports all its students. Closing the school would see this lost; other schools in the area could not understand the local needs.
20.	Does the County Council, as part of the consultation process, try to discover why parents send their children to other schools?
21.	A small school better fits this community, so it should be kept as it is. JC agreed that small schools, in some cases, are the best answer but, in this instance, we are looking at a small school because a large number of catchment pupils are choosing to go elsewhere.
22.	If the school is part of a successful Federation does it matter what size it is? BE advised that it does; the DCSF looks at individual schools, not the size of the Federation.
23.	Why, in the initial report, was the closure of the school the first option? BE stated that the options were not in any particular order.
24.	Why don't we enforce catchment areas so parents have to send their children to their catchment school? AM said that we are not legally allowed to do this and providing choice and diversity of school for parents was a key government priority.
25.	The fact that the school might be closed is already having a negative affect on parents of future students. Many are looking at other schools just in case the closure does happen.
26.	Why has Cllr Kirk not attended any of the meetings at the school?
27.	Will parents have an opportunity to talk to Cllr Kirk at any point? JC advised that Cllr Kirk is kept fully informed during the consultation process and that, depending on how things progressed, it might be possible for parents to make deputations at future Council meetings. He also reinforced how important it was that everyone responded to the consultation, either in writing or through the BSF web site.
28.	All staff who work at the school are passionate about it and its students. For many the school has provided a new lease of life and reignited their passion for teaching. It has provided new challenges and an opportunity for them to engage in a community much wider than just the school. For many its closure would almost certainly bring an end to their teaching career.
29.	If the school was to close how would students get to their new school? Would transport be provided? AM explained that the national "walking distance" would be used. This entitles any student living further than 3 miles from their catchment school to free transport.


	BSF consultation meeting with Staunton Community Sports College Staff

Date	21 October 2008
Time	15:00
Location	Staunton Park Community School

Present	Bob Eardley	Strategic Planning Manager
	Alex Munro	School Organisation Officer
	Brian Pope	Area Director - Education and Inclusion



	After a brief introduction by officers, the following questions were asked and comments made:
1	What is the overall vision for the area? How will it be achieved?
2	This problem of surplus places was raised two years ago.
3	The consultation has been rushed and this has led to insecurity amongst parents when coming to express their preferences for secondary places in September 2009.
4	The Federation is strong and would be damaged by a school closure.
5	What are the benefits of an all-through school?
6	How do you intend to achieve the drop in places which you say is necessary?
7	What is the preferred size for Park Community School when it is rebuilt?
8	Is it not possible to produce surpluses in the west so that there will be less need to reduce them in the east?
9	Staunton's 2007 CVA is better than Warblington's.
10	The consultation booklet was biased towards closure. More time is needed before decisions are taken.
11	An all-through school would impact on other schools, all of whom need to be carefully consulted.
12	Why not present the Federation as one school?
13	It is not all about GCSE results. We nurture the children and help them survive in the world.
14	A split site school will do nothing to reduce places.
15	Academies do not work. The government has got it wrong.
16	Would any money go to Glenwood Special School if Staunton closed?
17	There is a very high level (74%) of SEN pupils at Staunton. Some of our little ones are functioning as 5-6 year olds. The government should take account of exactly what we do.
18	This school is not about results.
19	We need to know the future as soon as possible. Some staff will wonder whether there is a future for them at this school.
20	Would increased post-16 work help the surplus places issue?
21	The Headteacher pointed out that the DCSF has no way of assessing school places within a Federation context where students are visiting other schools and using their facilities.
22	Why is this all about surplus places? Green issues do not appear to be considered.
23	If the government changes, will BSF continue?
24	Do you recognise and fully understand the Staunton issues? We have student support second to none.
25	The Every Child Matters agenda seems to have been ignored.
26	Remember all these points when "taking it away from us".
27	I expect my local and county council to fight on our behalf.
28	How do you measure the size of schools? Are community rooms included?
29	This is very stressful for our young people.
30	What is the role of Cllr Kirk? Why has he not been to the school?
31	When our Year 7s come to us, we must climb the Matterhorn; other schools have a mere stroll.
32	Our CVA is so good because we all work very hard. Relationships are all important.
33	How would closing Staunton contribute to reducing surplus places?
34	Are pupils lost to Staunton leaving the area for other schools at age 5 or at age 11?
35	The proposal to move Staunton pupils to Warblington would mean that even more Hampshire pupils went into West Sussex.
36	Would it not be possible to have a single school for the whole Havant area?
37	It would be important to have a decision by Easter because it is at this time that staff will be looking at job adverts for the following September.
38	What is the position in Portsmouth with regard to surplus places?
39	The fundamental issue is the engagement of children in order to counter under-achievement.


	BSF consultation meeting with Staunton Community Sports College students

Date	21 October 2008
Time	12:30 pm
Location	Staunton Park Community School

Present	Bob Eardley	Strategic Planning Manager
	Alex Munro	School Organisation Officer
	Students	Representing all Year Groups
	Mike Madden	Headteacher



	After a brief introduction by officers, the following questions were asked and comments made:
1	These proposals are not about pupils. We achieve good standards. The teachers and particularly the Headteacher know us well. This is the advantage of a small school.
2	We benefit from being able to attend courses in other schools because of the Federation links.
3	We have good facilities: for example, we have many computers and laptops, all of which are wireless linked.
4	We have excellent sporting facilities, including a swimming pool.
5	I feel happy and secure here and would want my children to have the same education and opportunities that I have had. I would not want them to go to a school further away.
6	The school is the centre of the community. Facilities are well used.
7	Students were less convinced about the possible advantages of an all age school and were concerned that this might lead to bullying. One pupil said that coming to school was an "escape as well as an education". There are already opportunities for older pupils to work with younger pupils
8	Students said that, if the school were to close, transport would be needed to enable pupils to get somewhere else. This would have an effect on after school activities which are one of Staunton's strengths.
9	We would like a lift so that disabled pupils could move around the site more easily.
10	What happens within the classrooms is more important than the physical condition of classrooms. However, quality of facilities and equipment is good.
11	The Healthy Living Centre - this is an important link with the local authority community.
12	Teachers have good contact with parents.


	BSF - Warblington Governors meeting

Date	Thursday 23 October 2008
Time	17.30
Location	Warblington School


Present	Members of the full school governing body - Warblington School
	Bob Eardley	Strategic Planning Manager
	Richard Vaughan	Strategic Planning Officer
	Alex Munro	School Organisation Officer
	Julie Wilding	District Service Manager
	Mike Madden	Headteacher, Staunton Community Sports College

