Archived decisions

OAK FARM COMMUNITY SCHOOL, FARNBOROUGH

PROPOSED CLOSURE

1. Notice is given in accordance with section 15(1) of the Education and Inspections Act 2006 that Hampshire County Council The Castle Winchester SO23 8UG intends to discontinue Oak Farm Community School Ballantyne Road, Cove, Farnborough GU14 8SS on 31 August 2011 and that there will be no admissions to year 7 in 2010 and beyond.

2. Places will be offered at two local secondary schools, Cove and Fernhill. Additional temporary accommodation will be provided, if necessary, to accommodate pupils. In order to ensure pupils with SEN are not disadvantaged in expressing a preference for another school it is intended that any recipient school will receive the appropriate support from the LA to ensure pupils' needs are met.

3. All applicable statutory requirements to consult in relation to these proposals have been complied with.

4. Oak Farm Community School houses resourced provision for pupils with specific learning difficulties (dyslexia). Pupils with specific learning difficulties who are displaced under these proposals will be subject to a thorough assessment of their needs to ensure continued access to intensive literacy programmes, homework classes and other support as required within a mainstream setting to meet their individual needs. Support will be provided to schools accepting pupils with numeracy and literacy programmes which can be practiced and supported across the curriculum and access to on-going review and assessment procedure. Schools already have teachers and support staff with expertise in meeting the needs of pupils with specific learning difficulties (SpLD). Pupils will be able to experience the wider educational opportunities available within a larger school whilst at the same time receiving a personalised and focused curriculum to meet their individual needs.

5. Both Cove and Fernhill schools are within one mile of the Oak Farm Community School site. There will be no requirement for additional vehicle movements as a result of closing the school

6. In the opinion of the Local Authority these proposals are not related to any other proposals which have been, or are about to be published.

7. This Notice is an extract from the complete proposal. Copies of the complete proposal can be obtained from: Glenn Parkinson, School Organisation Officer, Children's Services Department, Hampshire County Council, Ashburton Court East, The Castle, Winchester, SO23 8UG. Telephone 01962 846664.

8. Within six weeks from the date of publication of this proposal, any person may object to or make comments on the proposal by sending them to Glenn Parkinson, School Organisation Officer, Children's Services Department, Hampshire County Council, Ashburton Court East, The Castle, Winchester, SO23 8UG.

Signed: Andrew Smith, Chief Executive

Publication Date: 13^th February 2009

MATTERS TO BE SPECIFIED IN SECTION 15 PROPOSALS TO DISCONTINUE A SCHOOL

Insert the information asked for in the expandable box below each section.

Contact details

1. The name of the local education authority or governing body publishing the proposals, and a contact address, and the name of the school it is proposed that should be discontinued.

Implementation

2. The date when it is planned that the proposals will be implemented, or where the proposals are to be implemented in stages, information about each stage and the date on which each stage is planned to be implemented.

Consultation

3. A statement to the effect that all applicable statutory requirements to consult in relation to the proposals were complied with.

4. Evidence of the consultation before the proposals were published including-

(a) a list of persons and/or parties who were consulted;

(b) minutes of all public consultation meetings;

(c) the views of the persons consulted; and

(d) copies of all consultation documents and a statement of how these were made available.

Objectives

5. The objectives of the proposal.

Standards and Diversity

6. A statement and supporting evidence indicating how the proposals will impact on the standards, diversity and quality of education in the area.

Provision for 16 -19 year olds

7. Where the school proposed to be discontinued provides sixth form education, how the proposals will impact on-

(a) the educational or training achievements;

(b) participation in education or training; and

(c) the range of educational or training opportunities,

for 16-19 year olds in the area.

Need for places

8. A statement and supporting evidence about the need for places in the area including whether there is sufficient capacity to accommodate displaced pupils.

9. Where the school has a religious character, a statement about the impact of the proposed closure on the balance of denominational provision in the area and the impact on parental choice.

Current School Information

10. Information as to the numbers, age range, sex and special educational needs of pupils (distinguishing between boarding and day pupils) for whom provision is made at the school.

Displaced Pupils

11. Details of the schools or further education colleges which pupils at the school for whom provision is to be discontinued will be offered places, including-

(a) any interim arrangements;

(b) where the school included provision that is recognised by the local education authority as reserved for children with special educational needs, the alternative provision to be made for pupils in the school's reserved provision; and

(c) in the case of special schools, alternative provision made by local education authorities other than the authority which maintains the school.

12. Details of any other measures proposed to be taken to increase the number of school or further education college places available in consequence of the proposed discontinuance.

Impact on the Community

13. A statement and supporting evidence about the impact on the community and any measures proposed to mitigate any adverse impact.

14. Details of extended services the school offered and what it is proposed for these services once the school has discontinued.

Travel

15. Details of length and journeys to alternative provision.

16. The proposed arrangements for travel of displaced pupils to other schools including how they will help to work against increased car use.

Related Proposals.

17. A statement as to whether in the opinion of the local education authority or governing body, the proposals are related to any other proposals which may have been, are, or are about to be published.

Rural Primary Schools

18. Where proposals relate to a rural primary school designated as such by an order made for the purposes of section 15 of the EIA 2006, a statement that the local education authority or the governing body (as the case may be) considered-

(a) the likely effect of discontinuance of the school on the local community;

(b) the availability, and likely cost to the local education authority, of transport to other schools;

(c) any increase in the use of motor vehicles which is likely to result from the discontinuance of the school, and the likely effects of any such increase; and

(d) any alternatives to the discontinuance of the school,

as required by section 15(4) of the EIA 2006.

Maintained nursery schools

19. Where proposals relate to the discontinuance of a maintained nursery school, a statement setting out-

(a) the consideration that has been given to developing the school into a children's centre and the grounds for not doing so;

(b) the local education authority's assessment of the quality and quantity of the alternative provision compared to the school proposed to be discontinued and the proposed arrangements to ensure the expertise and specialism continues to be available; and

(c) the accessibility and convenience of replacement provision for local parents.

Special educational provision

20. Where existing provision for pupils with special educational needs is being discontinued, a statement as to how the local education authority or the governing body believes the proposal is likely to lead to improvements in the standard, quality and/or range of the educational provision for these children.

HAMPSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL

Decision Report :

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1) Summary of Decision Area:

1.1. On 22 May 2008 the Executive Lead Member for Children's Services (Education) authorised consultations with parents, staff, governors, pupils, local Members, Rushmoor Borough Council, the Diocese of Guildford, local schools and other interested parties on the proposal to close Oak Farm Community School with effect from August 2010.

1.2. The proposal was predicated on the low number of pupils at the school, 306 pupils as at January 2008, with a school capacity of 693 places, which was forecast to continue to decline, bringing into question the viability of the school.

1.3. In recognition of the programme of extended services which Oak Farm Community School offers, as part of the consultation process, the Executive Lead Member Children's Services (Education) asked that options be explored to consider how community learning and education provision might continue to operate on the site in the event of the school's closure.

1.4. In keeping with County Council protocol the Cabinet is asked to consider the report as the Oak Farm Community School Governing Body does not give its general support to the closure of the school.

