DCFS Number Summary of Consultation Responses

CY/10/43 Appendix A

DCFS Number Summary of Consultation Responses Recommendation for Determination Bishops Clyst Parish That admissions be managed by schools rather than the local authority No action required Council 1. Co-ordination of all admissions is a mandatory requirement of the School Admissions Code of Practice.

Crediton Town Council That the [post-16] education transport policy not be amended on the grounds of the No action required detrimental effect this would have on Crediton young people’s educational opportunities. 1. The proposed education transport policy as consulted has no significant amendments or changes.

2207 School requested to lower the PAN from 40 to 30 to maintain the increase in The PAN for East the Water be East the Water Primary attainment and due to a recent increase in the number of children with special determined at 30: School educational needs 1. The number of known in-area children is high at 57, the forecast demand is lower at 26 2. The IAN is 29 and the maximum number of workspaces is 204 3. A PAN of 40 would cause difficulties if parental preference increased, requiring 280 workspaces 4. Recommend that the school discuss capacity with Capital Strategy and Place Planning

Parent We are compelled to write to express our absolute objection to the proposals in Designated area for Two Moors PS Mr and Mrs AM T altering the Tiverton Schools Designated areas for the following reasons be determined as proposed:

1. We have recently moved to a property [in Oaklea, Tiverton] and the most 1. This is considered by local important consideration we made was knowing that the property was still within the schools, Schools Access

Page 1 CY/10/43 Appendix A

catchment area for Two Moors Primary School as when in our previous property our Services and School eldest child had started with this school (January 2010) and we didn't want to have Organisation and Place any issues for the other children we have.. Planning to be an appropriate response to the shifting and 2. We have 3 young children with our 4th due on the 10th March (our eldest started growing demographics within at Two Moors in January - as stated above) with the 2nd child committed to Two Tiverton. Moors Nursery and the 3rd following on within a year. 2. Retaining the current boundaries would exacerbate 3. We only have one vehicle in the family which is used Monday to Friday from 6am place planning difficulties as to 6pm by myself making Two Moors the perfect solution for Schooling as it is only a children with a greater need to five minute walk for my wife who suffers from a [medical condition] and who will attend Two Moors would also have 4 very young children to consider for the two round trips. remain out of the designated area while some addresses 4. We personally view Two Moors as the best Schooling opportunity for our children which were historically in area and therefore providing the best base for future learning. continue in area. Children refused admission as 5. The option of having different schools for different children is not feasible as we necessary would have further couldn't get to different schools at the same time (for all the points in statement distances to travel to 3) and in addition our eldest would not yet be old enough to take herself to school or alternative schools. indeed be left at the gate early in the morning or have to wait to be picked up at the 3. Admission arrangements end of the day. Taxis are non affordable and switching schools for the eldest in our relate to one academic year view is an unacceptable and unnecessary disruption which is why we took the step and cannot constrain the to avoid this situation. options available for future academic years. 6. The housing proposals indicated on the map clearly show a large increase in 4. As a community school the housing near Halberton, as part of all planning application approval it is likely to have oversubscription criteria for many conditions for the developer ie money towards the running of public services, Two Moors are recommended roads and providing schooling. We are very interested what these conditions will be to continue as: and who the developer will be. 1 Children in Care 7. We also notice that you have actually added some housing to the catchment area 2 Children living in the school’s obviously following Lea Road as the boundary. Instead of adding more housing in designated area with a sibling who one area and taking away in another, why not keep some existing housing within the will be attending the school at the original area. The area where we now live has now been completely cut out and our time of admission suggestion is that as it is mainly bungalows therefore mainly the elderly/retired it would be more advantageous to yourselves to keep this within the catchment area 3 Other children living in the instead of adding the other side of Lea Road to the equation. school’s designated area

Page 2 CY/10/43 Appendix A

4 Children living outside the Again we reiterate how seriously we are against these proposed changes and school’s designated area, but with expect your comments by return. a sibling who will be attending the school at the time of admission 5 Other children living outside the school’s designated area

Parent I feel that schools should take siblings of existing pupils as their first priority. Family Oversubscription criteria for Mrs JA should be respected in order to help schools teach the importance of family life and community and voluntary respect. controlled schools to be Recent events at Two Moors Primary School, which saw pupils not being accepted determined as proposed: because you/the council changed the catchment is completely unacceptable Mother of two children at Two Moors Primary School. 1. This recognises a priority for admissions of residents of the designated areas for schools ahead of non-residents. 2. supports the local community and minimises the potential for admissions from disparate geographical areas which do not reflect the social diversity of a school’s designated area. 3. minimises the transport requirements which may arise where an out of area child travels to attend a school obliging an in area child is refused and must travel out of area. 4. current arrangements confer a priority for siblings in area ahead of other children in area and out of area siblings ahead of other out of area children. 5. It may be noted that the designated area for Two

Page 3 CY/10/43 Appendix A

Moors Primary School has not been changed for the recent intake. The designated areas for all Tiverton schools are proposed to change for 2011.

Mr BC, parent Currently school buses run from Hartland village to two schools, Bideford and Bude. The designated area for Bideford (received after 1 March) Both schools are almost exactly the same distance from the village centre, possibly College be determined as Bude school is the nearer. proposed: The process for choosing schools is decided by School Admissions board (Devon council?), from applications made on the supplied from. It is only after receiving the 1. the thrust these comments results that the difficulty in gaining transport begins. appear to refer to entitlement When deciding which school to select to send my son, the decision was made to free education transport to a because of the speciality the schools provide. Bideford is a science college, Bude a school which is a at a greater sports college. My son has attended Bude School, several times each school year distance from home than the for educational events, not once has Hartland School run one with Bideford College. designated school. Pupils have formed friendship bonds through their formative educational years, but 2. transport is provided to the are now split, to attend different secondary schools, at a time of great stress and nearest appropriate apprehension. establishment or the Choosing a school is, and has been for some years an emotive decision for parents. designated establishment for And because Bideford is the designated school (as previously noted I am not sure it an address. is the nearest), that unless this is selected I will receive no support from Devon 3. County boundaries have no Council to attain transport, even though it runs from the village. Due to my being a specific relevance for full tax paying employee? admissions purposes; a Even though I will have to pay a contribution, currently £288 per child, per term, residence is either in or out of School transport for someone in my position, working but not on low income a designated area whether or grounds, could be cancelled or could be requested to make way for another child at not a county boundary is any time who is receiving free transport. I feel this is not acceptable. crossed. My son could arrive at his last one or two years and if I do not take the move to 4. this area is not unique in change his schooling to Bideford I would have to ensure he arrived at school Bude having a designated school school myself. Resigning from my job and applying for free transport could be an maintained by a neighbouring option! Though not one I feel should ever be considered. local authority The two points I wish to emphasis are: 5. Hartland is recognised to be at Hartland parish is split, with designated schools being Bude and Bideford. It some distance (11.5 miles, appears if I want to receive guaranteed transport I would only have one choice of measured in a straight line school, one which I feel will not best suit my son. from Hartland Primary School) If free transport is not available, I think there should be support in place, to help from its designated secondary

Page 4 CY/10/43 Appendix A

through the process of applying and gaining transport. And help ensuring these school, Bideford College. The remains for the child’s full educational years. distance to Bude is 11.6 miles. 6. Consideration of a change Hartland parents have been campaigning for a number of years, reaching the local would be more appropriate for newspaper some two years ago, to change the current rules school transport to an Area Review. Bude Haven. Many have to send their children to a school which is not of their 7. It should be noted that this choice, solely because they are unable to afford the term transport fees. Something suggestion is for a non-Devon I feel is not acceptable in a “poor pocket” within Devon. school to be the designated establishment; this is the contrary view of parents with regard to the Lifton area. Cllr Don Horn Responses to the Admissions Arrangements Consultation The designated area for Tavistock Mrs CH Secondary School designated to serve the Lifton area College be determined as Mrs CS proposed: Mr PT 1) Mrs CH, local resident Mrs AW I understand we are able to comment on the proposed admission arrangements for 1. Records indicate that the schools. Hence this letter to you. majority northern part of the Lifton Primary School I am writing to you to ask if you could reconsider the position of the designated designated area has been boundary for Secondary Schools in our area. This boundary has been moved within designated for Launceston the last 19 years. Where we live always used to be in the catchment area for College since the early 1960s. Tavistock College, we know this because when my husband went to Secondary 2. The online map School, he - and many others in this immediate area, including 2 other parents of (www.devon.gov.uk/schoolare children in the same situation - went to Tavistock. You can imagine our shock and amaps) differs from the disappointment when we applied to send our son to Tavistock College only to find Cornwall Council map of the out we were no longer in the catchment area. designated area for So why has the boundary changed? Launceston College to the northwest of the designated When I have queried this with the transport dept in the past, they have said that our area for Lifton Primary School. area has been designated to Launceston College for at least the last twenty years. Devon’s map follows the This is not quite true. I have done my own investigations and spoken to local people watercourse to the east of who have had children going to school within this time. I have found out that the Tettaridge Barton and boundary has in fact changed twice. The first time between 1991 and 1995 (15 to 19 Colemans Cross to meet with years ago), and then again further up the road, around 2002 (8 years ago) It was the River Tamar. done during a time when there was a ‘lull’ in the number of children in the area and 3. Launceston is the closest because of this there were no parents to complain about it which seems unfair. secondary school (3.6 miles from Lifton Primary School,

Page 5 CY/10/43 Appendix A

I have read a response letter from Cllr John Hart to another parent in the same measured in a straight line) situation to us. In this letter he says that if DCC were to change the designated and it would be an artificial boundary, then Launceston College would appeal and DCC would lose. When the arrangement to include this boundaries were changed in the past from Tavistock to Launceston did area in the designated area for DCC/Tavistock College appeal against it? If not why not! Tavistock College (9.1 miles). 4. the thrust of parental I understand that in 2008 a Members Strategy Group was set up to look at the comments appear to refer to issues particularly in relation to the Tavistock area, and that after detailed entitlement to free education consideration and evaluation it was concluded that the existing arrangements should transport to a school which is a not be altered. Who were the members of this Strategy Group? Were parents greater distance from homes consulted? Can you give me the reasons for this decision? than the nearest school. 5. County boundaries have no There are 12 children (that I know of) that are in the same situation to us, and this specific relevance for will rise to 15 in September when other siblings go to Tavistock College. This is a admissions purposes; a large amount of children in this rural area. Our children have all been accepted to go residence is either in or out of to Tavistock College, but because we are not in the catchment area we are a designated area whether or struggling to get transport to it. This has been made worse recently when 8 of these not a county boundary is children who had managed to get concessionary seats on the TAV16 were told that crossed. due to DCC having to save money on contract transport to subsidise public transport 6. this area is not unique in they were no longer able to have these seats. having a designated school maintained by a neighbouring We are told we have rights to express a parental preference to which school our local authority. children attend, but we don’t because you do not provide transport to the school we 7. It should be noted that this choose, and this inevitably influences the majority of parents decision. suggestion is for a non-Devon school to NOT be the If we are not supported by yourselves in sending our children to Tavistock College designated establishment; this we may have to look at sending them to Launceston College. We do not want to do is the contrary view of a parent this, however if we did, there are several points that would arise from this. with regard to the Hartland area. The first being that DCC would have to pay Cornwall Council for our children’s educational funding and transport. I understand DCC have saved £10,000 from their recent decision to amalgamate 2 buses into 1 which was the reason for our children losing their concessionary seats. But I wonder how much money they would lose if all of our children were to go to Launceston, I feel a substantially larger amount! Can you really afford for us to do this?