1.	Keith Chessell, Chair of Governors - Warblington School, welcomed everyone to the meeting and gave the introductions.
2.	AM gave a brief update on meetings already held with the school's staff and pupils earlier in the week.
3.	AM explained that there had been some changes made by the DCSF to the way authorities could now formulate their BSF programme. The maximum funding per wave, per authority, had been reduced from £120m to £80m, to enable authorities to enter BSF earlier than originally planned. The reduction of surplus places and the need to raise attainment remained key criteria.
4.	Warblington loses a significant number of pupils into West Sussex. The school was projected to have 46% surplus places by 2018. Government had concerns about small urban secondary schools.
5.	AM referred to Park Community and Staunton Community Sports College. At Staunton there had been discussion about all-through provision.
	An open forum for questions followed:
6.	It was asked what assumptions and basis are used when putting together the forecast pupil data
7.	It was asked if the completion of the Hindhead tunnel had been taken into account, as this could see more families moving into the area and, therefore, increased pupil numbers.
8.	BE reminded colleagues that all figures presented to the DCSF would reflect as positive a position as possible, but that the DCSF monitor this area of BSF particularly carefully to ensure fair play.
9.	It was agreed by all that the Federation had improved standards in the area, but reversing trends and local beliefs about quality of provision would take many years, something BSF does not easily accommodate.
10.	The point was made that many parents in the primary sector were already thinking about schools other than Warblington due to the uncertainty being caused by the consultation.
11.	Concern was raised about the complexity of some of the data provided by the LA..
12.	It was suggested that the LA should reflect a clear margin of error figure when presenting data.
13.	Governors said they would like to see a 1000 place school retained on the site and would also consider the school's expansion up to 18 years of age.
14.	BE informed governors that Portsmouth City Council were already in the BSF process and moving forward in a current phase. West Sussex are in a similar position to Hampshire and officers would be meeting with them shortly to discuss their current thinking with regard to schools in the Chichester area.
15.	It was asked why have the County had not done more to stop parents sending their children to schools in West Sussex and/or other non-catchment schools.
16.	It was asked that officers noted how much strain the BSF process is putting on school leaders in the area. .
17.	Park Community School and Staunton Community Sports College are similar in deprivation levels. Warblington School is very different.
18.	Setting up an Academy based on Warblington and Staunton would send pupils across the border into West Sussex.
19.	Why not consider an Academy between Park and Staunton?
20.	It was felt that combining Warblington and Staunton was not desirable and governors did not want the Leigh Park / Warblington balance to change. Warblington should attract pupils from a wider area than at present.
21.	Governors felt that a new school is needed as soon as possible and sought reassurance that the school would not be closed.
22.	One governor was disappointed at the figures being used and asked how these numbers were calculated. The document was a death knell for this school.
23.	Governors felt that they have kept the community nature of this school.
24.	Portsmouth started with the assumption that they would keep all schools open.
25.	One governor disliked the word "surplus".
26.	It was asked if the Havant local plan had been considered.
27.	Will the data be available to everyone?
28.	We must expect the unexpected. If the Warblington bid is deferred for a year, can we really be certain that money will be available?
29.	We must not forget the vision, which must be transformational.
30.	There is a danger of money going elsewhere.
31.	It was felt that the booklet was unhelpful for prospective parents and that a particularly bad time had been chosen to carry out the consultations.
32.	One governor was not impressed by Hampshire's attempts to keep pupils in the area and felt that more funding was needed.
33.	Warblington is disadvantaged by the fact that two of its linked primary schools are faith schools and it is to be expected that many of these parents will want a faith school at secondary age.
34.	Hampshire should tell West Sussex not to take Hampshire pupils
35.	The County Council needs to ensure that, at the next phase of consultation, parents of primary pupils are brought much more into the process.


	BSF Consultations - Warblington School Meeting with parents

Date	Tuesday 21 October 2008
Time	19.00
Location	Warblington School

Present	Bob Eardley (BE)	Lead Officer - Capital Programme
	Alex Munro (AM)	School Organisation Officer
	Brian Pope (BP) Martin Hughes (MH)	Area Manager - Education and Inclusion School Organisation Officer
	Owen Davies (OD) (OD)	Headteacher
	Keith Chessell (KC)	Chair of Governors
	33 parents



1.	AM said that the purpose of the meeting was to give parents the opportunity to raise any questions and put forward any comments or ideas on the various BSF options presented in the consultation document.
2.	AM gave a short presentation on Building Schools for the Future (BSF). £80m is now available for the Havant/Horndean area in the next round. This funding is dependent on approval from the Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) of the local authority's proposals. These must show how levels of attainment for present and future pupils will improve and how the significant level of surplus places will be reduced.
3.	Particular attention was drawn to the number of pupils living within the eastern area but attending schools either in West Sussex or to the west of the A3(M).
4.	BE said that £1bn of government funding can be unlocked for Hampshire schools. Government want more authorities in the BSF programme and have therefore limited the first phase projects to £80m. This might mean that only a maximum of six of the 11 schools in this area could be included in the next round.
5.	The possibility of establishing an academy or all-through school in the area was also raised.
	Parents' questions and comments
6.	Have you asked parents why 400 of them choose schools in West Sussex for their children?
7.	The school's reputation has not been good but this does not reflect the current provision.
8.	Estate agents and other parents told us not to come to Warblington School. We came here because we couldn't get the children in elsewhere, but now we are very happy they are here.
9.	Concern that, if Staunton closes, more children from a National Challenge school will attend Warblington and bring difficulties.
10.	A parent had seen improvements in regular visits to Warblington over 3 years. The reduction to 5 form entry had been beneficial in providing a smaller school community. There was a much better atmosphere in a smaller school
11.	How long has Park been at capacity?
12.	Would an all-through school attract more parents and reduce the numbers going to West Sussex?
13.	As we are federated, does this count as a larger school?
14.	Snobbery may be preventing enrolments at Warblington.
15.	Another parent strongly disagreed saying it was the perceived lack of academic excellence that had reduced applications.
16.	The headteacher said that the school had had their best ever Y11 results this year with continued excellence at KS3.
17.	Two parents expected that doubts over Staunton's future had reduced admissions there. The likely increase in numbers from Staunton's catchment area to Warblington had caused significant concerns among potential parents
18.	One parent said that concern was at a high level. She knew of two parents last year who had lied on their application and said their children were living with grandparents in order to get into Purbrook Park.
19.	Would the addition of a 6^th form increase the size of the school sufficiently?
20.	A parent expressed some surprise that an all-through school was being discussed as it was a major revision of the published document.
21.	More houses are to be built - 270 within half mile. The same day we heard that Warblington would have fewer students!
22.	Emsworth primary schools are quite full. Has this been considered in the forecasts?
23.	A parent was concerned that closing schools would reduce choice. She was particularly worried that the increase in numbers of Special Needs pupils would give increased problems at Warblington, This would then affect its reputation.
24.	A parent asked about the nature of the intakes at Oaklands and Hayling and other schools.
25.	If the authority keep open all three schools, would there be enough money to rebuild all of them?
26.	A parent complained about the poor turn out tonight and said that it did not represent the strength of feeling. She has 2 pupils in the school, but the 3^rd won't come if the ideas in the booklet go through. The feeder schools or the authority through them have not pressed hard enough to inform their pupils. My Y5 child might go to West Sussex as the schooling will be more consistent.
27.	Another mother said the turn out was very poor.
28.	A father said this was because the pupils will have left by the time the change impacts. This represented a general feeling that the parents of pupils whom changes would really affect had not been invited vigorously enough.
29.	What does the expression of interest cover - does it include the vision for the area?
30.	Are we the only area in the county for this expression of interest?
31.	What if the government changes?
32.	How will the Warblington site be developed? Will half the school be knocked down? Will it be disruptive?
33.	Concern was expressed over the construction period
34.	Are there any key messages we can use to help in our responses?
35.	When will we know the outcomes from this consultation?
36.	Should more time be given to consultation especially as there is a new proposal (all-through school) in the consultation?
37.	Would there be enough time for proper consultation on the preferred option?
	Meeting closed - 20:35pm


	BSF - Warblington Staff meeting 08-10-08

Date	Tuesday 22 October 2008
Time	14.00
Location	Warblington School

Present	Alex Munro	School Organisation Officer
	Owen Davies	Headteacher
	Martin Hughes	School Organisation Officer
	80 members of staff