2) Issues Covered in Report:

2.1. The issues covered in the report are:

· Outcome of consultations

· Pupil numbers and surplus places

· Pupil achievement

· Community provision at Oak Farm Community School

· Alternative provision for potentially displaced pupils

· Building Schools for the Future

· SEN resourced provision

· 14 - 19 education provision

3) Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

3.1. Public Notices be published in accordance with section 15(1) of the Education and Inspections Act 2006 to discontinue Oak Farm Community School with effect from 31 August 2011 and setting out the intention that there will be no admissions to year 7 in 2010 and beyond.

3.2. The Director of Children's Services

· further explores options for the future use of Oak Farm Community School's site and buildings with effect from 1 September 2011, in the context of Building Schools for the Future, the delivery of 14 - 19 Diplomas within the Rushmoor and Hart 14 - 19 Consortium, and continued community provision.

· prepares a subsequent report setting out options for consideration by the Executive Lead Member Children's Services (Education).

MAIN REPORT

1) Purpose of the Report:

1.1. To report back on the outcome of consultations on the proposal to close Oak Farm Community School.

1.2. To seek a decision to publish notices to discontinue the school with effect from 31 August 2011.

1.3. To seek authority to continue to explore options for the use of the Oak Farm Community School site and buildings with effect from 1 September 2011 and beyond in the context of Building Schools for the Future, the delivery of 14 - 19 diplomas in relation to the need of the Rushmoor and Hart 14 - 19 Consortium, and continued community provision.

2) Contextual information:

Background

2.1. Oak Farm Community School is an 11 - 16 secondary school located in an urban area of Farnborough. It is the smallest secondary school in Hampshire in terms of its pupil population, with the highest level of surplus places, a high level of student mobility and a reducing number of students. The school serves an area with a higher than average proportion of social and economic deprivation.

Numbers on roll at Oak Farm Community School

2.2. Table 1 below charts the school's declining numbers since 2005 / 2006

Table 1

Pupil numbers at schools in the area

2.3. Table 2 below shows school capacities, and present and forecast numbers on roll at Oak Farm and other local secondary schools. The forecast numbers take into account all planned housing development in the area.

Table 2

Strategic implications of surplus places

2.4. The County Council has a statutory duty to plan the provision of school places and to ensure an appropriate balance locally between supply and demand. The need for school places changes in response to population movements and birth rate variations. In most areas of the county, North Farnborough being no exception, the secondary school population is declining, a reflection of the general decline in the primary school population which is now feeding through to the secondary sector. In such situations parental preference becomes an even greater significant factor in school place planning.

2.5. The percentage of schools with more than 25% surplus places is an element of the County Council's comprehensive performance assessment. The present percentage of secondary schools in this category stands at 14% (10 out of 71 schools), an increase of 2% on the previous year and forecast to continue rising if decisive management measures are not taken.

2.6. The County Council (CC) expects developers' contributions to meet the cost of children's services facilities required, including school places, as a direct consequence of development. In assessing the need for additional school places the CC is required to make an assessment of the extent of capacity in schools in the immediate area. Surplus places in schools can lead to an inability to maximise developers' contributions for the benefit of new communities.

2.7. Surplus places in secondary schools are an important factor in determining a local authority's readiness to deliver the central government's Building Schools for the Future (BSF) programme (a multi-million pound investment programme designed to transform education for secondary aged pupils through the provision of 21^st century learning environments). Local authorities are expected to manage surplus places to an acceptable level of no more than 8% within defined BSF project areas (section 2.23 - 2.27 refers).

Catchment area movement

2.8. An examination of schools' in-flow (non-catchment children attending the school) and out-flow (catchment area children attending other Hampshire schools) data reveals considerable movement of children across secondary schools' catchment areas as shown in Table 3.

Table 3

2.9. An analysis of schools' in-flow / out-flow data in Table 4 below identifies the numbers, also shown as percentages, of pupils in schools' catchment areas attending their catchment schools.

Table 4

Extended services and community provision at Oak Farm Community School

2.10. Oak Farm has been funded by the County Council to develop and deliver a locally managed community education programme since the 1970s. Arrangements were formalised in an agreement between the County Council and the school's governing body in 1997. Since 2005 the school has been developing as an extended school and is now an integral member of the Rushmoor Extended Services Partnership. The school offers an extensive, varied and much valued programme of learning opportunities for its community and beyond, in partnership with other educational establishments, agencies and authorities.

2.11. The school provides opportunities for community groups to use the school's facilities through community lettings, utilising the buildings and grounds, including the sports hall and all-weather pitch. In addition there are a significant number of adult and community learning programmes run at the school:

· Personal and community development learning with a total of 134 courses offered in 2007/08, with enrolment numbers of 1,409

· Family learning

· Skills for independent living provided to adults with a learning difficulty

· Basic skills and vocational courses.

2.12. A more detailed breakdown of current community provision is given in Appendix 1.

2.13. In addition, the Oak Farm Pre-School is situated in the school buildings and provides 26 places for part of each week. The school is well-used by groups from the local Nepalese community. There are also links with the Mayfield Youth Partnership, Rushmoor Healthy Living Initiative, Mayfield Community Partnership and the local family learning cluster group, working with the new Owls Children's Centre, situated at Cherrywood Primary School.

2.14. A pavilion and club room were constructed adjacent to the all-weather pitch in 1998 using lottery funding provided by Sport England. In keeping with their normal conditions of grant, the County Council entered into a separate agreement with Sport England designed to ensure continued community use of the lottery funded facilities.

14 - 19 Education provision - Diplomas

2.15. The Diploma is a new qualification for students aged 14 - 19 and is part of central government's 14 - 19 Reform Programme being rolled out over the next five years. Diplomas are designed to accommodate students of all abilities and will be available at three different levels:

· Foundation - equivalent to five GCSEs at grades D - G

· Higher - equivalent to seven GCSEs at grades A* - C

· Advanced - equivalent to 3.5 A levels

2.16. As the seventeen Diploma lines are rolled out, it is intended that they will become one of three main education choices alongside GCSE / A Levels and apprenticeships.

2.17. The local authority is responsible for ensuring that, by 2013, all students in the county have access to all the new Diploma lines. Within Hampshire the 71 secondary schools and 16 colleges now operate within one of nine 14 - 19 consortia, each with a responsibility for a strategic overview and implementation strategy to deliver the 14 - 19 Diploma agenda.

2.18. Oak Farm Community School is part of the Rushmoor and Hart 14 - 19 consortium and, as part of the consortium's Diploma delivery strategy, began engaging students in IT Diploma study in September 2008.

2.19. As part of this new initiative, in autumn 2008 the Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) invited bids for 14 - 19 Diploma Exemplar funding aimed at projects that would create facilities for Diploma lines that could be used to exemplify excellent practice. DCSF expectation was that bids would originate within a consortium with the endorsement of proposals by the relevant local authority.