Secondly I understand that Launceston College is getting oversubscribed (probably

Page 6 CY/10/43 Appendix A

due to all the new housing estates they have built in the town over the last few years) and that some years are already full. What would happen in this situation if Launceston College could not accept our children? Would it be up to DCC to send our children to the next closest available school, which would be Tavistock, and would DCC have to provide transport to this school?

Going back to the subject that Cllr John Hart brought up about Launceston College appealing against DCC if they were to change the boundary, has anyone asked them? If Launceston College is getting full maybe they wouldn’t mind if the boundary was moved. He finishes the letter by saying he is sorry he is unable to help and that he sees no way in which he can alter the catchment area or the transport arrangements for this small part of Devon - I’m sure he could if he wanted too! My husband and I have supported the Conservative party in every election, we don’t ask for much out here in this rural part of Devon, all we are asking is that they now support us. If the boundary was changed before, I see no reason why it can’t be changed back again. Please do not ignore us in this small part of Devon, we should be just as important to you as anyone!

We are getting a lot of local support with regards to this situation. This includes Tavistock College (of course they would, as they don’t want to lose our children’s educational funding) Cllr Mandy Govier (who is also Chair of Governors at Tavistock College) The 2 local Councillors, Cllr Donald Horn & Cllr Dilwyn Hughes, and also I understand Cllr Christine Marsh has said she will support us. The Headmistress of Lifton Primary School has written a letter saying she wishes her School to be in the catchment area for Tavistock. She gets absolutely no support from Launceston College and is made to feel like an outsider when she attends meetings with the College, this is absolutely disgusting. (Maybe it has something to do with Cornwall wanting to become in Independent County, even more reason for Devon children going to Devon Schools.) However, the children at Lifton Primary are always taking part in activities with the other schools in the Tavistock Area Learning Community because of the contact she has with TALC because her school is in Devon. There are a lot of parents in Lifton who in the past and in the future would like to send their children to Tavistock, but are unable to because of transport not being available. In this day and age where the majority of both parents work, this makes it impossible for them to send their children to the school of their choice, and this I believe to be unfair.

Page 7 CY/10/43 Appendix A

There are 2 main points to my letter:

1. Please can you change the boundary for Tavistock College back to where it used to be in our area. If it was changed before I see no reason why it can’t be changed back again.

2. Ultimately give parents the right to express a preference as to which school their children attend and provide free transport to that school.

This is affecting a lot of families, most of who, were born and brought up in this area and wish their children to go to the same school as they did. Once again we feel that by living in a rural area we are being treated unfairly, and that because we are a small number of people we are not being heard. Please do not ignore us in this small part of Devon, all the other parents in the same situation feel very strongly about this and we will not let this go easily. We live in Devon, we pay our Council Tax to a Devon Council, we want our children to be educated in Devon, thus helping DCC to keep as much of the greatly needed educational funding as possible, in our Devon schools. I do not understand why you are making it hard for us to do something which would benefit you!

2) Mrs CH, local resident, previous contact in response to the consultation

I was looking for some help with regards to the admission arrangements.

I have been told that as a parent I can comment on the proposed arrangements, but was unable to work from the website how to do this, so I was wondering if you could point me in the right direction!

What I wanted to comment on was the boundaries for the catchment area for Tavistock College. These boundaries have been changed between the last 8 to 19 years, which means we no longer fall in the catchment area for Tavistock College like we used to, instead we are in the catchment area for Launceston College. Myself and many other parents in this area (as you have probably heard!) are very unhappy about this and would like to make a formal comment about this, seeing as we have been given the opportunity to do so.

What do I need to do?

Page 8 CY/10/43 Appendix A

[email from Andrew Brent in response: Thank you for your email regarding the proposed admission arrangements for Devon in 2011. The following page advises on responses to the consultation - including sending an email with your response to me:

http://www.devon.gov.uk/index/learningschools/schools/admissions/a dmissions-proposed2011/admissions-proposed2011- howdoirespond.htm

I understand that you have been in contact with colleagues at the Local Authority on this matter. Indeed, I have reviewed your address and can confirm that it has been within the designated area of Lifton Primary School and Launceston College for a number of years. The arrangements for admission including designated areas have formed part of an annual consultation both by Devon County Council and by Cornwall Council (formerly Cornwall County Council). This has included the opportunity for parents and the wider community to comment since 2009. You are welcome to make a formal comment about the arrangements by emailing me or writing to

Andrew Brent, Policy and Strategy Officer (Education) Room 142 County Hall Topsham Road Exeter EX2 4QG

If you have any queries, please do not hesitate to contact me.]

Thank you for your reply.

Yes I understand we have been in catchment area for a few years. From talking to local people I have found out the boundary has changed twice, probably, between the last 8 to 19 years. Unfortunately during this time only 2 children (who live within

Page 9 CY/10/43 Appendix A

our postcode area) have gone to secondary school, these children went to Tavistock and because they were told they were not in the catchment area got concessionary seats on the bus. It seems unfair that the boundaries were changed when there was a 'lull' in children in the area, thus these boundary changes seem to have sneaked in without any consultation with local people. I have been told that in 2008 there was a members strategy group set up to look at the issues particularly in relation to the Tavistock area, who were the members in this group? Were parents consulted?-not that I am aware of, if not why not? Anyway, myself and the other parents involved will be emailing you with our thoughts shortly.

3) Cllr Horn, West Devon District Council

I have been asked to comment on your email, a reply you gave to Mrs. CH regarding the catchments area for Tavistock College.

What you said, and the information you seemed to have passed on to Cllr. Hart, strictly speaking is untrue and misleading. I have written evidence that Lifton School Pupils in the late eighties, were denied free School transport and School Places to Launceston College, the reason given was that they were in the catchments area for Tavistock and would have to pay a concessionary fare to obtain bus pass to Launceston if they were accepted at that School.

This seemed to affect most of the addresses in the Kelly and East of Lifton area, the very same area you now say is in Launceston area. I am confused as to when the Boundaries were changed.

As I am the Ward Member for Thrushel, and Lifton Primary School is within my Ward, as are the affected Children now, where it means Family Members are split as to what School they are supposed to attend. Seeing that the School Bus continues into Lifton to pick up Pupils who live out of the area, I think it is only fair, to avoid further discrimination now and for the future, that I should be informed as to what transport they are entitled to regardless of which School they attend, and should not be abandoned just because they happen to live in a rural area.

[email from Andrew Brent in response to email from Mrs CH: Thank you for your email and response to the consultation on

Page 10 CY/10/43 Appendix A

admission arrangements for 2011-12. This is an annual consultation which this year includes the proposed Education Transport policy for 2010 onwards.

Your comments will form part of the report I will present to the Devon Local Admissions Forum in March and to Cabinet Members of the County Council in April. This will inform Members' determination of arrangements, required by 15 April. I understand that Cllr Hart will be responding to you in due course. I have advised Cllr Hart regarding the history of Launceston as the designated secondary school for the Lifton area since the 1960s.]

4) CS, local resident

I moved to Tinhay last summer in the full knowledge that I would be out of the catchment area for Tavistock college which my son was due to start at in September last year. Although I knew I was responsible for getting my son to college, there was a school bus and I was hopeful that eventually there would be space on the bus for him (albeit on a concessionary basis).

However the bus route now seems to have changed and this appears to be no longer an option. My second son is currently in year 5 at primary school and I am now considering the options for his secondary schooling.

I understand that geographically Tavistock is further away from my house than Launceston college but could you explain why, when I have chosen to live in Devon my sons primary education would take place in Devon (at Lifton primary school), but he would continue his Secondary education in Cornwall?

I am led to believe that if I did chose to send him to his designated Secondary school, there would be some cost to Devon County Council with regard to his education and transport costs.

5) PT, local resident

I am writing to complain about the policy, which makes the designated school for those living in the Kelly (part) and Lifton areas Launceston College, i.e. Devon

Page 11 CY/10/43 Appendix A

children being assigned to a Cornwall school.

1) In the first instance I would like to know when and why the boundary was changed. Our daughter was accepted for Tavistock College back in 1996 without question and received free transport. In addition three children (D, A & IC from HF], our immediate neighbours, also attended Tavistock College (starting years 1994 to 2000, I believe) and received free transport. [HF] would also now fall within the Launceston College designated area. Within this same period [CW] from Kelly Beare also attended Tavistock College and received free transport. There are more examples from longer ago. Who made the decision to change the boundary and were the people that mattered, i.e. parents affected by the change, consulted?

2) As a Devon resident and Council taxpayer, I expect Devon to educate my children and not farm them out to another County. I expect my children to be educated at a school where my elected representatives can have some influence. I assume that money is changing hands between Devon and Cornwall to pay for both the education and transport of those Devon children at Launceston College. What advantage is this to Devon Council?

3) If somebody was to look at the route taken by the Tavistock school bus (TAV 16) they would see that the bus goes past the entrance to some of the properties that are within the Launceston College designated area and that the TAV 16 pickup points are much closer to all the Kelly affected properties than the nearest Launceston College pickup point. This policy is clearly flawed. This policy is causing considerable unnecessary cost and disruption to many families and at a time when we are being encouraged by the government to reduce our car miles some of us are clocking up many extra miles. In our case it is costing us some 200 miles and 7 hours travelling time per week.

4) A recent cost cutting exercise has resulted in 8 “concessionary” children being taken off the TAV 16 bus. While this has supposedly saved the council £10,000 per year it has had the immediate effect of passing these costs on to the parents of these children. These costs are not insignificant. There may be some opportunities for lift sharing, but using our situation as an example, these costs could be around £1,000 per year (£25 per week for 40 weeks). This is only the financial cost and doesn’t take into account the time involved. So the Council saving of £10,000 has the potential for an immediate knock on effect of £8,000 increase in costs to the

Page 12 CY/10/43 Appendix A

parents of the 8 children removed from the bus. Not surprisingly there are some very unhappy parents who believe they are not getting the service they are paying for through their Council taxes.

5) It has come to my attention that Launceston College is oversubscribed and that there is already one example of a Launceston child being sent to Tavistock against his will. Whatever the original reason for moving the Launceston College designated area into Devon, surely now is the time to change things back to how they were.