		Action
1.	Alex Munro referred to the programme of consultations meetings with parents, governors, staff and students. The Government had reduced the maximum funding for the next phase of BSF to £80m which would mean that projects in Havant and Horndean would have to be phased. The two key government criteria remained, however - raising standards of attainment and reducing the number of surplus places.
2.	There was a net loss from the eastern side of the review area of about 900 pupils. This made it more difficult to support the continuation of three schools, given the government's concerns over small (less than 750 pupils) urban secondary schools.
3.	Substantial rebuilding/remodelling of Warblington School would be necessary under any proposals.
	The following issues and questions were then raised:
4.	Parents are swayed by the press and they don't like uncertainty. On the basis of press coverage, many parents think Warblington may be closing.
5.	The possibility of Warblington closing, not mentioned in the blue document, may not give parents chance to respond as the parents' meeting was last night.
6.	If there is an Academy - would it be split-site or would there be two, one at Warblington and one at Park?
7.	Where will the Emsworth children go? The Bourne is full. There will be issues of transport which is not environmentally friendly, and possibly issues of truancy
8.	Warblington is on its way up - a good school heading for outstanding. Good headteacher and record GCSE results. We are a body of very committed staff.
9.	The reasons for the loss of so many pupils to West Sussex were that parents were unhappy with the lack of 6^th form and the decision some 30 years ago for schools to be 12-16. I don't feel that the county council has done enough to support us.
10.	Some feeders support West Sussex more. You have known about this leakage for a long time.
11.	Because of progress in the school our Y7 intake has improved. Has this been included in the numbers on roll projections?
12.	We have now 41% A-Cs at GCSE. We are the second best in the area. Our prospective parents are concerned about the uncertainty over the future, although keen to come here.
13.	Surely performance is more important than size of school.
14.	There is new build in Emsworth and Westbourne. Where will the children go?
15.	Will you look at the schools in Chichester?
16.	How were the capacity figures calculated?
17.	Would the change in schooling lower standards in Warblington?
18.	Can you control the number of places?
19.	The power of the Federation is not known sufficiently at planning level.
20.	We are a specialist school in Science and Maths. The authority may reduce choice and diversity if school(s) closed. We are unique in the Federation. It will be difficult to remove the Science and Maths specialism in this area
21.	In the 9 years I have been here this is the busiest we have been both in outreach and extra curricular terms. Why does Hampshire allow West Sussex schools into its feeder schools. We have worked this year with St James and the Y5 parents have responded positively and will now consider Warblington.
22.	Phasing of BSF investment. Can you explain this as it came out last night and has worried people?
23.	Headteacher - if there was a pecking order we believed we were priority 2 (after Park). We seem to have been demoted in priority
24.	Over 200 families came to our Open days. This may well translate into admissions. The consultation document lacked updated information and we were badly underrated. This was influential in taking pupils away. I was offended by the back page asking us to vote off a school
25.	Is there going to be a reissue of the document? Will the first comments be counted?
26.	You could have delayed the document. It is flawed
27.	All parents say the school is improving
28.	We are good to outstanding. How can we be compared to Staunton?
29.	We have been working very hard. We have been recognised as a centre of excellence in the Renaissance Scheme.
30.	I have been informed by a wrong document as a parent. The Federation support all schools
31.	How reliable are the predictions? My experience in 1983 of forecasting was very poor
32.	Headteacher - the participation rate excludes any faith school factor and two of our linked primary schools are faith schools.
33.	We are turning round the perception especially in Emsworth. The issue raises concerns for staff and potential parents. Are you considering closing our school?
34.	It is about local school transport issues
35.	What size of classes will there be? The accommodation is not sufficient.
36.	All staff in all schools want to keep schools open - whom are the county listening to?
37.	Are the surplus places correctly calculated? As Oaklands have turned down an increase in numbers on the grounds of manageability, is the formula correct?
38.	What figures are the projections based on?
39.	You have a duty to children for their safety and general health. The threat of closure is unfair to the students.
40.	This school offers the community so much. It beggars belief that we are considering contemplating closure against the wishes of Havant people. It seems that the money speaks louder.
41.	Why do we have to jump through hoops to get the money? Why is the money reduced to £80m
42.	Why doesn't the Government listen to local authorities?
43.	Should Hampshire have taken a more creative approach involving local communities? The consultation has given a negative spin on the local community and raised concerns. It was a knee jerk reaction
44.	Headteacher - what advice can you give to staff?
45.	After the meeting a written question was received - Can the money be split between the 6 schools evenly?
46.	A note was also left after the meeting about local community lettings - caravan club; line dancing; silver surfers; IT services; dancing; football; tennis; rugby.
	Meeting closed - 15:50pm


	BSF meeting with Warblington Students

Date	21 October 2008
Time	09:45
Location	Warblington School


Present	Bob Eardley	Strategic Planning Manager
	Alex Munro	School Organisation Officer
	Students representing all year groups



	After a brief introduction by officers, the following comments were made and questions asked:
1.	We have excellent teachers and can, therefore, get better grades. Learning is fun.
2.	There are good opportunities for sport; the PE department is strong.
3.	We could do with improved sporting facilities.
4.	In this main building, there are "cardboard walls".
5.	For maths and science, bearing in mind we are a specialist college, we need more equipment. .
6.	We value the opportunities given to us by being able to attend other Federation schools to study subjects which would not be available were it not for the Federation partnership
7.	Staff in the Federation schools work closely together. Some offer us extra teaching so that we can study subjects not usually offered.
8.	If numbers dropped to 500, options such as triple science would not be possible.
9.	We need a larger resource area. For example, in the library there should be a quiet area.
10.	It would also be good to have indoor areas where it was possible to be quiet and read during breaks and lunchtime, for example.
11.	We could use more laptops in lessons and improved networking within the school.
12.	We are not keen on the idea of an all-through school and feel that parents wanted an element of choice.
13.	We can see the potential benefit of having more adults taking part in lessons.
14.	Warblington is better than the Bourne School in West Sussex. It also better than Crookhorn or Purbrook Park.
15.	The size of the school is about right.
16.	Changing facilities need improvement.
17.	There could be more differences between, for example, English and Maths classrooms.
18.	A theatre and other community facilities would be welcomed.
19.	It was important for parents to be more involved in their children's schooling.

Mission - "Pupils not Places"

HFS, at the centre of the learning community, is committed to working relentlessly through agreed formal structures to provide additional value added for benefit of all individual learners.

10^th November 2008

Mr R Eardley

Strategic Planning Manger

Hampshire County Council, Children's Services

Ashburton Court East

The Castle

Winchester

Hants

SO23 8UG

Dear Bob

THE RESPONSE OF THE HAVANT FEDERATION OF SCHOOLS TO THE LOCAL AUTHORITY'S BSF CONSULTATION

Each of the schools in the Havant Federation has made its own response to the document or will shortly do so. We do not intend to cover the same ground but rather add to it in this response. Our document follows from our meeting with Mr Coughlan, our school meetings with the LA and our Federation Strategic Committee meeting.

The LA Numbers

It has occurred to us that the action of leaving schools like Hayling and Oaklands out of the calculation makes the surplus place argument more severe than it is. So, if Oaklands appears on the west side, it appears to reduce the surplus in 2018 using the LA's figures from 6.1% to 4.8% as an example. We would be the first to accept that we need to remove surplus places as we have said consistently. However the variation we have noted here illustrates some of the hazards that starting from the number rather than the vision creates.

A Bit of Vision

While the Federation consists of six separate schools with individual issues, we are clear that the future of the area must include Staunton Community Sports College. We think that it makes no strategic sense to move in excess of 500 students from their community and assume that this will improve their life chances. Consequently while we accept that the numbers problem is solved it is not a transformational solution and presents no real vision. All it suggests is that if you are a National Challenge school in Hampshire the solution is closure. We believe that our local authority is better than that. However when an officer says in a meeting with governors that a failure of another school to make children taken from Staunton to achieve would be the fault of the Headteacher and by implication the Governing Body of that school we are troubled.