2.20. Oak Farm Community School submitted a bid to the Local Authority / Learning & Skills Council Panel set up to consider all bids from any of Hampshire's nine 14 - 19 consortia. Oak Farm's bid was to create a 14 - 19 Vocational and Skills Centre on the Oak Farm site. The panel decided not to endorse Oak Farm's bid for the following reasons:

· the bid had not been endorsed by the strategic board of the Rushmoor and Hart Consortium and therefore it was unclear how the revenue and maintenance of the facility could be assured from consortium member contributions;

· the panel felt the bid, of itself, was not innovative exemplar learning visit standard and, therefore, did not meet all the DCSF criteria. There were insufficient details around employer and training provider and higher education involvement;

· the panel felt it was difficult to reach a conclusion about the best type of design that would be needed to meet the whole consortium Diploma use as the panel felt the area would benefit from a full, strategic audit of provision locally;

· the Rushmoor and Hart Consortium has yet to frame a diploma roll-out strategy and so the panel was unable to formulate a view on future diploma lines to be bid for.

Building Schools for the Future (BSF)

2.21. Building Schools for the Future (BSF) is a national initiative intended to rebuild, remodel or refurbish all secondary schools in England, including secondary age special schools and education centres, over a 15 year period from 2005. This renewal programme must take place within the context of a locally developed agenda to transform secondary education to meet the demands of the present century.

2.22. Hampshire County Council could attract investment through BSF totalling up to £1billion, probably over a period of about 10 years. The scale of this investment is unparalleled and the work required to ensure that this is successful is far-reaching, ranging across many disciplines and involving a large number of stakeholders. It is a one-off opportunity for the County Council and schools to make a radical impact to ensure that secondary education in Hampshire better meets the needs of all learners in a more cohesive way and to modernise provision for the next generation.

2.23. A key component for qualifying for BSF investment is the need to demonstrate the capacity to manage surplus places effectively, particularly where this involves the achievement of significant reductions in unfilled capacity across an area.

2.24. Since undertaking consultations on the proposal to close Oak Farm Community School, local authorities have been invited by the Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) to submit Expressions of Interest for entry to the BSF programme. Expressions of Interest must include a priority list of schools for investment based on geographical groupings. The main prioritisation criteria as set out by the DCSF are social and educational need (measured by tax credit data and achievement of five A* - C GCSE passes, including English and Mathematics in 2008).

2.25. Oak Farm Community School is in Hampshire's priority group 3 out of 10, which includes the following Farnborough secondary schools - Cove, Fernhill, The Wavell, the two Farnborough special schools - Henry Tyndale and Samuel Cody, and the Linden Education Centre in Farnborough. Hampshire is seeking approval to commence the first three groups in its prioritisation of need as soon as funding can be released. Ministers will announce a national programme for BSF early in 2009, which will determine the anticipated entry date for each authority.

Special Educational Needs

2.26. Oak Farm Community School houses one of six resourced provisions in the county for secondary age pupils with specific learning difficulties (dyslexia). Pupils placed in the provision by the authority attend mainstream classes and have access to intensive literacy programmes, homework classes and other support to meet their individual needs.

School performance and pupil achievement

2.27. In 2003 Oak Farm Community School was identified by the Department for Education and Skills (DfES, now the DCSF) as a school "facing challenging circumstances" and was therefore subject to regular monitoring visits by Her Majesty's Inspectorate (HMI). In September 2003 HMI concluded that, in spite of being well supported by the local authority's Advisory Service, the proportion of unsatisfactory lessons was too high and limited progress had been made.

2.28. In the same year the school was identified as one of five schools in Hampshire to receive the Leadership Incentive Grant from the DfES. This grant provided £125,000 annually for three years and was intended to improve leadership capacity in the school. At the same time, Education Finance Services identified concerns about the school's severe financial difficulties and the grant was used to offset the budget pressures. In 2004 the school was one of two schools in the county to receive a further grant from the DfES of £20,000 to provide additional support for pupils in preparing for GCSEs.

2.29. In March 2004 the school was inspected by the Office for Standards in Education (OfSTED) and placed in special measures. At the first monitoring visit after the school had been placed in special measures in November 2004, HMI judged that the school had made limited progress. In March 2005 HMI again judged that the school was making limited progress and, again, judged local authority support to be good. Additional support had been provided for the school, including the deployment of advanced skills teachers, a high level of support from the Attached Inspector, and the provision of peer support from the headteacher and deputy of a successful school for the headteacher and deputy at Oak Farm.

2.30. Subsequent visits in 2005 judged progress to be improving and continued to judge local authority support to be good. The school, with support, responded to all action points from each HMI visit and results improved significantly in 2005. In March 2006 the school was inspected again, judged to be satisfactory overall and removed from special measures. Following this inspection the school's results fell sharply in 2006.

2.31. The school was again judged inadequate following the annual review of self-evaluation in February 2007. Overall results in 2007 improved significantly at GCSE and the measure 5+ A* - C but remained too low at 5+ A* - C including English and Mathematics and at Key Stage 3.

2.32. In spring 2008 OfSTED judged Oak Farm to be a satisfactory school where overall progress made by pupils was satisfactory. OfSTED also found the progress pupils made across Key Stage 4 to be good but stated that the standard of attainment by the end of Key Stage 4 was significantly below national averages. These judgements were based on the 2007 pupil achievement outcomes and observations in the school.

2.33. In 2008 standards of attainment at the end of Key Stage 4 are below county and national averages with 26% of pupils attaining 5+ A* - C GCSEs including English and Mathematics. This is below the national minimum expectation of 30% and 29% below Hampshire's average of 59%. As a result, Oak Farm is one of six schools across Hampshire to be identified by the DCSF as a National Challenge school. This will place the school under intense public scrutiny and the school will be allocated a National Challenge Adviser who will work directly with the school to improve outcomes for pupils. The DCSF expectation is that outcomes will rise above 30% by the year 2011, without which consideration must be given to closing the school.

2.34. In 2008 the progress pupils made across Key Stage 4 (years 10 and 11) is significantly above the national average for similar pupils in similar schools overall, and in line with national averages in the separate subjects of English and Mathematics. The progress pupils made across both Key Stage 3 and Key Stage 4 (whole school) is in line with national averages for similar pupils in similar schools overall and in Mathematics, but is significantly below average in English.

2.35. Due to the high pupil absence rates Oak Farm Community School has been identified by the DCSF as a "targeted persistent absence" school. This involves close scrutiny from the DCSF and action planning to improve attendance rates.

2.36. In summary, school performance and pupil achievement have fluctuated considerably over a period of time, frequently being unsatisfactory.

Language group of pupils

2.37. Data from the January pupil census identified that, of the 306 pupils on roll at Oak Farm Community School, 258 were English speaking, 33 Nepali speaking, with 15 pupils whose first language was other than English or Nepali.

2.38. Data from the neighbouring (0.57 miles away) Cove Secondary School shows that, of the 1,015 pupils on roll, 846 were English speaking, 130 Nepali speaking, with 39 pupils identified as having a first language other than English or Nepali.