I would like to explain our situation, as it is slightly different to some of the other parents in that my son is in the sixth form and no longer qualifies for free transport, but should, I believe, be given a seat on the bus. Our son was given a place at Tavistock College, which we believed to be his designated school, back in 2004. We filled in the necessary forms for free transport, but only when his friends were receiving their passes did we find out that he wasn’t getting one because Launceston was his designated school. This was the first we had heard of this, nobody had bothered to write to us to tell us he wouldn’t get a pass and why. It was only when my wife phoned the transport office that we found out. We went to appeal and won. That should have been it, we thought. However, when it came to the sixth form we understood we would have to pay for his seat, but were told that he could only have a concessionary seat because he should be at Launceston College and anyway there were no seats available (we were told that we were 3rd in a queue for a concessionary seat so I guess that now means we are 11th). When we won our appeal we weren’t told that it didn’t apply to the sixth form and we had never considered that we might be expected to change schools. I don’t believe that any parent would have thought differently and wouldn’t have given any thought to taking their child away from a school where he/she had been for the last 5 years unless there was a very good reason. So we are not trying to get free transport, as we know we have to pay, and our son is at Tavistock College, which is our preference, but a guaranteed place on the school bus is what we believe he should have.

[email from Andrew Brent in response: Thank you for your email and response to the consultation on admission arrangements for 2011-12. This is an annual consultation which this year includes the proposed Education Transport policy for 2010 onwards.

Page 13 CY/10/43 Appendix A

Thank you for your prompt reply. Based on what you have said, I would just like to add that if Lifton (and part of Kelly?) have been part of the Launceston College designated area since 1960 then e must be well overdue for a review, as both Lifton and Launceston, and indeed all of West Devon and North Cornwall, will have changed beyond recognition since then.

6) AW, local resident

My son, [HW], is in year 8 at Tavistock College. Up until the end of January he had a concessionary seat on bus TAV16 to Tavistock College. He used to catch the bus at Tinhay Bridge, Lifton, but we moved house in August 2009 and from September until his concessionary seat was withdrawn in January, he was picked up outside our house, [in] Lifton.

I understand that [HW], along with seven other children with concessionary seats, lost their seats because three school buses were amalgamated into two, with the eight seats being given to children from Brentor. It seems that this was part of a cost-cutting exercise in order to heavily subsidise a loss-making public bus route (route 118 from Barnstaple to Tavistock). I know of 12 local children who have been affected by this decision and the number will increase to at least 15 when younger siblings start at Tavistock College. I have written separately to Mr Anthony Mordaunt in the transport department at Devon County Council regarding this decision.

The purpose of this letter to you is to express my views regarding the underlying issue of designated boundary areas for Tavistock College.

The area around Lifton, Devon generally falls within Launceston College, Cornwall catchment area. I have three sons and [HW] went to Lifton Community Primary

Page 14 CY/10/43 Appendix A

School; his brothers are at that school now. The majority of children go on from Lifton to Launceston, a decision which is often based on transport: if they go to Launceston College they are entitled to a free school bus; if they choose Tavistock they, at best, get a concessionary seat which must be paid for. For many parents this is a very real issue and "parental choice" goes out the window. Mrs Holmes, as Lifton headteacher, has told us that she receives a lot of support from, and is part of, the Tavistock area of headteachers, but not much support from "over the border" where she seems to be considered an outsider. Furthermore, Mr Eves, principal of Tavistock College, visits the primary school every year in an effort to encourage parents to send their children to his College.

In essence: 1 We live in Devon and believe that our children should be able to attend a school in Devon. 2 We are entitled to vote for our county council, ie DCC: we have no say over what happens in Cornwall or over education policy in that county. 3 Launceston College is becoming increasingly over-subscribed; Tavistock is not so. 4 There seems to be a potential financial issue. I believe education funding per child is below the national average in Devon. What is DCC paying to Cornwall for funding and transport costs? 5 The catchment for Tavistock College has changed at some point over the last 8 to 19 years, it is not quite clear when: the details seem rather hazy. This area certainly used to fall within Tavistock catchment. 6 There seems to be a belief that Launceston College would appeal against any move by DCC to move the boundary. Given point 3 this may not be the case. Furthermore, an appeal does not make a change in the boundary wrong in law and neither should it stop DCC attempting to do this in the first place: that decision is for the judiciary to decide. 7 This seems to have been an issue bubbling away beneath the surface for some years now. It must be realised that this is not an issue affecting one or two children but an increasing number of families. I have no doubt that if the boundary were changed and/or the transport policy were changed there would be a significant rise in the number of families in this area choosing Tavistock College over Launceston College. 8 We have the support of Mr Eves and the Chair of Governors at Tavistock College, as well as our local councillors (Councillor Donald Horn and Councillor Dilwyn

Page 15 CY/10/43 Appendix A

Hughes).

I, like many others, believe now is the time for the boundary issue to be reconsidered, and I would welcome an opportunity to discuss this with you. I would be very happy to meet with you at your office in order to take matters forward.

Thank you for your reply, and I hope we will be informed of the outcome of admission arrangements insofar as they relate to designated areas and transport. Is it possible also to have a copy of your report to members?

You refer in your email to Launceston being the designated secondary school for the Lifton area since the 1960s. Although I have been living in this area for the last four years only, from my discussions with other local residents it seems that Tavistock was in fact the designated school for the area south of the River Lyd (including the area in which I now live) up until some point between 1991 and 1995 when it became Launceston, and that there may also have been a change somewhere around 2002. There clearly needs to be some clarification on this: it is not as clear cut as you would suggest. I should be grateful if you would please advise the best person to contact in order to clarify the history of the designated area.

3105 Responses to the Admissions Arrangements Consultation No action required Chudleigh Church of Single Offer Point England Primary School, 1. Single Offer Point is a

Page 16 CY/10/43 Appendix A

Chudleigh Early Years 1) Treehouse Preschool, Exmouth mandatory requirement of the Partnership I write as an experienced Early Years Professional and Qualified Teacher in charge School Admissions Code of The Treehouse Preschool of a voluntary run preschool. These views are agreed by the staff team of 7, some of Practice. Bow Playgroup and whom have their own young children. Toddler Group Duchy Preschool We believe the proposal for a SPE [single point of entry] will be detrimental to the Withycombe Raleigh development of young children for the following reasons: Playgroup Bradford Pre-school • Communication skills are at an extremely low state due to parents working Amanda Speed, Pre- and the television culture. Therefore the children require more time to gain school leader vital listening and language skills and this is best done where there is a good Bradninch Town Council adult/child ratio. Mary Tavy and Brentor • Motor skills are decreasing as a result of babies placed in seats; rather than Primary school having tummy time which provides opportunities to develop motor strength and become aware of texture. • Children are not being toilet trained as early due to the convenience of disposable nappies. We have had several children still in nappies in the term before they have started school. • Some children of 4 still have afternoon sleeps. • The wide range that 1 year (25% of life) covers for a 4 to 5 year old • Staggered entry allows for smaller groups to settle before a new intake and these older children can provide role models • Staff/pupil ratios – as a voluntary provider employing a QT [qualified teacher] we could choose to operate on a 1:13 basis, however, as we are not profit orientated we are able to work 1:5 ensuring high quality EYFS [Early Years Foundation Stage] provision with a dedicated outdoor playworker. • Our high adult to child ratio enables the keyworker system to be workable with 6 staff as keyworkers for the 42 on roll, whereas in a Reception class this would be only 2 keyworkers for 26 children • Reception classes are not always led by Early Years specialists. I am aware of a teacher with a bad back and no Reception experience for 25 years being allocated a Reception class • Parental choice of a delayed start is rarely taken up mostly due to “peer pressure” as parents worry about losing friendships. Also this option is not promoted by schools, nor is the half day option which is considered disruptive • As a preschool taking only 3 and 4 year olds we would lose half our eligible

Page 17 CY/10/43 Appendix A

children yet a child 3 in April would not be eligible to take up a funded place until the September. Therefore we could have an empty place for a year. Unfunded children are less likely to take up additional services such as extra sessions and this would severely affect our income • A drop in income would result in reducing staff numbers and thereby the quality of service provided • At present we find we are full in September and again in January resulting in spring and summer term birthdays having difficulty in securing places. If we did become full in the September there would be a lack of places for children becoming 3 in the following terms unless children moved away. A 3 term entry system would b more beneficial to these children. • All preschools are required to have QT [qualified teacher] input, to access training and to have qualified staff. With 82% of preschools rated “good” as a minimum it is shown that 4 year olds in preschools area already in high quality provision. • For many years the European/Scandanavian model of a later school start has been mooted as best practice so a SPE is contrary to this. • SPE is often spread out over the autumn term resulting in child care issues for working parents

It could be considered that some children are “better off” in full time care due to their home circumstances but further erosion of parental responsibility should not be encouraged.

We strongly urge that the Single Point of Entry is not implemented in Devon County Council Sandra Hurlock (B Ed EYP) On behalf of the Treehouse Preschool, Exmouth

2) Chudleigh Church of England Primary School and Chudleigh Preschool

We have grave concerns about the proposal that all children entering the reception class of a primary or infant school will be offered a place for September. These concerns centre around our belief that Early Years Education is vital to ensuring that every child has the best possible initial learning experiences which will build the foundations of their future learning. We fundamentally disagree with the proposal for a single point of entry for all children as the majority of the youngest children, who

Page 18 CY/10/43 Appendix A

would currently start in January, will not be ready for a school setting.

We believe that the additional term in a pre-school setting currently available to these children provides the best opportunity for them to learn. One year is a short time for child to move from not being away from the home at all to being at school every day. Pre-schools offer a much higher staffing ratio, 1:5 as opposed to 1:15 in our cases. The extra term in pre-school will enable these youngest children to have more intensive support than they would get in the school during the autumn term. Whilst parents will be able to consider the setting and starting arrangements for their children, many parents will not see there is a choice. We are concerned that there will be a lack of clarity in communicating the choices available to parents, with the majority feeling pressurised into starting their child at school at the earliest possible opportunity. Chudleigh Pre-School currently offers two full day sessions and although uptake is reasonable, places are not universally taken up proving the lack of desire for full time placements at this age. The school will have to cater for the diverse needs of a wide age-range when considering the starting arrangements, whether part-time or staggered starts. This will be hugely complicated given that some children will be nearly 5 whilst others are only just four. There will be a huge difference in their developmental and stamina levels, forcing them into full time education too soon will have a negative impact on those children who are not ready for school and will inevitably do more harm than good.

As leaders of our organisations we have concerns about the impact on our very successful partnership of the move towards us being in direct competition for children. There will be uncertainties for all about future numbers. We are already struggling with fluctuating birth rates, adding parental choices into the equation will only make it harder to predict. For the pre-school there are already fluctuations in funding because the children start after their 3rd birthday. With the demands currently faced for increased numbers of sessions during the term before they start school the places needed for the summer term will nearly double. This will be a challenge to provide, manage and staff and will inevitably have a negative impact on the quality of provision.

Finally, we are also concerned about the lead in time for our organisations to budget and plan for provision and staffing given that the decision is in the hands of individual parents. We are also concerned about the potential funding complications with parents switching between settings.