So what do we do instead? We believe that the way forward is to use the strengths of the Federation and the Leigh Park CIP to build a new community driven approach to education. The Leigh Park Learning Village that is currently being developed is gloriously radical and would give the LA real credibility at a national level if they got behind it. We believe that the first phase is to examine the concept of the all through school managed from Staunton College. However to stop there is not transformational enough. We are happy to provide a paper containing the thinking that has developed so far should the LA wish to have it.

We feel that there is a real mistrust of the Federation among some LA officers. However we would urge that they look beyond their feelings at the work we have done so far and what is coming on stream. Remember that we currently educate nearly 4,500 students and that we have improved performance at five higher grades consistently above the national average over the past five years. Four of the diploma lines that have been successfully achieved by the Havant 14-19 consortium will be led by Federation schools and Staunton will lead alone or jointly on two of these lines. We would also point to our work in developing leaders with over twenty staff currently engaged in an MA leadership course, the work we did on inclusion which led to the Area 3 placement panel and our approach to managed transfers carried out in an atmosphere of trust.

People are now coming to us to create new linkages for which we offer two examples. We have been approached by the Havant Rotary Club to introduce a limited company which will manage Federation Arts performance in future. This will be run by students with Rotary support. We have built a relationship with Osaka in Japan which will lead to teacher and student exchange.

You will recall also the comments that were made by the president of ASCL, the chief statistician for the Fischer Family Trust and a member of the statistics team from the SSAT who described the Federation as unique. We can also add the comments from Secretary of State Ed Balls who said of the Federation in a recent letter "forming federations such as that in the Havant area is exactly what we wish to replicate elsewhere to help raise standards in lower-achieving schools." To undermine work that is described so glowingly at a national level seems a pretty high risk strategy in seeking improvement of standards. We have said that as a Federation we are prepared to underwrite Staunton's performance. We do this because we believe that their performance is inextricably linked with that of the rest of the Federation. We would suggest that an offer of this nature given voluntarily is also unique.

Why should we care if we lost Staunton?

The following things would be lost in the event that Staunton was removed:

· A centre for the community to bind itself into.

· A base for support teams to meet local need.

· An establishment to drive diplomas in Social Health Development and Sport and Leisure.

· The Sports Partnership that is doing a great deal to raise young people's achievement and retention in this area.

· Motor Vehicle Engineering currently used by Federation students but also those from Amery Hill, Bohunt and Petersfield.

· The possibility of an all through solution to support children in West Leigh.

· Students from Emsworth who would continue to go into West Sussex for their education. This point has been made forcibly to officers by parents and governors in the area.

Some Thoughts on the Mechanics of it all

We believe that it is essential that the LA retains Staunton Community Sports College. We also believe that when the bid is made it must be one bid with two phases. To do anything other than that would jeopardise the holistic approach needed to drive up standards in Havant. The way that the division into phases has been made is not the only way of doing it. It is equally possible to do the two schools that need the most work, Park and Warblington, in the first phase with two other schools leaving five other schools for phase two. We give some more detailed thoughts below.

We can see the argument for increasing Park to 1000 places but only if the focus for that increase is the return of students who cross the A3(M) to their neighbourhood school. Warblington School is prepared to accept a decrease in capacity to 800. However we do believe that this reduction must be handled with care. The potential construction of 6,300 houses in Southern Havant which officers accept were not factored into the original calculations and the completion of the Hindhead tunnel will impact significantly on that area. David Willetts, our local MP, has said that the maximum commuting time is 1h 12m. On that basis, with the tunnel in place, Havant becomes commuter belt. Consequently if Warblington is to be redesigned as an 800 place school it must be built in such a way that it can be expanded in future to accommodate increases in students up to 1,000. Alternatively it could be designed for 1,000 places from the outset.

We are baffled by the increase of 260 places at Crookhorn. We understand why the LA might want to send the students from the MDA there at the present given that Cowplain and Purbrook Park are full. However, to enshrine this decision as part of the LA's BSF vision does seem odd. Part of the MDA is at the bottom of the road leading up to Cowplain and another part is closer to Purbrook Park than Crookhorn. Both Cowplain and Purbrook are taking cuts in places whereas Crookhorn is expanding.

Our view would be that Crookhorn should remain at 800 which is the number of students currently there. As Park, Staunton and Warblington receive their new and refurbished buildings the desire for families to send their children out of Leigh Park will decrease. That trend is already there for Park. This will generate enough spare places for children from the MDA to attend Crookhorn should they wish. However, we would anticipate in a world where catchment areas are not used by schools that Cowplain and Purbrook Park would be under greater pressure from the MDA. We have developed a comprehensive position on school numbers which leads to a reduction in school places that fits within the 5% to 8% band that the LA is using. We are happy to discuss our view with LA officers should there be interest to do that.

The LA position on phasing is also of interest to us. As stated above we firmly believe that we need one bid in two phases so that we consider how we will use £180 million to the maximum benefit. To do anything else does not consider the needs of Havant Borough as a whole.

Everyone we have spoken to agrees that Park needs to be in the first phase. However, we believe that there is a case for Warblington to be there as well. If bringing children back from West Sussex is as high a priority as the LA says we might as well get started on the process as soon as possible. Without having an insight into the figures we feel that there would be enough money to refurbish one or two schools along with Park and Warblington. If it was one school we might consider Hayling. If it were two we might consider Cowplain and Horndean. This means that the core area on the west of the A3(M) would be done in the second phase. Whatever decision is reached it is our belief that it is unacceptable to place either Cowplain or Horndean in one phase and the other in the next. We are happy to discuss this aspect of our view further as well.

In Summary

We believe in community based education and the continuation of educational facilities in vulnerable communities. As a Federation we know that Staunton will continue to be able to provide a rich curriculum variety both on its own and with the support of colleague schools. We also intend to use our Federation resources to support Staunton in meeting and beating the National Challenge. We want to make sure that we work together to provide the broadest range of facilities that we can from the BSF money that we receive. This will require that we collaborate on this issue as we have on previous challenges such as making a conscious decision to all seek separate specialisms to maximise impact across Havant.

We believe that we can create an educational future for all that will excite and lead to increasing achievement. We want to make people proud to be part of Havant and we would very much like to work with our LA to that effect.

Yours sincerely

David Rowlinson

Secretary to the Havant Federation of Schools

Cowplain Community School

Hart Plain Avenue

Cowplain

Waterlooville

Hants PO8 8RY

E-mail response from Glen Strong (Headteacher) and Ann Lotinga (Chair of Governors) - Horndean Technology College

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Strong, Glen

Sent: 18 November 2008 11:07

To: Eardley, Bob

Cc: Munro, Alex

Subject: RE: BSF

Bob/Alex

My governors initially chose not to respond to the formal consultaion re BSF and I realise that the deadline has now passed but as the situation seems to evolve all of the time I would like, if possible, the following remarks from myself and my Chair of Governors to be taken into account:

The potential intake figures published by the LA for Horndean have moved from around 890 to 1100. The intake this year was 246. We would suggest that the capacity for Horndean might need tp be up towards 1250 in 2018.

This depends on a number of factors:

a) the number of Horndean catchment pupils allowed to be admitted to The Petersfield School (depends in part on the number of TPS pupils who move out of their own catchment to other schools e.g. Perins).

b) marketing by Horndean and TPS as well the performance of each school.

b) the closure of Staunton would make Horndean more attractive to parents/pupils in the North of their catchment area which would significantly affect the potential size of Horndean.