2.39. At Fernhill Secondary School (0.84 miles distant from Oak Farm) 839 of the 913 pupils on roll were identified as English speaking, 59 Nepali speaking, with 15 pupils whose first language was other than English or Nepali.

2.40. Support for bilingual learners is provided by the Ethnic Minority and Travellers Achievement Service (EMTAS) in the form of early profiling and up to 10 hours support for each new arrival referred by the school. In addition both Oak Farm and Cove secondary schools received funding in 2007/08, as part of a standards fund project, to provide back-up for staff in the school to build capacity for meeting the needs of ethnic minority pupils. Fernhill Secondary School's intention to be part of the project in 2007/08 was thwarted due to staff illness but the project has been up and running since September 2008.

3) Consultation

3.1. A full list of consultees, together with a schedule of meetings and drop-in sessions which have taken place regarding the proposal to close Oak Farm Community School, can be found at Appendix 2.

3.2. The consultation document (Appendix 3) was widely distributed, including all parents of children attending Oak Farm Community School and parents of children attending Oak Farm's six linked primary schools. The attached questionnaire posing two questions and inviting comment was also made available on the web.

3.3. 373 questionnaires were returned, of which 125 were submitted on-line. 100 respondents indicated that they were parents of children attending Oak Farm Community School, 29 were from Oak Farm staff and governors, 92 from adult learners and 94 from parents of children in other schools. 58 respondents did not indicate their status.

3.4. An analysis of questionnaire responses with regard to question 1:

"Do you agree or disagree that Oak Farm Community School should close in August 2010?"

revealed that 91% disagreed and 9% agreed.

3.5. An analysis of question 2:

"If the school closes, do you agree or disagree that community classes and extended services should continue to operate from the Chaucer Road site?"

revealed that 4% disagreed and 94% agreed (eight questionnaires were returned with no indication).

3.6. In addition 34 other items of correspondence were received in response to the consultation documents, 25 of which are an identical letter, separately signed, in support of Oak Farm Community School remaining open.

3.7. All the above mentioned correspondence is on file and will be available for Members' perusal in the Members Room on 19 January 2009 and throughout the week preceding the Cabinet meeting on 26 January 2009.

4) Issued raised by consultees

4.1. Strong views were expressed throughout the consultation period by a variety of respondents that community and extended services provision is vital to the needs and well-being of the local community and, whatever the future of the school, needs to be continued on the site.

4.2. The relatively small number of pupils at Oak Farm gives the school a "family feel" where it is easy for pupils to make friends. Friendship groups would be splintered if pupils were forced to attend different schools.

4.3. Low pupil numbers result in small class sizes and enable teachers to know all the pupils and facilitate individualised learning. The "smallness" of the school also enables pupils with special educational needs to be well catered for.

4.4. Queries were raised regarding the future of the resourced special educational needs provision for secondary aged pupils with specific learning difficulties. The point was made that closure of the provision would result in a loss of staff expertise with all Oak Farm Community School staff currently being skilled to meet the needs of pupils with specific learning difficulties.

4.5. It was felt that rumours of the school closing over a number of years had contributed to low pupil numbers because of the uncertainty created in the community about the school's long term future. Views were expressed that the school's proposed closure was something of a self-fulfilling prophecy as nobody would want to send their children to a school which might be closing. Conversely, if the threat of closure were removed, then pupil numbers would rise.

4.6. There was concern that the proposed closure would result in staff leaving and that recruitment of staff to replace them would be very difficult.

4.7. Reference was made to planned new housing in Aldershot and Fleet and an assertion that this would result in more pupils attending Oak Farm School. Questions were asked regarding where pupils would attend school if Oak Farm were to close and the point made that there were insufficient places in neighbouring schools to accommodate displaced pupils. Allied to this, concerns were expressed about distances to other schools, the lack and the cost of public transport and the cost of purchasing different school uniforms. A view was expressed that the end result would be an increase in pupil truancy which would be further exacerbated because of bullying in other schools.

4.8. The view was expressed that neighbouring schools were neither willing nor able to offer pupils the opportunities provided at Oak Farm to follow more vocational learning pathways e.g. BTEC, with a claim being made that other schools in the area do not embrace the 14 - 19 Diploma agenda.

4.9. There was concern that closure and the subsequent displacement of pupils would be very disruptive to pupils' education, particularly those who had already embarked on examination courses. A view was expressed that pupils should be allowed to complete their secondary education at Oak Farm even if a decision was taken to close the school.

4.10. There was concern that the local authority had not recognised the achievement of pupils and school performance as demonstrated by contextual value added data.

4.11. It was queried why the consultation was solely on a proposal to close the school and did not identify possible options for the school's future if it were to cease to be a secondary school for 11 - 16 year olds.

Response of Rushmoor and Hart 14-19 Consortium

4.12. As part of the consultation exercise officers were asked to consider how education provision might continue to operate on the Oak Farm Community School's site in the event of the school's closure.

4.13. Oak Farm is part of the Rushmoor and Hart 14 -19 Consortium (the body responsible for a strategic overview and implementation strategy to deliver the 14 - 19 Diploma agenda) and as part of the strategic roll-out of Diploma delivery Oak Farm began engaging with students in IT Diploma study in September 2008.

4.14. The Rushmoor and Hart 14-19 Consortium was asked whether, in the event of Oak Farm's closure, it would anticipate a continued use of the school's facilities to deliver the consortium strategy. The Chair responded on behalf of the strategy group of the Rushmoor and Hart 14-19 Consortium advising the local authority that, in the event of the school's closure, the consortium could not support proposals to use the Oak Farm site as a venue for delivering Diplomas.

Response of Rushmoor Borough Council

4.15. Rushmoor Borough Council's Cabinet considered the proposal to close Oak Farm Community School at its meeting on 23 September 2008. The letter received from the Leader of Rushmoor Borough Council is attached at Appendix 4.

4.16. The Borough Council's response focuses on its perceived needs for pupils and the wider community in the event of the closure of Oak Farm Community School, in particular the need to retain and develop the school site as an educational and community resource and, in respect of potentially displaced pupils, to ensure as far as possible that they are able to transfer to a school of their choice.

4.17. The Rushmoor Borough Council response concludes with a commitment from the Borough to work with the County Council on any future plans regarding the use and management of the Oak Farm Community School site and buildings in the event of the school's closure.

Cabinet visit to Oak Farm Community School

4.18. Members of the County Council's Cabinet visited Oak Farm Community School on 20 October 2008 and heard a presentation from the headteacher and chairman of governors of OaK Farm setting out an alternative to the proposal for closure.

4.19. The headteacher requested that the consultation on the school's proposed closure be halted and reopened with a proposal that the school be changed from an 11 - 16 secondary school to a school for 11 - 14 year olds and a "vocational and skills centre" for 14 - 19 year olds.

4.20. The chair of governors concluded that Oak Farm was not tenable as an 11 - 16 school, that maintenance of community and extended services provision on the site was vital and expressed a need for the local authority to find some way that the Oak Farm Community School site could be used as an educational facility.