Page 19 CY/10/43 Appendix A

If a single point of entry becomes the norm this would almost certainly lead to the end of the outstanding provision at Chudleigh Pre-School Rising 5’s, which currently provides a half-way house between pre-school and school and is almost universally used by the 60 children who attend the foundation stage unit at Chudleigh School.

The Foundation Stage Partnership in Chudleigh already has a successful system operating which ensures a smooth transition between home, part-time and full-time education and is well supported by parents. The School data shows there is no difference between the performance of children who are born in the summer term which indicates that provision is good in all settings and that the current admissions procedures do not have a negative impact on achievement.

The previous consultation in November 2008 demonstrated the feelings of the educational communities and parents in Devon against making any changes to the admissions arrangements. We can see no educational, philosophical or economic rationale to implementing a single point of entry and would urge you to petition the relevant bodies against accepting this proposal.

David Barnett Amanda Gale Headteacher Chair Chudleigh Primary School Chudleigh Pre-School

3) Bow Playgroup and Toddler Group

As Chair of Bow Playgroup, I write with our pre-school's official response to the proposal to move to SPE in Devon commencing academic year 2011/2012. As a registered and EYEF funded EYFS setting in Devon, we have grave concerns about the proposal which focus upon two issues. Firstly, our considerable experience with children in the term after the term in which they have turned 4 leads us to feel they are not ready for school at this point. The structure and length of the school day, the learning expectations placed upon them, the huge drop in adult : child ratio and the social dynamic of suddenly becoming one of the very smallest people in the playground are all factors which we feel will have a very negative impact upon summer birthday children if they have to start school in September. Four months is a very long time in a 4 year olds life, and the current delay until January for younger children is, we believe, a profoundly important

Page 20 CY/10/43 Appendix A

feature of EYFS education in Devon. We recognise that parents will still have the option to delay their child starting if they wish, however if schools are no longer taking in a full entry of children at this point, any such child would become massively disadvantaged on a social level. Much of Reception year learning is in fact social development; at the moment January starters are part of a group and both their class and the school recognise them as a proper intake. One or two children alone would find it extremely difficult to settle into an already established peer group. Our second concern has regard to the impact that this policy will have on attendance numbers in small, rural pre-school settings such as ours. A village school and a village pre-school are, as you are well aware, key to maintaining a thriving, growing village where families will want to live. Under the current DPE system, we do not lose all of the children in the entire academic year to school all at the same time. This is crucial for us. Because children are funded from the term after their 3rd birthday, we have a steady trickle of children into our setting across the academic year with new starters every term. At the moment, we have 2 points in the academic year when these children then leave. This helps us to maintain relatively steady numbers throughout the year. If we were to lose a years' worth of children to school at one point (September) this would potentially have a catastrophic effect upon our numbers. Sessions could very easily become non-viable, and we would be forced into the unenviable situation of having to consider closing some sessions in order to boost numbers at others. This has already been shown in our village to have a knock-on effect of driving parents away from village childcare as they look for settings that offer longer hours to meet their needs. This of course would make it even harder for a small setting such as Bow Playgroup to stay open at all. We therefore urge DCC most strongly to reconsider the decision to move to SPE. We do not feel that any child is disadvantaged by the DPE system (further, that they do in fact benefit from it), and understand that the Rose Review has made a recommendation - but we believe this recommendation is not right or appropriate in Devon. Devon has a unique mix of cities and rural areas with many thriving villages. It is our opinion that this will be damaged by a move to SPE for the reasons we have given above.

Jude Swift, Chair of Bow Playgroup and Toddler Group

4) Withycombe Raleigh Playgroup

Page 21 CY/10/43 Appendix A

We are Withycombe Raleigh Playgroup in Exmouth & we would like some clarification regarding the single point of entry to schools - is this now certain to be in place from September 2011? Having looked on the website we can't tell!! It goes before cabinet ministers on 15th April - is this just a formality? We are being asked by parents and obviously it will have a huge impact on us.

Alison Cooper Withycombe Raleigh Playgroup

5) Bradford Pre-school

After reading some of the information provided regarding the single point of entry to schools I felt empowered to comment.

1. Whilst it clearly states that the parent has the right to defer until the term after the child turns 5 years, we all know that parents opinions are that school is a serious & preferred place of education as opposed to any early years provision experience. Despite the vastly inferior adult to child ratio that schools offer as opposed to early years provisions.

2. The impact that this will have on Devon's rural early years provisions will compound on the financial situations that they are already struggle with. This will take away a terms worth of funding and also a vital transition period that is most definitely needed for these later born children.

3. It makes a mockery of the Early Years Professional status that was introduced by the Government to raise the standards of early years provisions and give lead people equivalent of teacher status. So if we are aiming for this why would it still be best for even younger children to start to attend school when their needs could be more than adequately met in an early years provision. Knowing many of Devon rural schools also do not have dedicated reception / early years classes and common practice is to merge reception, year 1 and 2 together in the same class room under a single teacher, this practice leads to poorer early years experiences as it is not the sole concern for the teacher. Early Years provision becomes a tack on to key stage 1 which does not embrace the ethos of learning through play.

4. So maybe the solution would be to provide dedicated Nursery units within schools

Page 22 CY/10/43 Appendix A

and reduce the early years provision run by any other means. No, we can't do that because funding is being slashed by the government and will make them un-viable.

5. Finally the most absorb point of this suggestion from Sir Jim Rose is whilst most of us prospective EYPs are learning in Higher Education about the historic approaches of education and what works best in education, the general consensus is that children do better when they start formal education later at 6 or 7 years when the brain has matured sufficiently to comprehend the more structured routine of formal education. This is consistently being linked to countries with better end results of educational qualifications than ours so what does Britain do, in effect DROP the age of formal school intake. Well done Britain, really on the pulse of progression.

I could go on but frankly these are my main points of concern. I thank you for the opportunity to comment. Mandie Dalton-Ginn Bradford Pre-school Leader

6) Amanda Speed, Preschool Leader

As a rural pre-school, with a primary school about a mile away that is in great need of re-placement, we are concerned about the one term intake. It will have devastating effects on us and may mean that we will close. Parents are very unhappy as the primary school does not have facilities to take children at such a young age.

Amanda Speed (and staff)

7) Duchy Pre-school and Playgroup

Tank you for inviting us to contribute to your consultation on a single point of entry (SPE) regardless of birth date into primary schools in Devon. We area very well respected community playgroup and pre-school, rated Outstanding by Ofsted at our last inspection, often cited and visited as an example of best practice. We couldn’t achieve our standards without embracing change, so we assure you that our response is not simply anti-change. I write on behalf of the Trustees and staff of the setting.

Page 23 CY/10/43 Appendix A

This letter is based on a similar one sent to Andrew Brent in 2008 in response to the consultation on single point of entry at that time. We formed our opinions using input from our own staff, including our Managing Supervisor who is an Early Years Professional and after informal discussion with our local primary school’s Headteacher. The professionals’ input is dominant in our response.

Our response to the consultation is overall negative, based on our opinion of the impact on individual children’s education. We have been unable to identify any positives of the idea, even in your statement on the consultation. Your single argument appears to be that the Government have told you to adopt a single point of entry. However, since the same Early Years curriculum is followed by playgroups such as ourselves, nurseries and reception classes, and Playgroups should now have an Early Years Professional leading them (being the same quality of qualification as a Teacher) there should be no difference in the quality of education provided. In fact, the delivery of the curriculum is likely to be more closely aligned to younger children’s needs in a Playgroup than a school.

There are many sound arguments against single entry: 1. Some children are simply not ready to go to school at age 4. The professionals need flexibility for transitioning some children, especially SEN children, and single entry would unfairly highlight those individuals to the rest of their class. We wonder if this falls foul of anti-discrimination legislation. 2. Inducting 30 children at once would put pressure on the Reception class teacher and Learning Support Assistant(s), and on the Playgroup staff helping with the transition. 3. Research in Europe, widely applied across the continent, says that a much later start than 5 is better, so why make our start even younger? 4. Presumably schools will need an extra Learning Support Assistant or Early Years Professional from September, adversely affecting their budgets if, as you assert, no extra funding would be available. In fact, your assertion implies that they are currently overfunded for the September term while they have small Reception classes, suggesting that Playgroups ought to receive more funding in this period. 5. A single point of entry would discriminate unfairly against boys, who are generally ready for school later than girls. Again, we are concerned about anti-discrimination legislation.

Page 24 CY/10/43 Appendix A

6. Most schools are not prepared for handling children still in nappies, whereas Playgroups are. This can still be an issue in young 4 year olds, especially those with special needs. 7. If all children left Playgroup in September of the academic year in which they turn 5, some would spend less time overall in Playgroup, which would compress the time available for us to cover the whole curriculum, making it harder for us to cover the curriculum for the younger children and jeopardising our Ofsted inspection outcomes. We think this in turn would also impact children’s’ progress in the Foundation Stage curriculum in Reception classes. 8. Playgroups are already required to differentiate for gifted and talented children so the oldest and most able are not currently disadvantaged by being in Playgroup. 9. The least important aspect for us , because we are led by the educational benefits for the children, is that we would lose at least 10% of our annual funding, which would be a significant blow even for us, a relatively large Playgroup with a sensible budget. We would therefore be interested to hear your proposals for additional funding to protect us if a single point of entry is enacted.

We are aware of Government-funded research on the impact at age 14 of single versus dual entry. Many professionals in secondary school say they can anecdotally see a difference even at that age: why does the County and Government want to ignore advice from professionals?

We understand that you are considering the single point of entry in response to demand from parents. Based on our interaction with parents we suspect that this demand is a matter of convenience to get access to free, full time 5 days a week childcare rather than for any educational benefit. We hope you trust trained professionals’ opinions on the educational impact more than parents. Perhaps it would be more beneficial to properly fund true wraparound childcare to satisfy working parents’ needs. We appreciate that parents will have “well-informed discussion” but are concerned that in reality the parents that have least interest in their children will see the opportunity of longer hours free childcare without caring about the impact on their children. Those are the children who most benefit from professional intervention in their early years. Therefore if SPE goes ahead, to protect the education of those children this “discussion” must be initiated by the

Page 25 CY/10/43 Appendix A

professionals, not the parents. To do so with every family will impose quite a burden on Playgroup, Nursery and Primary School staff which you will presumably allocate additional funding towards.

Overall we see this as an opportunity for Devon County Council to buck the national trend and do what is right for the education of our children. We urge you to resist a single point of entry.

Thomas Coles, Chair

8) Bradninch Town Council

Bradninch Town Council has contacted our two local education centres, Duchy Pre- School and Playgroup and Duchy School for their views of the proposed changes and we fully concur with the views of the Committee for the Duchy Pre-School and Playgroup.

LJ Knowles, Clerk

9) Mary Tavy and Brentor Primary School

I am responding to the consultation on admission arrangements re: points of entry to infant schools.

As Chair of governors to Mary Tavy and Brentor Community Primary School, I can see no benefit to out school or our children in this proposal.