We are opposed to the closure of Staunton Park an ask that further consideration be given to alternative proposals which would meet the need of all students in the Havant/Horndean community.

Thanks for taking this into account.

Glen Strong and Ann Lotinga

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

10 November 2008

Mr Bob Eardley

Schools Strategic Planning Manager

The Castle

Winchester

Governors Response to BSF Consultations

Following the presentation made to Governors on the 3^rd November and the discussions resulting from your briefing, Governors are pleased to respond with their views. Whilst willing to discuss the size of the School to meet BSF criteria, Governors are unanimous in the aims and vision of what we would like the rebuild of Park to achieve.

1. The rebuild for Park should accommodate 1000 pupils.

Currently the School operates around the 900 mark. A smaller School would threaten the ability to retain excellent staff and maintain a high teacher/pupil ratio. Currently teachers have time to provide a high level of support to their pupils and encourage involvement by parents and the wider community in Family Learning opportunities.

Governors are anxious that to expand the opportunities for family learning the School size should be increased to 1000 to realise some flexibility in space utilisation .

Given the success of the school following special measures and the level of over subscription each year, increasing to 1000 pupils is not unrealistic.

The presentation given by Officers indicated a significant number of children (540) attend schools west of the A3 from the Leigh Park area. It appears that the idea of less spaces on the West of the A3 so drawing less students out of the East was notable by its absence in the Local Authority presentation.

Should the Local Authority maintain the current level of capacity at Crookhorn under the BSF proposal, this would go someway to alleviate the flow of pupils from Leigh Park to the A3M West.

A new build, wide curriculum and improving levels of academic attainment could assist in the reduction of this drift by attracting a small proportion of these pupils currently leaving Leigh Park areas.

At the 1000 pupil level, Governors are confident that levels of attainment in core subjects would improve further. In addition by having sufficient in house resource to provide primary schools in the area with specialist support the added advantages of linking the primary and secondary sectors would soon realise higher levels of attainment in Yr7.

2. The Vision for Park should be a School that reaches out to the wider community by providing education and support to the local area and its families.

Leigh Park is one of the most deprived areas in the Country and has a reputation that is ill deserved in relation to its population. Many of the families have had bad experiences at School, a significant number have never worked and have low self esteem. This has resulted in a lack of support by parents for their children through out their education.

At Park, by raising standards, encouraging parents to come into school to celebrate their children's successes, we have seen a step change in the parent's attitude to the School and an increasing realisation that education can get their children wider opportunities.

Our vision would encompass sufficient resource to allow parents and the wider community to access learning at all levels in an unthreatening environment. An environment they feel comfortable with knowing their children also enjoy it. This would open up the potential for new work and employment opportunities in the whole community.

3. The school facilities must be capable of providing sufficient resources to enable our children to realise their potential in academic or vocational subjects depending on their levels of ability.

Park GCSE results indicate a significant achievement in the more vocational subjects offered in the curriculum. Governors are keen to see equal levels of attainment in academic subjects but realise that it may be sometime before these aspirations are achieved.

The School has adopted the wider offering of levels 1 and 2 in vocational subjects and GCSE in academic subjects in order to boost a sense of achievement for pupils at all levels of ability.

A rebuilt School must have sufficient resources for it to offer a range of 14-19 Diploma courses accepting the need to access Federation Schools or Colleges for certain expensive facilities and specialisms as the area 14-19 plan envisages.

4. Working to improve Education in the Leigh Park Community

We recognise that our current working with Staunton Community Sports College in certain curriculum areas and future involvement with them in the 14-19 courses has real benefits for both communities. Staunton already has some specialist facilities and more could be provided increasing the opportunities in this locality, easing access for students who choose to follow a diploma course in years to come.

Opportunities to further develop work with the community through the CIP would be affected if Staunton closed and more pupils were educated outside of Leigh Park in schools where value added is lower. Crookhorn marginally lower in 2007 and Warblington significantly lower than Staunton.

We would hope that the Local Authority will ensure a continued educational establishment at Staunton for the local community and the Federation of Havant Schools. We would support any initiatives that enable both Leigh Park communities to work together to provide education at its best.

Summary

By increasing to a 1000 pupil School, Park would maintain the level of attainment currently achieved and improve in academic subjects to transform education in the

whole of the Leigh Park Area.

Providing increased specialist support to the Primary sector will increase attainment at Yr6/7.

We visualise the increase in pupils coming from Schools west of the A3M encouraged by a successful rebuilt school catering for a wide range of abilities.

The vision of "Park as a School for the Community" would have extraordinary benefits to an area of deprivation. By working with the parents and families of pupils we would reach out to the wider community exciting them by offering a place to learn that is both welcoming and familiar.

With the resources of a 21^st Century School, Park can achieve a curriculum of academic and vocational courses catering for a truly wide ability range of pupils.

Although Park has been "transformed these last eleven years" we need a 21^st Century School to transform education in our area of Leigh Park.

School Governors Passionate about Park

Staff feedback on BSF 5/6^th November 2008. (Subject team responses collated and value added by Leadership Team)

1. Our vision for Park Community School - (what should our school be like in 5, 10, or even 15 years from now?)

English team vision;- is for Park Community to remain on its existing site with a new building and a size of 900-1000. Our current size is one where staff and pupils know each other and there is a strong sense of community. To increase this by more than 100 would cause this to be lost.

The new school should be one where creativity and independence is fostered. The new building must therefore actively promote this. As such the new building should include:

· An `open plan' school with plenty of opportunity for large group learning & smaller spaces for `tutorial' style work. Ideally there would be a resource centre/ library as a central nucleus with suites of rooms for subject areas/faculties branching from this. In each of these areas a larger space and small more intimate classrooms would be necessary - preferably with sliding doors to adapt space sizes to suit different learning needs

· Computer access for all pupils all of the time via desk computers (fold down when not needed.)

· Building should be creative and inspiring- one school had surf boards for desks, glass top study desks filled by pupils with art. Should be personalized- pupil ownership & therefore respect.

· Natural light as much as possible.

· Learning areas in close proximity to those where cross curricular work is most natural. Promoting the development of faculties

· A wide range of spaces for pupils- dining- different `home rooms' with different resources/ activities for breaks and after school e.g.: quiet/ relaxing room, games room.

· Staff work space in all areas, an inviting, social staff room with a large separate area for work with a range of ICT facilities.

· Opportunities for `campus' style community- business opps for pupils to serve this community- café, courses etc.

· Outdoor learning spaces.

· Virtual lessons available between us and other schools, 14-19 conferencing.

· Proper hospitality and catering facilities to promote well-being and a sense of welcome/belonging for all users and guests

Maths team vision;- the school should remain in current site with a new building. The physical site of Park is in the middle of Leigh Park and should remain so - if our building were to move our catchment will move to Crookhorn.

Park is a flagship school within the County - every effort must therefore be made (and seen to be made) to support its continued growth

The educational ethos and culture of our school would be difficult to replicate on another site, due to it having been built up over the last ten years.

Science team vision;- the school should remain in current site with a new building and school number of 900. It was felt strongly that moving to Staunton site would leave an educational void in `Leigh Park' cause difficulties for pupils picking up younger siblings (as most of the feeder schools are within area).

Also we have spent an enormous amount of time and effort raising standards of achievement and supporting our pupils and their families very effectively, why waste this?