Response of the Diocese of Guildford

4.21. The Diocese considered whether there would have been an opportunity, with the support of the local authority, to consider a fresh start for Oak Farm Community School as an Academy, but concluded that "the case for closure is overwhelming" and therefore supports the proposal for closure.

Views of the local County Councillor

4.22. The local County Councillor has indicated his intention to attend and speak at the Cabinet meeting on 26 January 2009.

5) Consideration of consultation responses

Pupil numbers

5.1. It is clear that the size of the pupil population at Oak Farm Community School is seen by many of the school's community as a positive and helpful factor in meeting children's needs. Given that Oak Farm has the smallest pupil population of all Hampshire secondary schools, were the school to close then pupils would inevitably transfer to school(s) catering for a greater number of pupils.

5.2. Numbers on roll at other local secondary schools (Table 2 refers) range between 562 and 994 pupils, with the two nearest schools to Oak Farm (each within 1 mile) Cove and Fernhill, presently having 994 and 907 pupils on roll respectively. Hampshire's School Places Plan refers to the optimum size for an 11 - 16 secondary school as being between 900 and 1,200 students, although there are many successful schools outside this range. With the greater number of pupils comes a greater number of staff and through effective organisation and management of staff and pupils, were Oak Farm to close, there is every reason to expect that individual pupils' needs will continue to be met in alternative secondary schools. It is recognised that to achieve this there will need to be a great deal of planning with and co-operation between schools, supported by the local authority, especially for those pupils who, at the time of any closure, would have already embarked, or be about to embark on examination courses.

5.3. The present number on roll at Oak Farm Community School (Table 1 refers) shows a September 2008 cohort intake of 22 pupils and a total number on roll of 230 pupils. In planning terms, secondary schools of this size are rarely appropriate and, even then, only in areas of considerable geographic inaccessibility with a sparse population. A decline in cohort intake is forecast to persist, which will continue to have an impact on the school's ability to offer a full secondary curriculum for its pupils.

SEN provision

5.4. In September 2008 there were 10 pupils accessing the resourced provision at Oak Farm Community School for pupils with specific learning difficulties. Were the school to close in August 2011, it is anticipated that there will be five pupils requiring alternative provision.

5.5. All Hampshire secondary schools provide:

· access to literacy (and numeracy) programmes which are designed to meet pupils' individual needs and which can be practised and supported across the curriculum

· access to on-going review and assessment procedures

· teachers and support staff with expertise in meeting the needs of pupils with specific learning difficulties (SpLD)

5.6. In order to ensure pupils accessing the resourced provision are not disadvantaged in expressing a preference for another school in the event of Oak Farm's closure, it is intended that any recipient secondary school will receive the appropriate LA support to ensure these pupils' needs are met.

Past closure consideration

5.7. The closure of Oak Farm Community School has been considered in the past. In March 2004 the school was inspected by the Office for Standards in Education (OfSTED) and was judged to require special measures to ensure pupils' education was of a satisfactory standard. In such circumstances the local authority is required to consider the scope for closure of the school. At that time there were 400 pupils on the roll of Oak Farm and, whilst it was recognised that the level of surplus places at the school was an issue, the local authority determined to provide intensive support to the school to address its shortcomings, eventually resulting in Oak Farm being removed from special measures in March 2006.

5.8. In the spring of 2008 Oak Farm Community School was again subject to an OfSTED inspection and judged to be satisfactory. Later that year the school was identified as a National Challenge school as a result of pupils' low standards of attainment in their final year (paragraphs 2.29 - 2.35 refer).

5.9. Pupil numbers at Oak Farm have been in steady decline for some years, which is indicative of the general decline in pupil numbers in the area as a whole, and also reflects the fact that 83% of pupils living within Oak Farm's catchment area elect to attend other secondary schools (Table 4 refers).

Forecast pupil numbers / provision for potentially displaced Oak Farm pupils

5.10. Forecast pupil numbers set out in Table 2 take into account planned new housing, including type and tenure, in the area. Discussions have taken place with Rushmoor Borough Council to ensure all new housing is accounted for in the forecast figures. If it is decided Oak Farm Community School will close, then the local authority will engage parents and pupils at the earliest opportunity to determine preferences for admissions to alternative schools to enable the necessary planning to take place to facilitate future moves. At the proposed time of closure - August 2011, there are forecast to be 159 children at Oak Farm. The two nearest schools to Oak Farm - Cove and Fernhill, are forecast to have 161 places available within their combined capacities at that time.

5.11. Whilst it cannot be determined whether additional accommodation may be necessary at these schools until preferences are expressed and analysed, preliminary discussions have taken place with the schools to consider how additional places could be made available as necessary. It is envisaged that any additional accommodation would be in the form of temporary buildings with the expectation that any such temporary arrangements would be addressed in the context of Building Schools for the Future (paragraphs 2.23 - 2.27 refer).

Community and Extended Services provision

5.12. It is clear from the responses to the consultation that community education and extended services are highly valued, and the significant use of the Oak Farm site and buildings for this purpose is seen as extremely important to the well-being of the local community.

5.13. There are a number of partner organisations involved in the delivery of community provision (Appendix 1 refers) with Hampshire County Council and Rushmoor Borough Council taking leading roles, reflected in annual funding commitments of £75,000 and £25,000 respectively.

5.14. The Borough Council is unequivocal in its support for retaining and developing the Oak Farm site as a community resource and has offered its commitment to working with the County Council to achieve this.

6) Impact issues

6.1. The following issues have been identified as potential impact issues the County Council would need to be aware of when asked to implement the proposals in this paper:

Transfer of pupils

6.2. Closure of Oak Farm Community School would necessitate the transfer of pupils to alternative local secondary schools. Whilst every effort would be made to ensure it is minimal, there would inevitably be some disruption to pupils' education.

6.3. If the County Council decides to publish notices setting out an intention to close Oak Farm School with effect from August 2011, notices will run for a period of six weeks during which time comments regarding the County Council's proposals will be received, and a final decision on the future of Oak Farm School would be made in April 2009. If the decision is that Oak Farm will close, this will trigger the need to determine preferences for alternative schools and for places to be agreed, following which planning would take place and links established to facilitate individual pupils' smooth transfer.

Rushmoor secondary schools' performance, as judged by the Office for Standards in Education (OfSTED)

6.4. All schools are inspected by OfSTED. The inspection is a process of evidence gathering in order to provide an assessment of how well a school is performing.

6.5. The outcomes of the most recent inspections of Rushmoor secondary schools are set out in Table 5:

Table 5

Grade 1 - outstanding

Grade 2 - good

Grade 3 - satisfactory

Grade 4 - inadequate

Community Provision

6.6. The County Council provides funding to support community provision at Oak Farm Community School through grants from the Community Education and the Adult and Community Learning budget, together with some funding from the Extended Schools' Partnership serving the Farnborough and Aldershot area. In addition, Rushmoor Borough Council provides funding towards administrative staff costs necessary to run community services and funding towards the cost of the school managing community activities at the Prospect Centre (Appendix 1 refers). The school receives other grant income as well as income from lettings and tuition fees.

