PAPER C1

Purpose: for Decision

REPORT TO THE EXECUTIVE

Date: 10 SEPTEMBER 2003

Title: TOTLAND PRIMARY SCHOOL

REPORT OF THE PORTFOLIO HOLDER FOR EDUCATION AND LIFELONG LEARNING

IMPLEMENTATION DATE: 22 SEPTEMBER 2003

SUMMARY/PURPOSE

1. In order for the Local Education Authority to comply with requirements of the 1998 and 2002 Education Acts and the DfES procedures for schools in special measures Executive approval is sought for either closure or the initiation of a fresh-start programme for Totland Community Primary School. This decision will determine the provision of education at Totland Primary School with effect from the academic year starting September 2004.

CONFIDENTIAL/EXEMPT ITEMS

2. Not applicable to this decision.

BACKGROUND

3. Totland Primary School was placed in special measures as a result of an OFSTED inspection in October 2002. In December 2002 the LEA, at the governing body's request, assumed delegated powers.

4. Prior to this the school had been defined by OFSTED as subject to serious weakness for two years. The school has now been on the LEA's cause for concern list for four years.

5. The two HMI monitoring visits since October 2002 have noted only limited progress in the school’s own ability to sustain the quality of education provided. This is the lowest of the three categories by which HMI judge the school’s improvement. Whilst the work of the LEA is praised and its support in raising the quality of the school is recognized, the question of the school's sustainability, in its present form, is being raised by the DfES.

6. This is the only Island school, which has been in serious weakness or special measures, not to make good progress and return to providing a high quality of education, for its pupils, within sixteen months.

7. When schools are placed in special measures the LEA must consider closure as the quickest way to provide pupils with a better quality of education. If progress is limited the DfES have the right, under the 1998 and 2002 Education Acts to intervene and take the school out of local control if no action is taken.

8. Currently the school roll is declining. Future projections indicate the possibility of increased numbers, though without improvement in the school, parents are likely to opt for more popular schools. There is a need for increased pre-school and community provision in the area. Provision can be provided at Totland or other schools in the area. If the school were closed the site provision could be maintained for community use.

STRATEGIC CONTEXT

9. Without approval of either closure or a fresh-start programme the school is at risk of being taken out of the control of the Isle of Wight Council by the DfES under the procedures applied to schools in special measures.

10. Executive approval is sought for a structural solution, which will enable the appropriate provision of education, pre-school and community access for the Totland area. The actions of closure or fresh-start, under agreed conditions, would have DfES support.

11. Fresh-start is a technical procedure, which can be applied to schools in special measures, which might otherwise be closed or taken out of local control. In effect the school is closed but immediately re-opened with a new organisation and structure.

CONSULTATION

12. Consultation has taken place with Members and the Portfolio Holder for Education and Community Development and the Chair of the Select Committee for Education and Community Development.

13. Further discussion has taken place with HMI and the DfES on the appropriateness of a fresh-start programme to the school’s circumstances.

14. Staff of the school and the parent body are aware that as a result of the limited progress made so far, that the school is now subject to possible closure or fresh-start.

15. Until an Executive decision to implement closure or submit a fresh-start programme to the DfES, further detailed consultation with staff and the community cannot take place.

FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPLICATIONS

16. The financial costs related to this decision are set out as in the options for decision.

17. Option (a) (Maintain the current level of support for the school)

Current costs in supporting and sustaining the school require an annual expenditure of some £60,000. This has achieved some improvement but without the sustaining of this level of support for the foreseeable future, gains will not be maintained.

No additional grant funding is available to offset these costs.

18. Option (b) (Close the school)

Closure costs would largely be in staff redundancy payments, which would currently total £50,100. If the building was retained for community use no revenue gains would be accrued. However, capital costs associated with a change of use to provide pre-school provision and community use could be met from grant funding, which in the case of neighbourhood nursery provision is secured.