We have offered help and tried on numerous occasions to develop collaborative approaches but to date Staunton has not shown the same commitment. This we feel would provide difficulties in creating any sort of `joint' school, both schools should therefore remain as separate units.

Modern Foreign Languages team vision;- is also for Park Community to remain on its existing site with a new building

-Important to have multi-purpose community-use areas, including a teaching area e.g. ICT NOT dependent on school facilities, possibly open up to KS2-3 liaison and KS4-5 liaison work during the day at crucial times of the year.

-Could be different working hours for different ages - needs VERY careful thought to ensure coherence

Technology team vision;- is also for Park Community to remain on its existing site with a new building. Smaller classes would improve pupils' learning even further.

Humanities team vision;- is also for Park Community to remain on its existing site with a new building ie remaining as it is- as the heart of its community - with a highly deserved reputation for excellence and achievement that has been hard won over a decade of incredibly hard work by highly skilled and utterly dedicated professionals.

The new school should be one where there is an ethos of independent and community learning. The new building must remain at the heart of its community where it can promote this ethos. The new building should be a sustainable school. It should include: an inter-community resources/learning area, community and pupil social and working areas. A youth club area.

Performing Arts team vision;- is also for Park Community to remain on its existing site with a new building - a good school is defined/created by the quality of its teachers and demonstrated by its results. We have done this but we also need the buildings/facilities to enable us to continue to improve the quality of our service so that it remains relevant and innovative well into the future. A new build must therefore acknowledge our pupils' evolving learning/personal needs and the needs of a highly innovative and dynamic curriculum (for example, we need to expand the number and range of specialist facilities eg 2 dance studios, further media suite and classroom facilities all within close proximity.

We also need to improve our community, pupils' after hours learning facilities and hospitality services with an appropriate suite of rooms including an internet café.

2 Our vision for education in the Leigh Park/Havant area.

English team vision for Havant area;- We have serious concerns about losing one of the 3 schools e.g.: Staunton. In an area where attendance is already an issue surely the longer distance some will need to travel will lead to some pupils opting out.

Learning village ie a `federation' across all of the educational institutions within the Leigh Park area acting as one coherent whole and thus transforming the quality of educational service from cradle to grave across the entire area.

Secondary learning community ie a `federation' between the 3 secondary schools all offering a high standard of education, all consistent in policy and expectations and therefore ultimately results!? Each site could offer a high standard of core subjects but specialize in a specific area and pupils opt into specialism rather than school. There would need to be the opportunity to access a wide curriculum within this & virtual lessons could provide additional learning opportunities. While schools currently have specialisms, we are thinking of whole schools where all pupils specialize in this area in addition to core subjects. Assumes a degree of collaboration and willingness to change not hitherto demonstrated by all partners however. But could stimulate improvement especially if individual or `lead' teachers undertook periodic inter-school `transfers' eg on a term by term basis and time was allocated for subject specialist collaboration and collaborations on specific 2 day or week long inter-disciplinary learning projects

Maths team vision for Havant area;- Staunton would make a good site for a Federation School, ie a smallish secondary school body with facilities to enable it to `specialise' as the Havant Federation's main "Diploma" site for 14-16 pupils, without impacting on the already stretched resources of the local colleges.

Science team vision for Havant area;- The site at Warblington should remain with about 600 students (as the reduced capacity at Hayling College will provide more students).

Staunton should have a small cohort of around 500 students but its main focus should be as a site for the new Diploma options as they have space to develop these.

Modern Foreign Languages team vision for Havant area;- If there were fewer schools in the area or if the Staunton site were to include `Diploma delivery' facilities for the area then more thought MUST be given to transport between sites (university-style / designated bus idea)

Staunton as a `Through school' nice idea BUT children need 'local' 'walk round the corner with Mum and big brother' primaries when they first start, not to be part of a school 2-3 miles away. Staunton could provide this service for their immediate community in West Leigh and it would provide an alternative `specialism/dimension' in terms of its suitability for more vulnerable children for example who might thrive in a more intimate/family orientated school (if they were willing to travel across The Park)

Closing Staunton will cause major resentment for the hard work that they have done. It should not be forgotten that while their `raw headline figures' may not appear to be good their CVA figures indicate that they are actually making a significant impact on the pupils standards of achievement. (The reverse is true of Warblington!)

Technology team vision for Havant area;- 2 schools are needed in Leigh Park.

Travelling 3 miles to and from school is not good re children's safety, neither is it good for the environment with more cars possibly ferrying children about the area increasing our carbon footprint.

Truancy/poor attendance is an issue in the area - making disaffected children travel even further to school would clearly undermine our considerable efforts to improve attendance.

Performing team vision for Havant area;- Whole team is in support of the staff of Staunton and the view that Staunton should NOT close.

Staunton as a `Through School' - mixed views on the likely success of this and a concern that it might not appeal to parents who would therefore send their children to us (if we had the space).

Staunton as a `Diploma Site' - some concern that resources throughout the entire Havant area are not being fully utilized, but the development of the Diplomas is still in its early stages - and the squeeze on the resources in those school who are acting as the main delivery partners is already being felt.

Final thoughts: will we be listened to??

Deb Morris

Deputy Headteacher

WARBLINGTON SCHOOL

Building Schools for the Future - HCC Consultation

Governing Body Response to the BSF Proposals and Future Vision Statement

Preamble

As part of the consultations being conducted by Hampshire County Council in preparation for entry into the first round of the Building Schools for the Future programme, each of the Havant Federation Schools' governing bodies has been invited to submit a response to the Council's initial proposal on the subject (the Report of the Director of Children's Services, BSF in Hampshire, 24 July 2008, refers), and to present their future educational vision for their school.

This submission from the Governing Body of Warblington School is in three parts: a brief introduction, followed by the vision statement; the third part, in the form of an annex to the principal text, contains a summary of the governors' response to the overall scheme and its implications for their School, with a recommendation calling for an amendment to the key proposal on the future size of roll for the new school.

Introduction

Building Schools for the Future, the programme intended to transform secondary education throughout the country by earmarking funds to rebuild completely or substantially to modernise, refurbish or remodel every secondary school over a 15 year period from 2005, represents an exceptional opportunity for Hampshire. It is understood that up to £1 billion could be released through this innovative programme to allow schools throughout the County to tailor their buildings and facilities to meet both the precise requirements of the modern curriculum and the needs of today's learners and those of the wider community for future generations.

The Governing Body of Warblington School therefore welcomes this initiative in principle - albeit with certain reservations in relation to its local application - and, recognising that secondary schools in Havant and Horndean have been selected to be among the first in the County to benefit from this investment, wishes to play a full part in defining the future educational vision for their School. Indeed, governors relish the opportunity to contribute to the consultative process and obviously seek to make an effective and influential contribution to the long term strategic development of a new, re-modelled Warblington School. By engaging in direct participation in this way, governors strongly wish to ensure that those issues they consider critical to the future success of the new School are given a high priority in the preparation, planning and execution of the BSF programme.

But, while pleased to present their viewpoints on these key matters, governors have taken this opportunity to express their misgivings about a number of aspects of the proposals as contained in the consultation document, which they do in the Annex to this paper, together with a counter proposal on the future size of roll in the new re-modelled school.

The Governors' Vision for the Future of Warblington School

In pursuing its aims for the Building Schools for the Future programme, DCSF quite correctly wishes to see imaginative, innovative, far-sighted approaches expressly tailored to meet the future and continuing needs of all learners, not a mere re-drawing of existing provision.