6.7. The school maintains that its present combined funding streams for community services meet the direct cost of provision, but that the present level of community use is only possible as a result of the support from the school's budget share in respect of overall premises and staffing costs. Preliminary investigations indicate costs of maintaining community provision on the site to be in a range of £0.25m - £0.4m which, when set against present income streams, equates to a significant shortfall.

6.8. There is significant further work required to enable a detailed model to be devised showing how community provision might continue to operate on the Oak Farm site in the event of the school's closure, with the expectation that additional resources will be necessary to maintain the current pattern of provision.

Financial

6.9. The Dedicated Schools Grant funds all school budget shares within the Schools Budget and is allocated by central government to the County Council solely on a per-pupil basis. Small schools have high unit costs as flat-rate elements of a school's budget are spread over low numbers of pupils. As the smallest secondary school in Hampshire, on the basis of pupil numbers, the projected pupil unit cost for Oak Farm School for 2009/10, with a forecast 195 pupils on roll, is £7,200 per pupil compared with an estimated secondary school average of £3,900 per pupil; the total funding differential equating to £643,500 (195 x £3,300) per annum.

6.10. Assuming the same differential between actual pupil unit costs for Oak Farm School compared with the average pupil unit cost per secondary pupil in 2011/12, and based on the forecast number on roll at Oak Farm of 159 pupils, the closure of Oak Farm School would result in £524,700 being available within the Schools Budget for redeployment.

Staff

6.11. The closure of Oak Farm Community School would affect all existing staff. The dedication and commitment of staff at the school has been made clear and apparent throughout the consultation process. The County Council values their skills and experience and every effort will be made to redeploy staff into appropriate alternative posts and to avoid redundancies.

Building Schools for the Future (BSF)

6.12. In December 2008 the County Council submitted its Expression of Interest to the BSF programme, as invited by the DCSF (paragraphs 2.23 - 2.27 refer). Criteria laid down by the DCSF placed Rushmoor's secondary schools in Hampshire's priority group 3 out of 10 and the local authority is seeking approval to implement the transformational agenda which BSF will bring for secondary school provision in this area as soon as funding can be released by the DCSF.

6.13. A key component for qualifying for BSF investment is the need to demonstrate the capacity to manage surplus places effectively with an expectation that surplus places will be no more than 8% within defined BSF project areas. As at October 2008, surplus places in Rushmoor's secondary schools totalled 860, or 16.6% of the school's combined capacity. In September 2011, surplus places at the schools are forecast to rise to 957, or 19% of the school's combined capacity. The closure of Oak Farm Community School will reduce surplus places to 264, or 5.9% of capacity.

7) Conclusions:

7.1. The consultation on the proposal to close Oak Farm Community School was initiated as a result of the low number of pupils attending the school and the forecast continued decline. It is difficult to see how an urban secondary school with less than 200 pupils on roll (the forecast number on roll in September 2010 is 168) year group sizes of less than 30 (22 children entered Year 7 in September 2008) and with 83% of pupils within the school's catchment area electing to attend other schools, can be educationally and economically viable. Indeed, the Oak Farm governing body is not unrealistic about the school's non-viability as an 11-16 secondary school.

7.2. The local authority needs to ensure an appropriate balance between the supply of and demand for school places. This important strategic planning function of the authority is highlighted by central government in relation to its Building Schools for the Future programme, with authorities expected to manage surplus places to an acceptable level of no more than 8%. (Surplus places within Rushmoor secondary schools are currently 16.6% and forecast to continue to rise).

7.3. School performance and pupil achievement at Oak Farm Community School has fluctuated considerably over a period of time, in spite of intensive support from the local authority and additional resources from the DCSF. The closure of Oak Farm Community School would result in pupils transferring to neighbouring schools, the two nearest each within a mile of Oak Farm and each with a pupil number on roll commensurate with what the County Council would consider to be the optimum size for a secondary school in terms of its ability to deliver a cost effective, broad and balanced curriculum. Ofsted judgements would indicate (Table 5 refers) that neighbouring schools would offer pupils a good standard of education.

7.4. From the outset of consultations and whatever the outcome, it has been made clear that it is the County Council's intention to retain the Oak Farm School site with a view to its continued use for educational and community provision. Community provision on offer at Oak Farm Community School is extensive and very much valued by users and providers alike, the County Council being no exception.

7.5. The governing body of Oak Farm School see the need for continued educational provision on the Oak Farm site and, in the context of 14 - 19 education provision, have produced a model for a 14 - 19 Vocational and Skills Centre. It is equally clear that the creation of such provision does not lie within the gift of Oak Farm Community School alone and must be part of an area implementation strategy in the ownership of all partners. Such a strategy has yet to be formulated and the work undertaken by Oak Farm school staff regarding a vocational centre for the area will aid this process.

7.6. The recent invitation to the County Council to submit an expression of interest for entry to the BSF Programme (paragraphs 2.23 - 2.27 refer) and the fact the Rushmoor secondary schools rank highly in the County Council's prioritisation of need offer exciting opportunities for educational provision in the area.

7.7. In the meantime the viability of the school as the result of low pupil numbers needs to be addressed without undue delay. The original proposal of the County Council was to close Oak Farm with effect from August 2010. The recommendation within this paper is to close the school with effect from August 2011, and to cease admissions to year 7 from September 2010.

7.8. The recommendation will enable pupils in the present years 9, 10 and 11 at Oak Farm to embark on and complete examination courses at the school as appropriate and will result in there being three year groups in the school at the time of its closure, together with an appropriate timescale to plan and manage as smooth a transfer of pupils from Oak Farm to other schools as possible.

7.9. The timescale will enable the Authority to fully explore options for the use of the Oak Farm Community School site with effect from September 2011, in the context of the Rushmoor and Hart Consortium's strategic plans for Diploma delivery in the area, the transformational BSF agenda, and the need for continued community facilities.

8) Summary Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

8.1. Public Notices be published in accordance with section 15(1) of the Education and Inspections Act 2006 to discontinue Oak Farm Community School with effect from 31 August 2011 and setting out the intention that there will be no admissions to Year 7 in September 2010 and beyond.

8.2. The Director of Children's Services

· further explores options for the future use of Oak Farm Community School's site and buildings with effect from 1 September 2011, in the context of Building Schools for the Future, the delivery of 14-19 Diplomas within the Rushmoor and Hart 14-19 Consortium, and continued community provision

· and prepares a subsequent report for consideration by the Executive Lead Member Children's Services (Education).

CORPORATE OR LEGAL INFORMATION:

Mr Glenn Parkinson

School Organisation Officer

Children's Services Department

Hampshire County Council

County Offices

The Castle, Winchester 25 March 2009

Dear Mr Parkinson

Oak Farm Community School - Appeal against Notice of Intention to Close

Oak Farm Community School's Governing Body wishes to appeal against the decision of Hampshire County Council's Cabinet on 26 January to issue a notice of intention to close the school in 2011. Further detail is set out in the attached Annex, but our appeal is based mainly on procedure and due process as follows:

(i) the undeniable majority of respondents to the closure consultation (<91% of almost 400) clearly state a preference for the school to remain open

(ii) the consultation on closure did not include the resourced provision at the school for children with special needs. Our SpLD Unit is one of only six in the County and there should have been a separate consultation about its future. The proposals in respect of the Unit, as outlined in the Officer's report (ref. 358) to Cabinet, clearly fail to meet the tests set out in the DCSF guide to closing schools (paragraph 4.55 et seq - an extract is attached in Appendix 1 to the Annex). It is not good enough merely to express a hope or aspiration that the needs of such pupils will be met as paragraphs 5.5-5.6 of the paper to Cabinet does.