Our class 1 consists of reception, Years 1 and 2. The proposed single point of entry will mean we effectively have one class covering the ages from 4 to 8, which will make maintaining educational focus on the children in the class harder.

With a class size of 30, and an entry of 10, it will be more disruptive to the year 1 and 2 children to have a single point of entry, for the initial month. As such, the new children will not settle as well, as opposed to two points of entry where we are able to better deal with the fewer number of new pupil's needs, and integrated them into school life.

Page 26 CY/10/43 Appendix A

We do not consider that a single point of entry to small schools with multi-year classes is beneficial in any educational or pastoral care way. We hope that you consider the points fully in your deliberations, and await the results of this consultation.

2053 School requested the PAN increase to 10 or 11 to meet demand and to better reflect The PAN at Musbury be determined Musbury Primary School physical capacity. at 10:

S & LH Responses to the Admissions Arrangements Consultation 1. To maximise parental Mrs HH Musbury Primary School Planned Admission Number preference SC & B 2. The net capacity has been P & AH 1) S & LH, local residents updated and now reflects a C & JW maximum number of D & VW I feel I have had to write to you in regards to the PAN at Musbury Primary, I currently workspaces of 82 S & LS have two Children in the Key Stage 2, although it is a small school I strongly feel 3. A PAN of 10 could K & GH with greater numbers this would give my children and the school in general a greater accommodate 70 children NS & SE chance to flourish and give my children better opportunities. comfortably RJ 4. Forecast demand is low Dr Janet Albano, Chair of The school is very well thought of in the local and further community and all that visit 5. The school expects Governors the school. When people visit they all comment on the caring nature of the staff and applications to be higher than the positive atmosphere that is given off from all the pupils. Since Mr Salmon and his for current KS1 classes team joined the staff at Musbury my children have grown in stature with their leadership qualities and this always brings the best out of them and now my children are learning Violin and Piano which is being offered from the school.

With the strong leadership I see that my children are being continually reviewed to achieve the highest grades and this being that Musbury Primary is in the top sector with grades in the county it seems a shame that the school has to turn so many prospective children away.

The school also has a thriving PTFA and Governing body with an excellent level of interaction between pupils and adults which again produces a strong community spirit. I have two children in the school and both are strong in different areas and my daughter is within the top 10% in her year in English and Maths.

Living in the Village of Musbury and having children at the school I am continually asked if the school has places and it seems I’m told the school has a low PAN which

Page 27 CY/10/43 Appendix A

I feel doesn’t reflect the good results the school achieves nor makes good financial sense as if the school has full PAN numbers but has teaching space in there hall and other classrooms why do you make the school turn children away or have to go to appeal, this doesn’t promote parental choice and I know from other parents that have to take two children to different schools.

Before making the choice of Musbury School My wife and I visited other local schools and noticed some of these schools had class sizes of over 15 so why can’t Musbury or does different rules apply to some schools? Although we noticed that the schools with larger numbers had more facilities which I assume comes from the greater number and the financial rewards this brings. One of the main reasons for my two children going to Musbury was that the results are brilliant and well documented, they have a large hard standing play area, huge glassed playing field and at the time a proposed indoor sports hall that is now built and my children enjoy curriculum activities as well as music and sports events on a weekly basis.

Last year the school due to its popularity grow to over 70 pupils and the high level of results were still achieves and as my children were within this environment they were looking at the older children as peers and took positives from this although still were being [taught] in 3 focused groups. I can only take the low PAN figure as a government decision to cut costs and push children into being taught in two different school just to save a few pounds although I know personally all the teaching staff at the school and they would always grip blue sky thinking and embrace any areas which they can work with other primary or secondary schools in partnership to enhance the schooling experience for my children.

I am one of many families in the school with two or more children and to drive a divide within a family unit seems to go against the grain in my view so I would strongly ask you and the committee to consider raising the PAN number at Musbury Primary to either 10 or 11 as the school can manage this figure, the pupils would thrive with the increased numbers and the net result would be the financial reword would benefit the children and the local community. I also have heard from other parents that the local schools are talking about federation which I know nothing about but if this is the sharing provisions this can only be a plus for all parties.

Page 28 CY/10/43 Appendix A

2) Mrs HH, parent

I understand that following the recent annual admission arrangements consultation the Local Authority wish to reduce the PAN at Musbury Primary School from 9 to 7. As a parent of a child currently attending the school and one who has recently moved on to secondary school, I would ask that further consideration be given to this matter based on the following information:-

I live in Uplyme, Dorset and my children happily attended the local school for a year following our relocation to the area in 2005. However, during their second year of attendance at this school, both my children became unhappy and unsettled due to extremely inadequate teaching and unprofessional conduct by teaching staff. Following this experience both my children needed their confidence rebuilding and their learning supported. I chose to send them to Musbury as we knew a family who were already there and were very happy with the school. They settled very quickly at Musbury thanks to the excellent teaching staff who have created a caring family atmosphere under the strong leadership of Mr Salmon who is passionate about his school. When asked to complete the parental questionnaire during the School’s recent Ofsted inspection I summed up the ethos of Musbury by stating that I felt it is a “Small School with a Big Heart”.

My circumstances are not uncommon as I have discovered by talking to other parents at the school and in the wider community and I feel very strongly that other children should be able attend Musbury Primary School, particularly if they find themselves in the same situation as I did.

My son completed two years at Musbury School and thanks to the dedicated staff and their excellent teaching, is now thriving at secondary school and following a recent parents evening, I was informed that he is being put on the “Gifted and Talented” register in maths. Mr Salmon’s excellent teaching of this subject being instrumental in this outcome.

Musbury Primary School has excellent facilities to offer many pupils and should therefore be allowed to thrive so that ALL children can benefit from such a wonderful enriching experience.

Page 29 CY/10/43 Appendix A

3) SC & B, local residents

It has been brought to my attention by our Headmaster at Musbury Primary School, Mr Salmon that the PAN levels have been reduced from 9 to 7. I believe that this is a mistake and that the levels should be restored to at least 9 if not raised to a higher level 11. My family would have suffered greatly if the levels had been as low as you are now proposing, my 2 children had to move quite suddenly following severe problems at another local school and we were recommended to put them in Musbury. I know that the classes they applied to then were at the top of their capacity when the level was 9, so if it had been 7, we would have had no chance. Fortunately Musbury was able to take them and they have thrived in the community atmosphere. Also they have thrived academically, we were really unaware how bad the previous school had been until they moved to Musbury, but the concentrated teaching only possible at this sort of school has brought both up to Musbury's high standard. My son is now thriving at secondary school, and is in top sets for Maths and English, thanks in a good part to the grounding that Musbury gave him. I think that looking at local demographics alone can give you a very poor idea of the pupil potential of Musbury. Many parents including ourselves are incomers to Devon. We are not next to any school and in fact have 4-5 equidistant, we need the choice. If we had had to stick with our first school due to lack of choice, our children would have suffered socially and academically. We have a strong, forward thinking head in Mr Salmon. I would like you to trust his judgement and let him have the PAN of 11 that he feels Musbury needs. We have the room, the staff, the pupils, the parental support and the commitment to excellence, so give us the PAN we need.

4) P & A H, local residents

We are emailing regarding Musbury Primary School, and to let you know that we are greatly in favour of the PAN being restored to 11 . We have a child in year 5 now, and also a child who has gone on to secondary school after being a pupil at Musbury school. Our elder daughter was at the school when there were 20 pupils in her final year (year 6). She only benefited from there being a greater number of pupils, both educationally, and socially. She has gone on to be in the top sets for both literacy

Page 30 CY/10/43 Appendix A

and maths, which we firmly believe came about with the consistently high standard of teaching at Musbury in all subjects. Our younger daughter who is in year 5, has seen the school with both fewer pupils and the greater number, and we believe that being able to have extra teachers giving smaller groups of pupils extra attention with more pupils at the school was more beneficial for her.

Musbury is now a thriving and effective school with a very caring environment provided, from all staff. The school has seen increasingly good results in all subjects (top 20%), with maths particularly being in the top 5th percentile.

The school is "in demand", and often having to turn pupils away, unable to offer them a place. Musbury has a wide ranging curriculum, and wonderful large outdoor spaces, as well as a fantastic new hall used for both teaching purposes and play activities. It is well able to cater for larger pupil numbers, unlike other, cramped, local schools.

The headmaster, and his staff are enthusiastic about the concept of partnership and federation with nearby local schools, and we believe plans for this in the near future are well underway.

Please give much consideration to our requests for a larger PAN, as our children now and in future generations really will benefit from this fondly regarded, beautiful, village school. We would have loved to have had such facilities when we were children!

5) C & JW, parents

Our daughter, [H], is in year 4 at Musbury Primary School.

[H] began attending the school in January 2009 following a years at the Maria Montessori School in Exeter, which was in turn preceded by a little over two years at Colyton Primary School. We removed her from Colyton Primary School following difficulties she was experiencing there and we gained a place at Musbury Primary School on appeal as she was initially refused a place.

Page 31 CY/10/43 Appendix A

[H] loves her school and she is very happy there. She is thriving in the special atmosphere within the school and is enjoying the opportunities that it gives to her.

We have seen a copy of Dr Janet Albano’s letter to you dated 10 February 2010, a copy of which we enclose for easy reference, and we wholeheartedly concur with the points that she raises and, in particular and for the reasons that she gives, support her request that the PAN for Musbury Primary School be increased to 10 and that serious consideration be given to increasing it to 11.

6) Mr & Mrs DB, parents

I understand from Mr Salmon, Headteacher of Musbury Primary School, that it is the intention of the Local Authority to restrict the PAN number at the school to 7. Mr Salmon would like the number currently to be 10 or 11 and I am writing to support this view, as I believe that my children would not have had the opportunity to join Musbury if the PAN number had been set at 7. I had to move my children from their catchment school in Uplyme (I live at [RD]) due to poor teaching and leadership at the school and I chose to send them to Musbury following a recommendation from another family who had moved their children from Uplyme School and were very happy with their decision. My boys have settled very well and are thriving at Musbury due to the quality of teaching, the friendly staff and the strong leadership of Mr Salmon. I therefore believe that parental choice is very important by having access to other schools, particularly if your local school doesn’t fulfil your children’s needs. Musbury School should be accessible to all children and allowed to grow if the demand is there for places.

7) D & V W, parents

I am writing in reference to the annual admission arrangements consultation regarding the Planned Admission Level at Musbury Primary School.

Our son [T] first attended the school back in September 2007 in the reception year. Unfortunately due to work commitments we moved away from Musbury in February 2008, returning in October 2008. At that time we moved back to Colyton and fortunately our son was able to return to Musbury Primary School to resume his education there. Since then he has thrived as a result of the consistently high standard of teaching combined with the strong community atmosphere. We feel that

Page 32 CY/10/43 Appendix A

we are fortunate that our son has been able to attend Musbury Primary School and feel that other children should have the opportunity to benefit from the quality of education provided.