The Governing Body of Warblington School is fully committed to this principle and without reservation shares the view that the new programme must be seen to deliver schools that are vibrant, inspiring places properly equipped for the demands of the 21^st century, entirely capable of achieving a genuine and sustainable step-change in attainment levels, in the quality of teaching and learning, in increasing school diversity, in enhancing parental choice and in making schools the focal point of their communities.

Warblington School, in its fine setting with its generous playing fields and evolving co-partnership with Havant Hockey Club which will produce a quality sports facility of almost international standard with huge potential for contributing to extended services and increasing community access at several levels, we would submit, is in a particularly strong position to contribute towards and to reap benefit from the BSF regeneration programme. Indeed, it has the potential to become an 11-18 school, and certainly an important venue for life-long learning.

In recent years, its growing reputation and steadily improving results as a progressive Specialist School for Science and Mathematics, the Governing Body firmly believes, provide it with a really sure foundation upon which to build a new and significantly improved learning environment, one which we are confident will become the school of first choice for all parents in its community. Formidably good leadership, a capable, confident senior management team, inspirational teaching throughout the School, the celebration of success, the recognition of student voice and the serious and committed engagement of parents in their children's education have all contributed to the growing respect that Warblington enjoys throughout the local community, and increasingly beyond. The new culture of confidence throughout the School this has brought and not least its healthy impact on teacher recruitment and ability to retain key staff, strongly reinforces the belief of the Governing Body that the School is exceptionally well-positioned to participate effectively in such an exciting project, to take full advantage of its many opportunities and to produce a finished outcome which will bring enormous credit to both parties.

The School, strongly supported by the Governing Body is fully committed to the Every Child Matters agenda and is already participating in training for the implementation of The Children's Plan, to build brighter futures for all our children and is mindful of the important part that schools can play in this initiative. In pursuit of such objectives, throughout the School very best endeavours are consistently applied to the important task of creating a safe, secure, healthy learning environment, where the young and vulnerable as well as the more confident can enjoy genuinely fulfilling and rewarding experiences free of alarm and anxiety, and this commitment to the quality and character of the learning space and its atmosphere will remain very high among the priorities of the School while it pursues the BSF vision.

Indeed, quite independently we are coming to see that the built environment has an increasingly important part to play as a tool in education, and thus very much share the view of Tim Byles, the chief executive of PfS, the executive agency responsible for delivering the building programme when he says of BSF that, "(U)ltimately it is about people and the ways in which new environments bringing together a whole host of ingredients - physical environments, virtual learning environments, strong leadership and committed teaching teams as well as engaged parents - can make a real difference to (their children's) life chances". With this, we concur most warmly.

And while of course BSF is not simply school buildings for the future but, rather, building schools for the future, we firmly believe as part of our vision for the new Warblington that really good and innovative design must come at the top of the list of our priorities for the new buildings. Our vision is for the buildings of the school to be designed in such a way as naturally to be as highly energy efficient as possible, i.e. at least with a neutral carbon foot-print, and also eminently adaptable, tailored to fit the personalised learning culture but readily able to accommodate other methods and different requirements in both teaching and learning, and wider community purpose, and above all the design of the buildings we will insist must honour their noble purpose and give students, teachers, governors, parents and all other stakeholders a true sense of pride in what is accomplished there. Our buildings should send out a strong and unequivocal signal to the wider community about the importance we and they attach to education and to raising aspirations.

Schools are communities of people and the architectural envelope we believe needs to recognise that they are places where children learn social interaction and interpersonal behaviour as well as lessons. But above all a school needs to have, as Rachel Toms of the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment puts it, "a proud, confident face that is visible on the street, and has a good relationship with other buildings". We would also add that it should also be in total sympathy with its immediate environs and respect the character of its location and community, and our vision is that ideally it should be constructed in a style that pays proper acknowledgement to the local building traditions and characteristic types of construction materials. Rachel Toms in fact, speaking on behalf of CABE has been, she says, profoundly underwhelmed by the relatively mediocre standards of design and desperately low levels of architectural inspiration she has encountered in reviewing new BSF projects.

Our vision for Warblington as governors is absolutely not for flamboyant architectural gestures but for brave ideas and good buildings, constructed to simple, understated designs that will work, and inspire: helpfully in this context, education and modern architecture have in recent times enjoyed quite a fruitful alliance in Hampshire. This honourable tradition - best exemplified in the work of Sir Colin Stansfield-Smith, and eloquently described in the volume, Schools of Thought: Hampshire Architecture 1974-1994, by Richard Weston, Winchester, 1991 - is one which as governors we will insist must be closely reflected in the commissioning of the designs for the new Warblington.

If we have a bigger vision for Warblington then, it is perhaps this: people who share a common direction and a sense of shared purpose or a community of interest are likely to get where they are going more quickly or easily, because they are travelling on the thrust and with the support of one another. Education, both teaching and learning, is a bit like this because to be successful it has to be a completely shared endeavour, a co-operative enterprise between teacher and pupil, parent and child, and it consists of not so much adding to the total sum of knowledge whatever that is but rather in preserving that great body of human achievement and transmitting it, undiminished, to each succeeding generation. The purpose of education, why we are here, is not merely to impart reliable information, valuable as that is of course, but to foster intellectual curiosity, to master and to use what we have learned so that knowledge becomes a stimulus to further constructive thought and action. Education is the process by which we transcend the barriers of our individual, isolated personalities and become partners in a universe of interest which we share with our fellow human beings, past and present, alive or dead. It is the life blood of our civilisation, and it is also how we gain a measure of control over our world, our lives, our futures: it gives us choices and opportunities, and the confidence to feel that we are in some degree at least in command of our lives and our destinies. All we can do is dream, strive, work hard, and be there for one another.

So, our vision for the new Warblington is quite simple, it is for a learning environment that will transform lives.

Keith Chessell

Chairman of Governors

Warblington School

Annex

Warblington School Governing Body Response to BSF Proposals

The Governing Body have a number of concerns over the consultation document which we wish to draw to your attention:

· The Governing Body accepts the problem of over-capacity which exists in the Havant area and would suggest the following possible Borough wide solution:

Purbrook Park 750
Park Community 900 possibly 850 would be a better number
Crookhorn 850 or 800
Staunton 600
Oaklands 1200
Cowplain 1050
Horndean 1100
Hayling 600
Warblington 800
7850

· This solution takes us away from the effect of the East / West divide as contained in
the consultation document and we believe to be more representative of future pupil movement.

· As can be seen from our projected solution, Warblington School is now given a capacity
of 800 places and the Governors would like to suggest that the design for the new build should easily be expanded to 1000 students.

· This expansion we foresee arises because of :
(a) the reduction in the numbers of students who are currently migrating across the West
Sussex border
(b) the reduction in the migration of new students from the east side of the A3M to the
west side
(c) the anticipated build in Havant of 6301 new homes largely impacting on the
Warblington / Emsworth border
(d) the potential of Havant becoming part of the commuter belt once the Hindhead tunnel
is complete.

· Our proposals you will note preserves the concept of a school serving its local community which we believe a valuable social asset and in addition to the strengths of the Havant Federation of Schools as endorsed by Ed Balls, Secretary of State for Education.

· We have consistently expressed our misgivings at the unilateral closure of one school, and this we believe consistently undermines the consultation document, and our Governing Body has one member who has personal experience as a student of the dramatic effects of a school closure.

· Our statement includes the responses of Xyratex, IBM and a Senior Physicist from Electron Spur (who is also a Governor) who fully support our Mathematics and Science Specialism, and view it as a basis to sustain the prosperity of Havant and would be reluctant to see this diminished in any way.

· The Governors consider it to be highly undesirable to attempt to combine Staunton College and Warblington School.