(iii) the consultation was not open and fair when compared with the similar consultation process now underway in the Havant area of the County. Despite the Authority's claims that there could only be a one-stage consultation process and it could only deal with closure, there could and should have been a two stage process as in Havant. If a two stage consultation process had been set in motion at Oak Farm, it would have been possible to have conducted and completed it well within the 2011 closure timetable. The County have publicly stated that they are looking at other options for the site. The Governing Body contend that the County should have given the local community an opportunity to offer views on those alternative solutions, not just closure. By failing to do so, the County has treated the community unfairly and has singularly failed in its duty to consult.

(iv) once the Oak Farm deputation had made its opening statement, there was no opportunity to correct or challenge statements made either in the Officers' paper to Cabinet or by Members or officers at the Cabinet hearing. Further, although the school was promised officer help to build its case for alternatives, no help was ever received.

Yours sincerely

R. Gray

Chair, Governing Body

Annex A

Oak Farm Community School - Appeal against the intention to close

A. Outcome of consultation

1. It was claimed at the Cabinet hearing that the response to the Oak Farm consultation was not significant. That is not so: a response rate of the kind achieved at Oak Farm is very good for such exercises and compares well with the number of respondents to the Havant consultation. The latter involved around 12 secondary and special schools and the response rate was low by comparison. At Oak Farm there was a significantly large number both of respondents and % in favour of a particular course of action.

B. Resourced Provision at Oak Farm Community School

2. The consultation on closure did not include the resourced provision at the school for children with special needs. Nor was there any separate consultation about the future of our SpLD Unit - one of only six in the County. The proposals in respect of the Unit, as outlined in the Officer's report to Cabinet (ref. 358), clearly fail to meet the tests set out in the DCSF guide to closing schools (paragraph 4.55 et seq - an extract is attached in Appendix 1). It is not good enough merely to express a hope or aspiration that the needs of such pupils will be met as paragraphs 5.5-5.6 of the Officers' paper to Cabinet does. It quoted selectively from Hampshire's own guidance as follows:

"All Hampshire secondary schools provide:

· access to literacy (and numeracy) programmes which are designed to meet pupils' individual needs and which can be practised and supported across the curriculum

· access to on-going review and assessment procedures

· teachers and support staff with expertise in meeting the needs of pupils with specific learning difficulties (SpLD)

In order to ensure pupils accessing the resourced provision are not disadvantaged in expressing a preference for another school in the event of Oak Farm's closure, it is intended that any recipient secondary school will receive the appropriate LA support to ensure these pupils' needs are met."

3. Hampshire's own Guidance says:

"In addition resourced schools provide:

· access to highly skilled specialist teaching and in-class support

· access to a peer group experiencing similar difficulties, so there is emotional support

· an inclusive whole school ethos in which SpLD are particularly accepted, understood and allowed for but where strengths are challenged and stretched

· an environment in which the emotional impact of the SpLD is recognised and managed

· access to a wide range of appropriate learning resources including ICT."

4. Oak Farm Governing Body's view is that not only were the proposals to close the SpLD Unit not specifically consulted on but they do not take into account the need to consider how they help every child and young person to achieve their potential in accordance with the Every Child Matters principles. Paragraph 4.31 of the DCSF guidance on closing maintained schools is very clear on this and says:

"This should include considering how displaced pupils will continue to have access to extended services, opportunities for personal development, access to academic and vocational training, measures to address barriers e.g. looked after children or children with special educational needs (SEN) and disabilities."

5. It is the strongly held view of the GB that the `Decision Maker', in this case Hampshire County Council, has failed in its duty to consult specifically on the closure of the SpLD Unit and to have put the outcome of such consultations to Cabinet on 26^th January to enable them to reach an informed view.

C. The nature of the consultation process

6. The consultation about the future of the school was not open and fair when compared with the similar consultation process now underway in the Havant area in the south of the county. In the latter case, the consultation on the future of Staunton Park has involved a two-stage process and has looked at options, not just closure. The Executive Lead Member for Children's Services (Education) and County Officers told us that it was only possible legally to consult on closure and not on other options for a continuing educational presence on the Oak Farm site: we were told that under DCSF's rules it was not possible to change the role and nature of an existing school without closing it first and starting again. That is not so and we provided the authority with evidence from DCSF in support of that. Moreover, a senior officer told the GB that a two stage process would take too long in the light of the Oak Farm closure timetable (that in itself suggested that a decision had already been reached and that the process was neither fair nor impartial). And yet that is exactly what has happened in the Havant area. In addition, the County has publicly stated that they are indeed looking at options for the use of the Oak Farm site: a proposal to do just that was, of course, included in the recommendations in the January report to Cabinet. It is the Governing Body's contention that the County has therefore failed in its duty properly to consult the local community. It has not given local stakeholders an opportunity to offer views on alternative solutions. In our view, it should have worked up all the options and consulted on all of them, including closure, rather than on just the latter alone. To do otherwise was inconsistent with what is being done in Havant. It was therefore both unfair in principle but especially to all those who are concerned about education in the Rushmoor area. As in the Havant case, if a two stage consultation process had been set in motion at Oak Farm, it would have been possible to have conducted and completed it well within the 2011 closure timetable.

7. The consultation was about closure in 2010, but the proposal is now for closure in 2011 with no year 7 entry after September this year. That change has never been explained to stakeholders.

D. The lack of opportunity to comment on the Officer's report before publication or to challenge any of the statements made at the Cabinet hearing on 26^th January

8. There was no opportunity to correct or challenge statements in the officers' report or those made at the Cabinet Meeting on 26^th January, whether by Members or officers. Some examples of wrong or unfair statements are set out below:

The Cabinet Meeting

(i) Cabinet were told by officers that National Challenge Schools' money could be used to support the provision of adequate staff resources to ensure that students were given the education they were entitled to during the run down to closure. That is incorrect. The allocation of NCS money is tightly constrained and can only be used for purposes set out in Raising Attainment Plan approved by DCSF. The Plan had already been approved, does not allow for the use of expenditure for subject teaching and only covers the period up to 2009/10.

(ii) The CVA figures were dismissed at the meeting and yet they show improvements across the key stages.

(iii) Much was made of the small numbers of parents who have chosen to send their children to Oak Farm in recent years. That is hardly surprising given that it has been widely know in the local community for sometime that the school was likely to close. A senior officer from the County came to Rushmoor about 5 years ago and told all the other Chairs of Governors and Heads (Oak Farm was not invited to the meeting) that falling rolls in the area meant that one secondary school in the area would undoubtedly have to close and that it would be Oak Farm. That became known across the area within days of the meeting and thereafter, and not surprisingly, affected both parents' attitude to the school and numbers on roll. It became a self fulfilling prophesy.