The current PAN is artificially low compared to those of neighbouring schools. This does not allow the school to reach it’s full potential as it has in the past proved that the school can cope with a higher pupil intake. We feel that the PAN should be restored to the previous level of 11. This would also provide some financial benefit and help Musbury Primary School to continue to thrive.

8) S & LS, parents

I am writing to you in regards to the PAN at Musbury Primary, I currently have two daughters at the school one in Key Stage 1 and one in Key Stage 2, I find that as a parent the school seems to be refusing children due to its PAN numbers which I feel reflects on my kids not getting some opportunities due to funding.

Mr Salmon is a great Head teacher and I have found my two girls have learnt allot in the few years they have been at the school and the grades generally I believe are in the top in the county so this seems a shame that the school has to turn so many prospective children away.

The school has good support from the Governing body with an excellent level of interaction between the children and the adults which again produces a strong community bonds.

Living in the village of Axmouth close to Musbury it was my first choice for my girls to go to the school and I have also been luck I am told the school had room which I find very disappointing which again puts my kids at a financial disadvantage due to the PAN numbers. My youngest is in a very small class and my oldest daughter is in a year of only 7 due to your PAN figures and this doesn’t make sense as lots of my fiends are having to send their kids to Seaton or Axminster as a second option due to the stated PAN number.

If the school has full PAN numbers but has teaching space in there hall and other classrooms why do you make the school turn children away or have to go to appeal, this doesn’t make sense.

Page 33 CY/10/43 Appendix A

The only reasons for my two children are going to Musbury was that the results are in the top 10% in the county and they have great facilities like a huge glassed playing field and a good computer room and the school puts on many after school activities like Big Foot drama.

In 2009 the school due to its popularity grow to over 70 pupils and the high level of results were still achieves and as my children were within this environment they were looking at the older children as peers and took positives from this although still were being [taught] in 3 focused groups.

I don’t understand if the desire is there why you can’t review the PAN figures as 10 of the older children leave this year but a fewer number are joining so the school will only get small yet again compromising my girls more financially I can only see this as a cost cutting exercise by local government!

I am one of many families in the school with two or more children and I would ask you to take a sensible view on this matter and do the logical thing for the school and the greater community.

8) K & GH, parents

May we add our views on the Planned Admission Level at Musbury Primary School.

Our three children have been fortunate to attend this village school. Two have gone on to Colyton Grammar School whilst the third is still there and hoping to pass his 11+ next year.

Over the twelve years we have been taking our children to Musbury Primary School we have seen the school and pupils flourish. This is in no small part to the commitment of the staff and governors.

We know by experience that the demand for places at Musbury Primary School far outstrips availability. This impacts on the level of parental choice and also restricts financial benefits the school could enjoy.

The addition of the new school hall allows more teaching space and room for other

Page 34 CY/10/43 Appendix A

activities and overall the school is a thriving part of Musbury village life.

It would be beneficial if pupil levels could be restored to previous years. This would encourage healthy competition between pupils and give a larger number of peers in each year group.

In conclusion we are in favour of restoring the PAN to 11.

9) NS & SE, parents

We are writing to express our concern regarding the proposed reduction in the PAN from 9 to 7 for the above. Having recently moved to Musbury from Derbyshire, [L] was able to join a wonderful school community and has quickly made friends. The school is well equipped and the hall especially is a real asset for the whole village.

We feel strongly that the school’s PAN should be restored to 11 so that the school can continue to provide high quality primary education to the children of the local community rather than have its resources restricted by a lower PAN with inevitably an associated decline in resources.

We would request that your consultation notes our concern that restricting the PAN is the way proposed will threaten the viability of this excellent school.

10) RJ, parent

I am writing to you with regard to the Planned Admission Level at Musbury Primary School. It has been drawn to my attention that the PAN has been reduced to seven per year group, and I feel that there are many reasons which justify restoring this to 11.

I have two boys at the school; [J] in year 3, and [G] in year 1. Both are progressing very well and enjoy their time at school greatly. The head teacher Mr Salmon is a strong and enthusiastic leader and has put considerable effort into turning what was once a "school in trouble" into an outstanding learning environment, where expectations and results are high, and the atmosphere is warm and caring. The children enjoy the benefits of the recently undated indoor teaching areas, a large play ground and environment area, a large school sports field and the new

Page 35 CY/10/43 Appendix A

contemporary school hall with sedum roof.

Not surprisingly Musbury is a very popular school and demand for places is greater than the present PAN allows. I understand that the PAN is artificially low compared to other schools in the area, and the school has been unable to follows its own admissions policy where siblings should be admitted to the school together.

Numbers were higher when my first son started at the school and yet results were very high; even with a year 6 group of 20. Indeed the school was able to benefit from this larger pupil number with the additional finances helping to fund the new, greatly needed school hall. Much of the funding from this building was also raised through the local community who are extremely supportive towards the school, and I feel that it would be an injustice to the community if their efforts in securing this building were undermined by the under use of this building.

By having a slightly higher number in each year group pupils would benefit from a broader mix of peers, and the extra funding could mean the addition of another teacher, enabling three distinct, smaller learning groups.

The head teacher, staff and governors are enthusiastic about the idea of forming partnerships and the benefits this might lead to, and have started to form links with other nearby schools.

As a parent, governor and member of the Musbury community, I feel strongly that this thriving and well respected school would belated from a raised PAN to ensure its continued success.

11) Dr Janet Albano, Chair of Governors

Musbury Primary School is a thriving school and all pupils are offered a broad and rich curriculum, in a caring and productive environment and as a result achieve consistently high standards. All shareholders recognise and support the considerable changes and developments which the school has undergone over recent years and parents frequently comment favourably in both school questionnaires and at meetings of parents, teaching staff and governors. This I have witnessed on my frequent visits to the school, first as a Community Governor and

Page 36 CY/10/43 Appendix A

latterly as Chair.

However, the Governing Body has serious concerns regarding the proposed reduction in PAN from 9 to 7 - ref letter of 14th December 2009, as this would not allow the school to provide our quality of education for the number of pupils who aspire and deserve to come to Musbury. There is a clear discrepancy between the projected roll and the interest in places at Musbury as demonstrated by frequent requests for school places. Furthermore, a reduction to such a low PAN places further constraints on parental choice.

An email sent to the school by the admissions team in October 2008 confirms a PAN of 9 for Musbury and it is this figure that was used when producing our School Development Plan.

Of immediate concern is the data prepared for the Area Review which reproduces this inconsistency and allocates Musbury a PAN of 7. Our school has extensive grounds, including a sports field and a generous allocation of classroom space. In addition, a new school hall, completed in 2008 and equipped with an interactive white board, provides additional space that is used for both classroom-based learning and indoor physical activities.

In view of the additional flexible space afforded by our new hall, on behalf of the Governing Body, I request that our PAN is increased to 10 and indeed a rise to 11 given serious consideration by your consultation unit.

2010 School queried the PAN to be set, concerned that it may be 20 rather than 25 No action required Colyton Primary School 1. The PAN was determined at 25 in 2009 and 2010; proposed at 25 for 2011

4057 School queried the PAN to be set; 120 being a more helpful level for class The PAN for South Molton CC be South Molton Community organisation. The net capacity assessment has been updated determined at 120: College 1. this is a more appropriate level for class organisation 2. follows reassessment of net

Page 37 CY/10/43 Appendix A

capacity 3. sufficient for forecasted demand of 91

2254 School queried the PAN being too low at 17; 20 felt to be more appropriate. No action required Woolsery Primary School 1. The PAN was determined at 20 in 2009 and 2010; proposed at 20 for 2011 2. School advised of the PAN

2602 School requested an increase to 10. They feel the demand for places is growing and The PAN for Bridestowe be Bridestowe Primary School there are houses locally due for completion in summer 2010 which will generate determined at 10: further demand. They feel there is capacity at the school. 1. The Indicated Admission Number for the school 8 but the maximum number of workspaces is 90 2. A PAN of 10 would call for 70 places as the PAN moved through the school 3. Current PAN is at the lower end of the capacity range 4. although forecast demand is 5, should the imminent new housing generate increased demand this should be met

2615 School questioned the PAN proposed to continue at 25. Felt that their The PAN for North Tawton be North Tawton Primary accommodation was insufficient to manage this level of admissions. determined at 25 as proposed: School 1. The Indicated Admission Number for the school is now 21 2. although it is recognised that the school is without spare capacity, it was agreed with

Page 38 CY/10/43 Appendix A

the school that the level of known in-area demand at a forecast of 28 indicates flexibility is required 3. the school has managed numbers on roll at and above 25 4. suggested that the school discuss capacity and accommodation with the Capital Strategy Team

2402 School requested increase in PAN from 20 to 22 to meet the IAN and demand for The PAN for Bishopsteignton be Bishopsteignton School places. determined at 22:

1. The Indicated Admission Number for the school is now 20 2. he maximum number of workspaces is 150; the current PAN would call for 140 places 3. an increase to 22 would call for 154 places 4. the number of in area children is 19; forecast demand is 16 5. current demand and capacity support a PAN of 20 6. school has been operating to an admission limit of 22 over a number of years 7. school feels that demand is likely to exceed forecast, as it has done for 2010 8. the school’s class organisation does not contravene Key Stage 1 class size legislation, limiting a class to 30 children

Page 39 CY/10/43 Appendix A

with one qualified teacher

3779 School requested to reduce the PAN from 40 to 30 The PAN for Haytor View be Haytor View Primary determined at 40 as proposed: School 1. The Indicated Admission Number for the school is 36, greater than the requested PAN.

2. The number of known in area children for Haytor View is 59. The forecast demand is significantly lower but places at Haytor View would be required above 30 if preference shifted in its favour or if insufficient places were available to parents at neighbouring schools.

3. The local authority would be required to show at public notice compelling reasons that a PAN lower than the IAN was necessary.