Keith Chessell

Chairman of Governors

Warblington School

Building Schools for the Future (BSF) Consultation - Response from East Hampshire District Council - October 2008.

East Hampshire District Council supports the BSF programme because it will enable much needed additional resources to be applied to improve the condition of secondary schools across the county.

The Council is also pleased that the first tranche of money will be focused within the Havant and Horndean area because the residents of East Hampshire are often the last to benefit from any significant government initiative.

Having considered the matter carefully the comments of the Council are as follows:

· The Council is concerned that the full impact of the proposed West of Waterlooville MDA has not been taken into account. Our understanding is that the additional population is projected to gravitate towards Crookhorn School. We have concerns about the robustness of this modelling and would ask Hampshire County Council to revisit this issue. We believe there could be implications for Horndean Technology College as additional pupils may be attracted to the College in the years ahead. This should be reflected in the modelling.

· We are particularly concerned that at present no account has been taken of possible additional population associated with development in the PUSH area. Our understanding is that because there are no detailed plans for where the additional population may end up no account of additional pupil numbers has been factored into the model. We believe this omission crucially undermines the model and hence the consultation process. We would therefore ask you to reconsider this situation. Ideally the consultation process should be reissued as the impact of PUSH development could have significant implications for future facilities.

· Our understanding of the situation is that the governing body of Horndean Technology College is prepared to accept a reduction in school capacity. However the view is that capacity should be reduced to 1250 pupils, rather than the 1100 proposed in the consultation document. We would support this position because of the issues raised above.

We understand that in recent years the popularity of the college has fallen, although most recent evidence suggests this trend is beginning to change. Educational attainment is also improving. As such we believe that the proposed reduction is too draconian and we would ask you to reconsider your proposals.

TLP RESPONSE TO HAVANT REORGANISATION PLANS

Thank you for the opportunity to enter the debate on secondary education provision in the Havant area. Our major problem with the consultation booklet `Building Schools for the Future' is that it merely covers the need to reduce surplus places, and does not present a vision for the future improvement of education for children in the area.

The main question to be answered is `What is the best set up for secondary education in the Havant area?' Our vision, shared by many of the schools in the area, is of a federation of schools who work well together, share courses and students, and thereby delivers breadth in the curriculum. The mix of schools all add their particular `flavour' to the education available, with parents and pupils being able to select the choice that best suits them.

Children should be offered schooling that is accessible, and preferably within walking distance of their home. The proposal to close down Staunton Community Sports College (SCSC) would remove a vital piece of the jigsaw from this vision. How does the closure of their local school improve education for the children? The `working class' children of SCSC are not inclined to travel long distances to go to school - this is an equalities/every child matters issue. SCSC delivers a specialised education that suits its catchment, many of the children come from dysfunctional families that are not particularly motivated by the number of `C' grades achieved at GCSE, they would much rather the children were given appropriate skills for going to work. The projected roll numbers for Staunton Park show that the local community supports the work done by the school. Even without the federation, SCSC provides 38 different courses for its students at KS4 as well as making a major contribution to the federation's joint courses programme, now in its second year. This contribution is particularly valuable given the greater difficulty now in arranging for pre-16 students to do vocational courses at local colleges. This may well become more important as the 14-19 diplomas become available. Portsmouth's successful bid for BSF monies is founded on maintaining a number of small urban secondary schools. It is important that a decision on SCSC's future is made as soon as possible, as the threat of closure will undermine its ability to continue providing specialist courses for its particular community. The knock on effect of closing SCSC may well result in parents at receiving schools, such as Warblington, opting to take their children elsewhere. What is the sense in `shuffling the pack?'

The option of a split site for one Leigh Park school is a non starter given the reluctance of pupils to travel far, and the fact that no split site school has ever functioned very well. The notion of an all age school is one that we warm to. The vision of an all through school for vulnerable children that addresses the area's needs has merits - more thought and detail needs to go into this option. The option of opening an academy goes against our vision of a federation of schools co-operating.

A reduction in school places at individual schools seems the best option for dealing with the surplus place problem. With an ever increasing need to provide support for vulnerable communities we believe that additional services can be placed in schools that could really impact on community cohesion. What size of school best suits the community? It is arguable, in this case, that a small secondary school providing `work related' courses is needed in Havant. Therefore, if we are restricted to the options outlined in your paper, reducing capacity with no school closure (option 1) seems best.

Building Schools for the Future

Bob Eardley

Children's Services Department
County Office
The Castle
Winchester
SO23 8UG

Date: 13 January 2009

Civic Offices

Guildhall Square

Portsmouth

PO1 2EA

Phone: 023 92841207

Email: mike.fowler@
portsmouthcc.gov.uk

Ref: bsflet081028_mf_file 1.7.7 b.eardley bsf consultations (jam)

Dear Bob

CONSULTATION RE HAMPSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BUILDING SCHOOLS FOR THE FUTURE PROPOSALS

Thank you for your letter dated 19 September 2008 and the opportunity to respond to the above consultation.

By way of context, Portsmouth City Council is in wave 6 of BSF and has to date submitted its Strategy for Change (Part 1) in June 2008 and is planning to submit its Strategy for Change (Part 2) in November 2008., It both cases these documents were formally consulted with Hampshire County Council in advance of submission.

PCC's pupil place planning has assumed no major changes to the existing "cross border" migration between Portsmouth and Hampshire.

In response to your proposals re:-

1) West schools - Cowplain, Crookhorn, Horndean and Purbrook Park

2) East schools - Park, Staunton, Warblington

3) Setting up an academy and/or setting up an "all age" school.

PCC does not have a material concern with these proposals.

4) Hayling College and Oaklands Catholic Voluntary Aided School

Re Hayling College - PCC does not have a material concern with this proposal.

Contd:

Re Oaklands Catholic Voluntary Aided School - this school has traditionally been a popular choice for families in the north of the city seeking a RC faith based education rather than travel to St Edmund's School in the south of Portsmouth. In recent years there has been significant ongoing anecdotal reports that such applicants have been unsuccessful due to the school being "full". PCC are pleased to note therefore that there is currently significant surplus capacity at the school and even post 2018 there will be some ongoing surplus capacity and that on that basis it is highly unlikely that an application from the north of the city will be unsuccessful for the foreseeable future.

This is to be welcomed.

5) Special Schools and Education Centre

PCC welcome HCC's proposals to not change the existing special school provision within the area.

Many thanks and best wishes.

Mike Fowler

BSF Project Director

This content is archived

BSF - Cowplain Community School meeting

BSF Consultations - Crookhorn School Governors meeting

BSF - Front Lawn Infant & Junior School and Sharps Copse Primary School

BSF consultation with Havant Borough Council

BSF meeting with Havant Consortium Headteachers and Governors

Hayling College Governors - Notes of BSF Consultation Meeting

BSF consultations - Horndean Technology College

BSF consultation meeting

Oaklands Catholic Voluntary Aided School - governors

BSF consultation meeting with Park Community School Governors meeting

BSF - Park Community School Parents meeting

BSF consultation meeting with Park Community School staff

BSF consultation meeting with Park Community School students

BSF meeting with Purbrook Park Governors

BSF consultation meeting with Staunton Community Sports College - Governors meeting

BSF consultation meeting with Staunton Community Sports College - Governors meeting

BSF - Staunton Community Sports College meeting

BSF consultation meeting with Staunton Community Sports College Staff

BSF consultation meeting with Staunton Community Sports College students

BSF - Warblington Governors meeting

BSF Consultations - Warblington School

Meeting with parents

BSF - Warblington Staff meeting 08-10-08

BSF meeting with Warblington Students