The Officers' report

(iv) Paragraph 2.35 of the Officers' report refers to the fact that DCSF rates Oak Farm as a "targeted persistence absence" school. That is undeniable but the report might have been more balanced if it had also pointed out that the school suffers from high turbulence and mobility rates and has been forced to take in quite a number of hard to place pupils from around the area. Frequently, those pupils are also inevitably the ones who are disaffected for a variety of reasons and are regular absentees. In a very small school like Oak Farm, its does not take many such pupils to push the absentee rate up.

(v) Paragraph 4.21 misrepresented the views of the Guildford Diocese and that had to be corrected at the meeting.

(vi) Paragraph 5.4 takes no account of the possibility of additional students being allocated to the Oak Farm SpLD Unit. Para. 5.5 provides a selective quote from the Hampshire paper on resourced provision about special needs as explained above.

(vii) Table 5 in paragraph 6.5 is a nonsense. The figures are not comparable because they relate to different timeframes and the rules have now been tightened. For example, Cove and Wavell could not now get a 2 (it would only be a 3) for achievement and standards because their CVA scores were less than 1,000. We are surprised that this was not made clear in a footnote.

(viii) It is absurd to claim in paragraph 6.7 that the annual cost of maintaining the community provision at the school is between £0.25m and £0.4m. We have provided chapter and verse to show that it is without doubt around £0.4m.

(ix) Paragraph 6.13 refers to the surplus places problem in the Rushmoor area. The school's proposal for a skills/vocational centre on the site would still have reduced the surplus places across the Borough. The overall reduction to 5.9% would still have been achieved by changing the nature of the provision on the site.

(x) The Officers' report does not appear to take into account or refer to the further documentary evidence which the school provided on alternative curriculum models following the Cabinet's visit to Oak Farm last October.

(xi) The promises made to provide help to the school in building up alternative options, and recorded in GB minutes, were not kept. At the single meeting which was arranged with senior staff and a Governor Representative, the District Manager stopped the discussion to seek clarification of its remit and was never reconvened.

Appendix 1

Extract from DCSF's: Closing a Maintained Mainstream School - A Guide for Local Authorities and Governing Bodies

SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS (SEN) PROVISION

Initial Considerations

4.55 When reviewing SEN provision, planning or commissioning alternative types of SEN provision or considering proposals for change, LAs should aim for a flexible range of provision and support that can respond to the special educational needs of individual pupils and parental preferences, rather than necessarily establishing broad categories of provision according to special educational need or disability. There are a number of initial considerations for LAs to take account of in relation to proposals for change. They should ensure that local proposals:

i. take account of parental preferences for particular styles of provision or education settings;

ii. offer a range of provision to respond to the needs of individual children and young people, taking account of collaborative arrangements (including between special and mainstream), extended school and Children's Centre provision; regional centres (of expertise ) and regional and sub-regional provision; out of local authority day and residential special provision;

iii. are consistent with the LA's Children and Young People's Plan;

iv. take full account of educational considerations, in particular the need to ensure a broad and balanced curriculum, including the National Curriculum, within a learning environment in which children can be healthy and stay safe;

v. support the LA's strategy for making schools and settings more accessible to disabled children and young people and their scheme for promoting equality of opportunity for disabled people;

vi. provide access to appropriately trained staff and access to specialist support and advice, so that individual pupils can have the fullest possible opportunities to make progress in their learning and participate in their school and community;

vii. ensure appropriate provision for 14-19 year-olds, taking account of the role of local LSC funded institutions and their admissions policies; and

viii. ensure that appropriate full-time education will be available to all displaced pupils. Their statements of special educational needs will require amendment and all parental rights must be ensured. Other interested partners, such as the Health Authority should be involved.

4.56 Taking account of the considerations, as set out above, will provide assurance to local communities, children and parents that any reorganisation of SEN provision in their area is designed to improve on existing arrangements and enable all children to achieve the five Every Child Matters outcomes.

The Special Educational Needs Improvement Test

4.57 When considering any reorganisation of SEN provision, including that which might lead to some children being displaced through closures or alterations, LAs, and all other proposers for new schools or new provision, will need to demonstrate to parents, the local community and Decision Makers how the proposed alternative arrangements are likely to lead to improvements in the standard, quality and/or range of educational provision for children with special educational needs. All consultation documents and reorganisation plans that LAs publish and all relevant documentation LAs and other proposers submit to Decision Makers should show how the key factors set out in the paragraphs below (4.58 to 4.61) have been taken into account. Proposals which do not credibly meet these requirements should not be approved and Decision Makers should take proper account of parental or independent representations which question the LA's own assessment in this regard.

Key Factors

4.58 When LAs are planning changes to their existing SEN provision, and in order to meet the requirement to demonstrate likely improvements in provision, they should:

· identify the details of the specific educational benefits that will flow from the proposals in terms of:

a) improved access to education and associated services including the curriculum, wider school activities, facilities and equipment, with reference to the LA's Accessibility Strategy;

b) improved access to specialist staff, both education and other professionals, including any external support and/or outreach services;

c) improved access to suitable accommodation; and

d) improved supply of suitable places.

· LAs should also:

i. obtain a written statement that offers the opportunity for all providers of existing and proposed provision to set out their views on the changing pattern of provision seeking agreement where possible;

ii. clearly state arrangements for alternative provision. A `hope' or `intention' to find places elsewhere is not acceptable. Wherever possible, the host or alternative schools should confirm in writing that they are willing to receive pupils, and have or will have all the facilities necessary to provide an appropriate curriculum;

iii. specify the transport arrangements that will support appropriate access to the premises by reference to the LA's transport policy for SEN and disabled children; and

iv. specify how the proposals will be funded and the planned staffing arrangements that will be put in place.

4.59 It is to be noted that any pupils displaced as a result of the closure of a BESD school (difficulties with behavioural, emotional and social development) should not be placed long-term or permanently in a Pupil Referral Unit (PRU) if a special school place is what they need. PRUs are intended primarily for pupils who have been excluded, although LAs can and do use PRU provision for pupils out of school for other reasons such as illness and teenage pregnancies. There may of course be pupils who have statements identifying that they have BESD who have been placed appropriately in a PRU because they have been excluded; in such cases the statement must be amended to name the PRU, but PRUs should not be seen as an alternative long-term provision to special schools.

4.60 The requirement to demonstrate improvements and identify the specific educational benefits that flow from proposals for new or altered provision as set out in the key factors are for all those who bring forward proposals for new special schools or for special provision in mainstream schools including governors of foundation schools and foundation special schools. The proposer needs to consider all the factors listed above.

4.61 Decision Makers will need to be satisfied that the evidence with which they are provided shows that LAs and/or other proposers have taken account of the initial considerations and all the key factors in their planning and commissioning in order to meet the requirement to demonstrate that the reorganisation or new provision is likely to result in improvements to SEN provision.