19. Option (c) (Initiate fresh-start programme)

As with option (b) initial costs are associated with staff redundancy payments and would currently total £50,100. Further capital costs would be incurred as a result of developing the site to meet the new school organisation needs and the wider pre-school and community provision, as an aspect of the fresh-start programme. These costs are currently estimated at £110,000 and would be covered by grant funding and devolved capital available to the school. Revenue costs in the new staffing organisation would not exceed the current staff budget. The possibility of support for revenue funding over a two year period to a maximum of £40,000 per annum is available from the DfES on approval of an appropriate fresh-start scheme. The DfES will only enter into detailed discussion on a fresh-start proposal following an Executive decision to initiate this aspect of the legislation. If a decision to support fresh-start is made a programme must be approved for January 2004 with full implementation on 1^st September 2004.

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

20. The Executive has the right to make a decision on closure or fresh-start of a school in special measures under the 1998 and 2002 Education Acts and the requirements placed on the LEA by the DfES in respect of school’s causing concern.

21. Without an Executive decision the school is at risk of removal from local control.

22. The decision of the Executive must, under DfES regulations, be put before the next School’s Organisation Committee meeting (October 2003) for comment. However, the School’s Organisation Committee cannot change the decision. It can only comment or advise on implementation.

OPTIONS

23. Three options exist:

a) Maintain the current level of support to the school.

This is not sustainable both in terms of local cost and viability.

The DfES would not support this decision.

The school might well be removed from local control.

b) Close the school.

Provides an immediate solution to the question of quality.

Current and future needs can be met in other local schools.

The DfES would support this decision

c) Initiate a fresh-start programme.

Maintains the school in the community.

Allows development to meet future needs, as in pre-school and adult provision.

Decision would be supported by the DfES but only if the projected roll can be sustained at 90 pupils or more.

Capital costs would have to be borne by the LEA; some support could be given by the DfES to revenue costs.

24. The options (b) or (c) are the only options which remove the immediate risk of loss of the school from local control.

EVALUATION/RISK MANAGEMENT

25. Option (a) offers no possibility of significant further improvement in the school. The DfES would see continuation of support as no action. High risk of intervention and loss of the school from local control.

26. Option (b) offers the lowest risk. The current pupil roll can be accommodated in other local schools, all of which have received strong OFSTED reports and are popular with parents. Closure for July 2004 would allow ample time for consultation with parents and the sensitive placement of pupils in other schools. Projections indicate that the pupil roll, at Totland, for September 2004 will be between 40 and 50 pupils.

27. Option (c) removes the immediate risk of loss of control of the school. However, continued loss of pupil numbers may make it difficult to meet DfES requirements in terms of an effective fresh-start. To minimise this risk any proposal for fresh-start would use the powers of the 2002 Education Act to federate schools. This would see the new school as a federated site with an existing successful school.

28. In respect of option (a) the risk of loss of control of the school and further improvement can only be achieved by the approval of option (b) or (c).

29. Option (b) resolves the issues in respect of the quality provided by the school and allows the requirements of the 1998 and 2002 Education Acts to be met. However this would remove the primary school provision within the Totland community.

30. Option (c) has the potential to resolve the issues in respect of the quality provided by the school and allows the requirements of the 1998 and 2002 Education Acts to be met providing a sustainable school roll is achieved. There is a high risk that between the time of a decision and the implementation of fresh-start that the roll will decline to an unviable level. The LEA and DfES would keep this position under termly review.

RECOMMENDATIONS

31. Recommendation is made that the Executive approve option (b) or (c) in paragraph 19. Allowing the LEA to initiate a closure or fresh-start programme in respect of Totland Community Primary School.

BACKGROUND PAPERS

32. OFSTED reports of September 2000 and September 2002 on Totland Community Primary School.

33. HMI monitoring reports on the school’s progress

34. 1998 and 2002 Education Acts together with the DfES requirements for Schools Causing Concern.

35. Schools Organisation – Future roll projections – 2003.

Contact Point: Keith Simmonds – Senior Inspector

Tel: 01983 823405

E-mail: [email protected]

J METCALFE Head of Community Development and Tourism

J WAREHAM Portfolio Holder for Education and Lifelong Learning