4005 [Devon Association of Headteachers queried the retention of a 3% over-PAN To determine the definition of 3% Kings School threshold during the consultation relating to children at risk of not accessing over-PAN as proposed: appropriate education.. Agreement was reached that DASH was satisfied with the LA position and would not object to its retention. The Headteacher at Kings School 1. The consulted, determined subsequently proposed that the definition of 3% be amended: it should be rounded and published policy up to to the nearest child rather than rounded UP to the nearest child. The concern was 2009 is that the 3% over-PAN that rounding up to the nearest child constituted admission of more than 3% over- threshold will be rounded up to PAN.] the nearest child. 2. Schools Access Services see This cannot be a policy as it is based on a “gentleman’s agreement with DASH” – the merit in consistency and

Page 40 CY/10/43 Appendix A

However, it can certainly be a practice – not the same thing at all. At DASH the continuing with the status quo agreement was that we would take up to 3% over PAN. This has been the subject of in this regard. 3% rounded up intense debate over recent months and we have only just recently reached a allows for an addition child per compromise. I feel that we have met every ask from the LA in terms of admissions. form group of 30 children: The As Chair of CDASH and Vice Chair of DASH I in fact recommended that we retain proposal by DASH in 2004 the 3% agreement. I feel very much that I have done so under false pretences and was for 3%, providing for an that my school and the whole DASH agreement is being treated extreme badly. I extra child for each form of have checked with the DCSF in all the departments I can think of and every one entry (of 30 children) and that complies with standard mathematic conventions. For some reason Devon is what this part of the policy admissions has chosen to create its own conventions – I can but think it is in an aims to meet. Rounding up is attempt to increase even further the numbers of students some school are being the option which has, for expected to take. I feel that Admissions are at best acting disingenuously and at example, provided for up to 6 worst are simply taking liberties and riding rough shod over an agreement that was children across 6 forms of made in good faith. entry and 8 across 8 forms of Please can you send me the published policy and more precisely where it shows entry rather than up to 5 that this forms part of the DASH agreement that states that any school is expected children across 6 forms of to take over 3% over PAN without the FAP applications. entry and 7 children across 8 I cannot even begin to express how angry and completely let down by LA forms of entry. admissions I feel in this matter. 3. There are clearly strong opinions expressed on this Faith Jarrett, Headteacher matter. Local Admissions Forum’s view was that the [two responses by Andrew Brent: definition should retain the 1) definition of 3% over-PAN as Thank you for raising this and giving me the opportunity to reply. being rounded up to the As we discussed at CDASH, to change the terms of the 3% over-PAN nearest whole child. threshold, it was very helpful for you to email with the proposal that 3% be defined as per DCSF calculations. That has gone forward and could be determined by April. I take your point that this would be consistent with the DCSF.

The Out of Normal Rounds policy was most recently determined for 2009-10 and incorporates the 3% over-PAN threshold. This is what officers are obliged to operate and this has the rounding up definition. As it is the determined policy of the local authority, they must operate it and would be open to an objection to the Office of the School Adjudicator or other complaint from a parent if they sought to refuse a

Page 41 CY/10/43 Appendix A

child who would have been offered using the rounding up definition. Similarly, an Appeal Panel would examine whether the determined policies and admission arrangements had been implemented or not. It isn't a question of trying to squeeze another child in over and above what was agreed but rather applying the agreement itself. The proposal by DASH was for 3%, providing for an extra child for each form of entry (of 30 children) and that is what this part of the policy aims to meet. Otherwise, with a PAN of 180 and 5.4 as 3%, there would be up to 5 children over-PAN across 6 forms of entry; 7 children across 8 forms of entry with a PAN of 270. Rounding up appears to have been the option which provided for up to 6 children across 6 forms of entry and 8 across 8 forms of entry. In these terms, it may make more sense to you and be acceptable? The 2009 determined arrangements are at http://www.devon.gov.uk/adeterm08-secinyearpolicy.pdf with the definition being at footnote 6 on page 3. I'm sorry that this is a source of irritation to you and hope that it will be resolved to your satisfaction. Incidentally, I understand that an early instance of the protection afforded by the 3% threshold is the imminent outcome letter re [KL] . As you are at 3% in her Year Group, she will be offered a place at the nearest non-designated school on her return from Cornwall.

2) I wanted to ask if you had considered the points I raised in the email sent on 4 February, particularly in relation to the rounding of 3%. As I said, I take your points about DCSF rounding practice but I felt it was important to outline the context for the decision to set 3% in Devon: The proposal by DASH was for 3%, providing for an extra child for each form of entry (of 30 children) and that is what this part of the policy aims to meet. Otherwise, with a PAN of 180 and 5.4 as 3%, there would be up to 5 children over-PAN across 6 forms of entry; 7 children across 8 forms of entry with a PAN of 270. Rounding up appears to have been the option which provided for up to 6 children across 6 forms of entry and 8 across 8 forms of entry. In these terms, it may make more sense to you and be acceptable?]

Page 42 CY/10/43 Appendix A

I am afraid not. I see what you were trying to do but for us in schools that gives us absolutely no flexibility to move children for any reason. The agreement was not to take an extra student for every multiple of 30 it was 3%. If admissions wanted us to agree to take one extra child for every 30 then that should have been what we discussed and came to a consensus about. I still maintain absolutely that the DASH agreement was for up to 3% and that for a school with a PAN of 120 that is 4 students, 150 is 5 students, 180 = 5 students, 210 = 6 students 240 = 7 students and so on.

If Admissions wishes to change the agreement with DASH then that should come to DASH.

2400 School requests a lower PAN at 12 following redesignation of accommodation which The PAN for Abbotskerswell be Abbotskerswell Primary has reduced the net capacity by 3. School feels a PAN of 12 would be in line with lowered to 12: School expected need. 1. In line with school request 2. Net capacity has been reduced by 30 3. Forecast demand is 13

2020 Headteacher’s view is that “Whilst the single point of admission into reception will be Note the views of the headteacher. Appledore Primary School of benefit, especially to summer born children, this may have an impact on maintaining full numbers in the nursery and hence the available budget for the nursery”

2090 I have looked at the proposed designated area for The Topsham School. I think that Designated area for The Topsham The Topsham School to include Westcott Way within The Topsham School catchment is sensible, it makes School be determined as proposed: it fair for those who live in that area of Topsham. I have a query regarding the three properties at the end of Newcourt Road, numbers 135, 137 and 139. The only 1. Countess Wear Primary access to these properties is through Topsham and virtually past The Topsham School is within walking School. If I were to buy one of those properties I would assume that the school I distance of the three would send my children would be the one at the end of the road, not have to drive properties mentioned at the past a school to get to Countess Wear the designated school for those houses. end of Newcourt Road 2. They lie beyond the motorway, a natural boundary between primary school designated areas. That they currently lie

Page 43 CY/10/43 Appendix A

within the designated area for Topsham appears to be an anomaly resulting from the designated areas existing before the motorway was built. 3. There are plans to develop the surrounding open land and golf course for housing. In that event, that there were three houses in a different area to the surrounding properties would not be logical. 4. Topsham School has been regularly oversubscribed and the retention of these properties would reduce the likelihood of admission for in- area children.

3101 School requested an increase in PAN to 12 for sustainability and quality of provision. The PAN for Berry Pomeroy be Berry Pomeroy Primary determined at 12: School 1. To maximise parental preference 2. IAN 8, maximum work spaces 90 minimum 52; PAN 10; Number on roll 70 3. To make 3 classes sustainable long term. School has used 3 classes in the mornings and 2 in the afternoon for some time. That has meant a very large class of 40 for half of the week. The new headteacher wishes to change that pattern. 4. Demand is healthy for the school and numbers in the

Page 44 CY/10/43 Appendix A

area are high. A PAN of 12 may improve the position locally without being at the detriment of neighbouring schools. 5. The school accommodation has been improved. 6. The school is aware of the need to manage a transition period where additional numbers admitted at Reception will not bring sufficient additional funding to fund an additional teacher. 7. A PAN of 12 as it progresses through the school would require 84 places if filled. This is within the maximum number of workplaces.

2074 Responses to the Admissions Arrangements Consultation The PAN for Broadclyst be Whimple Primary School Broadclyst Primary School Planned Admission Number determined at 60 as proposed:

3024 1) Silverton Primary School 1. The IAN is 54 and the PAN Stoke Canon Primary should reflect the available School As per your letter of 16 December 2009, I would like to comment on behalf of the accommodation governing body of Silverton Primary School to the consultation on all Admission 2. the maximum number of 3022 Arrangements 2011-12. workspaces is 420 and the Silverton Primary school required places with a PAN of Our governing body is in agreement with the Planned Admission Number proposal 60 through the school would Parent for our school of 20. We feel that this is a fair reflection of the future average cohort be 420 Mrs LS size of our catchment area and community needs. 3. the school has been operating with admission levels in the We have also looked closely at the data provided within the Local Learning 40s and 50s Community Profile data set produced and circulated to governing bodies in the 4. there is demand from parents summer term 2009. for this level of admissions 5. this PAN would enable

Page 45 CY/10/43 Appendix A

It would seem from the figures available that the proposal is that all other schools sensible KS1 class size within our learning community retain their current PAN, with the exception of organisation Broadclyst Primary where there is a proposed increase from 45 to 60. this is a 6. The Transport plan for the second increase within 2 years. We would question the justification of both of these school is to be reviewed with increases given the indicated figure for future average cohorts is 26. There do not regard to traffic congestion seem to be indicators as to why there should be such a significant increase; in fact, and sustainable travel to the increase could have a draining effect on other schools in the area who are school already potentially compromised by falling roll numbers.

From the statistics available (2008 it can be seen that 63% of the pupils currently attending Broadclyst are from outside the catchment area. It would seem that the school actually receives pupils from 35 other catchment areas) The transportation of the pupils from all these other areas is not a good reflection on a County Council that prides itself on its “green” credentials and the traffic and congestion issues that will probably increase by the proposed increase in PAN.

The pupil numbers at Broadclyst Primary have been ‘allowed’ to increase steadily over recent years. The governing body of Silverton School try to work closely with the county and follow guidelines and protocol that is set for the benefit of all. This does not seem to have been the case at Broadclyst Primary who, from the data available to us, are approximately 100pupils over their PAN of 45. we would ask that our comments are taken into consideration and that the county consider the wider needs of the community when making any future decisions.

Karen Devaraj, Governing Body

2) Stoke Canon Primary School

Mr Hicks [headteacher at Broadclyst] has expressed his opinion that Poltimore is shared between Broadclyst and Stoke Canon schools to both David and myself on separate occasions. He offers a free minibus service to pupils from Poltimore to his school and has said that if he felt the need, he would be happy to pick up pupils from Stoke Canon. We do not know of any evidence in the forms which you state [website, letters from the school] but the fact that he is prepared to encroach on our catchment (and other schools catchments) with his minibus is enough evidence of his belief.

Page 46 CY/10/43 Appendix A

I have viewed the designated area map for our catchment and am satisfied that it shows the correct catchment. However, I would like to highlight our continuing issue with Broadclyst Primary School, where the headteacher claims that Poltimore is a 'shared catchment'- from the evidence of the map clearly it is not. I would be grateful if this could be reinforced to any parents of potential pupils in Poltimore and that they are eligible for free school transport to Stoke Canon Primary School.

Richard Somerwill, Headtacher

I wholeheartedly support Richard’s request as this issue has impacted on us for far too long, and some injection of clarity would therefore be very greatly appreciated. We have no wish to be in any dispute with Broadclyst Primary School, and it is only right therefore that the Local Authority, in its role of setting admission arrangements, takes appropriate action to resolve this issue as soon as possible.

David Santillo, Chair of Governors

3) local resident – Mrs LS

I would like to object to Broadclyst "Community" Primary School having another 15 pupils in its latest PAN. This figure is in stark contrast to all the other schools listed.

BCPS is far too big anyway. Broadclyst does not have the infrastructure to cope with a "super size" primary school.

Parents park dangerously anywhere within a 100 metre radius of the school, as clearly their legs don't work and neither do their brains. The village cannot sustain yet more cars driving through it and parking.

If Devon is meant to be going green then that means local kids going to local schools and preferably walking not being driven by parents or bused in by over ambitious "global thinking" headteachers.

4) Whimple Primary School

We, the Governors of Whimple School, write to say that we object, in the strongest possible terms, to the planned admission number (60) proposal for Broadclyst

Page 47 CY/10/43 Appendix A

Primary School as indicated in the consultation (Schools 2011/12 Planned Admission Numbers ).

Clyst Vale Data Sets ( Summer 2009)

Data suggests that currently there is some correlation between the number of places needed and the number of places available within the Clyst Vale Learning Community. At present Broadclyst is over subscribed whilst there is spare capacity at other schools within the community.

As you are no doubt aware many small schools are having difficulty in balancing their budgets, due partly to being under PAN. At Whimple this, along with the school role being two pupils short of the phantom funding for KS1, is putting the school’s budget under significant pressure. Despite this we have achieved a balanced budget for 2010/11. Governors would like to know why Broadclyst has continually been allowed to accept admissions over PAN which may have affected the number of admissions in other local schools.

Admission Analysis shows that the average future cohort size is 26. As there are only 26 pupils in the designated area an increase in PAN to 60 suggests that places would be offered to pupils not living within Broadclysts designated area, possibly at the expense of other schools within the Clyst Vale Learning Community. A further increase in Pan would only further increase the spare capacity in the learning Community as a whole, as the data suggests that there will be no significant increase in the number of pupils living in the Learning Community (Cranbrook aside).

We therefore object to this PAN proposal on many fronts:

1. There is the detrimental effect on the local schools, if parents could choose to send their child to Broadclyst, because the PAN has increased to 60. We are all much smaller schools, where funds for each pupil are critical to our budget and to the feasibility of number of classes and staffing.

2. Allowing a school to take such significant numbers of children from beyond its designated area does little to support the current focus on Community Cohesion which we are required to deliver.

Page 48 CY/10/43 Appendix A

3. Broadclyst School takes pupils from designated areas, other than its own. The vast majority of schools do have some pupils from other areas, but this number will have an effect on all of those designated areas.

4. Transportation of those pupils from all these other areas (not a good reflection on a County Council that prides itself on its “green” credentials) and traffic and congestion issues will only become worse if there is a proposed increase in PAN. Has the school submitted a Travel Plan alongside its application for an increase in PAN?

5. The continual pressure on the budgets of other local schools which will result in redundancies being made to balance budgets, leading to more mixed, large key stage two classes (unpopular with parents) and a possible reduction in school’s ability to deliver extended services will have an impact on school improvement. In addition schools will become unable to compete with the one school which has been allowed to grow unnecessarily large at the expense of others and will struggle to provide the same opportunities if pupil numbers are allowed to diminish.

It is our understanding that recent government legislation allows any school to consult on an increase in PAN, if it feels it wishes to. This, of course, suggests that all schools could enter into such a “free for all” and would make a mockery of any school organisation plans / admission policy, by the local authority.

We hope that our objections will be given appropriate consideration

Susie Langley Headteacher Helen Penney Chair of Governors 4016 School wish to change the designated area and to the contributory primary group. Designated area and contributory St James’ School Have concerns that even if all children in their contributory primary schools applied primary group for St James’ to be for The School and the primaries were full, St James’ would not be filled. The determined as proposed: distribution of contributory primaries and designated areas is not equitable or sustainable. 1. The School’s proposal would require closer examination and discussion with neighbouring schools. This would be more

Page 49 CY/10/43 Appendix A

appropriately undertaken as part of a wider School Organisation Area Review of provision across the city of Exeter which will take place later in 2010. For this reason, the case put forward by the School has not formed part of the considerations for 2011.

2423 School supported the proposal by Newton Abbot College to extend its designated No action required Ipplepen Primary School area to take in all of the Newton Abbot Learning Community; also supported a transport entitlement to Newton Abbot College and Coombeshead College for all 1. The proposal referred to is by Ipplepen pupils. a Foundation School and the determination will be by the School 2. The LA has indicated that it does not at this time agree with the proposal 3. All pupils at primary schools have a right to express a preference for any secondary school 4. Eligibility for education transport assistance is according to the county policy as determined by Members

3110 Requested an increase in PAN to 12 for 2010 and for 2011. The headteacher No action required re the PAN of 10 Ilsington Church of confirmed the school has considered funding. A PAN of 12 would provide stability for previously determined for Ilsington England Primary School a four class school. for 2010-11:

1. There has not been a significant change in circumstances at the school since determination in April 2009 to justify a request to the

Page 50 CY/10/43 Appendix A

Office of the School Adjudicator for an In-Year Variation.

The PAN for Ilsington for 2011-12 be determined at 12:

1. To maximise parental preference 2. IAN 10, maximum work spaces 80 minimum 52; PAN 10; Number on roll 85 3. To make 4 classes sustainable long term. 4. School has four relatively small classrooms. 5. Demand is healthy for the school and numbers in the area are high. A PAN of 12 may improve the position locally without being at the detriment of neighbouring schools. 6. The school is aware of the need to keep class numbers manageable with no more than 25. 7. A PAN of 12 as it progresses through the school would require 84 places if filled. This is above the measured maximum but is being managed at the school. 8. No objections to this have been received from contiguous schools in Devon. 9. Following the proposed PAN

Page 51 CY/10/43 Appendix A

being queried by the Devon Admissions Forum, the School has confirmed that it is aware of the potential change to funding arrangements in devon and feels that a PAN of 12 is viable.

2420 School requested PAN increase to 60, reversing recent reductions in PAN. The The PAN for Exminster be Exminster Primary School school had gone over-PAN and did not want to refuse any local children. Another determined at 50 as proposed: large intake was anticipated for next year. Additional 300 homes were likely to lead to an additional 75 children. 1. The IAN for the school is 50 with a maximum number of workspaces updated and lowered to 357. 2. A PAN of 60 would require 420 places as this worked through the school. 3. The number of known in area children for 2011 is 38 and the forecast demand is 34. Both would be comfortably accommodated within a PAN of 50. 4. PAN has not been at 60; recent changes have seen PAN increase from 35 in 1998 to 40 to 50 with one Year at 45. 5. No children have been refused at Exminster. 6. The Reception PAN for 2011 is a separate issue to flexibility for in-year requests. 7. It is recommended that the school discuss future needs with Capital Strategy with

Page 52 CY/10/43 Appendix A

regard to new building locally.

2252 School requested an increase in PAN as they are expecting 27 applicants in 2011 The PAN for Winkleigh be Winkleigh Primary School determined at 22 as proposed:

1. in the interests of quality of provision 2. the IAN is 21 3. at a PAN of 22, the required number of places would be 154, above the maximum number of places of 149 4. the number of known in-area children is 30; forecast demand is 23 5. the PAN is appropriately set for the estimated demand 6. requests for in-area places would be met where possible by admission over-PAN rather than an increase in PAN – Admissions Team notified of this possibility

2717 School requested an increase in PAN from 20 to 21 as they felt they could The PAN for Bickleigh on Exe be Bickleigh on Exe Primary accommodate. determined at 20 as proposed: School 1. in the interests of quality of provision 2. the IAN is 20 3. a higher PAN would take numbers on roll almost to the maximum number of workspaces of 150 4. forecast demand is comfortably under the existing PAN

Page 53 CY/10/43 Appendix A

5. a PAN of 21 would present organisational difficulties for KS1 classes

2411 School has repeated previous request for the PAN to be determined at 11 rather The PAN for Cockwood be Cockwood Primary School than at 10. School previously operated at 11. determined at 10 as proposed:

1. in the interests of quality of provision 2. the school has an IAN of 70 3. the number of in-area children is low at 4; forecast demand is 5 4. to operate with 77 children on roll would be at the upper limit of capacity with little potential to meet in-year in-area demand 5. to operate with a PAN of 11, if filled, would not be compliant with KS1 class size legislation

2717 School declined to have an increase in PAN to 20 to seek to meet larger numbers of The PAN for Bolham be determined Bolham Primary School in area children. Raised concerns regarding the quality and quantity of some at 16: accommodation including a mobile classroom and communal space. Felt that to admit further than 16 at the point of entry would impact on education provision. 1. in the interests of quality of provision 2. the maximum number of workspaces would be exceeded with a higher PAN 3. the school is recommended to discuss its accommodation with Capital Strategy 4. it may be necessary to discuss over-PAN in-area requests at the normal intake to Reception

Page 54 CY/10/43 Appendix A

2048 Wished to retain the status quo with a PAN of 192. Principal reported the Governing The PAN for Honiton CC be Honiton Community Body felt that demand for places would rise again by 2014 as KS2 numbers determined at 180: College increase. However, accepts the demographic data presented and content with 180. 1. The number of known in-area children is 147 2. The forecast demand is 133 3. The Indicated Admission Number has been reviewed at 180. 4. Forecast data indicates that demand will fall to around 150 per year 5. PAN should not be determined lower than the IAN without good reason; will be highlighted at a public notice along with the notice of determination

2722 School requested increase in PAN to 30 to meet additional demand and as the The PAN for Wilcombe be Wilcombe Primary School accommodation was being increased. determined at 30:

1. The updated IAN is 22 2. while the PAN of 30 would call for the school to be very full, it is felt necessary to meet the demand as local population increases and shifts 3. would be a more sensible figure for class organisation

4182 Following update of the new capacity assessment, the IAN fell from 313 to 307 The PAN for Tavistock College be Tavistock College determined at 300:

1. The updated IAN is 307 2. this is a more sensible figure for school organisation than

Page 55 CY/10/43 Appendix A

307 3. forecast demand is 246 for 2011 4. while under the IAN, this PAN is closer and provides for a more sensible class organisation

3060 School declined the reduction proposed from 10 to 8. Appreciated the LA position to The PAN for Goodleigh be Goodleigh Primary School seek to avoid pressure on the school to operate a third classroom. determined at 10:

1. The number of children on roll is 32 2. maximum number of workplaces is 90 so school has the capacity to accommodate. 3. IAN is 8

4061 College queried the PAN to be proposed for 2011 in the context of new buildings. A The PAN for Bideford College be Bideford College new net capacity assessment has been carried out. determined at 300:

1. The updated IAN is 300 2. this is sensible figure for school organisation 3. the impact on parental preference of new accommodation is expected to increase admission requests in coming intakes 4. forecast demand is 258 for 2011

St Boniface’s Catholic Comments made by the LA in response to the proposals by St Boniface’s Catholic School, Plymouth LA School, available at: http://www.stbonifaces.com/documents/admissions/admissionspolicy.doc. It is for the Governing Body of the School to amend the policy before determination

Page 56 CY/10/43 Appendix A

following contributions by consultees or respond to consultees explaining why no change has been made.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on your proposed admission arrangements for 2011. You may wish to review your arrangements and consider the following points: The first sentence should read prioritise in the event of oversubscription A – What is the meaning of vouched and how will this be done? C - More information on how this will be measured? D- Refers to a signature but whose signature? E – How will this criterion be measured? F- What is the relevance of a supplementary information form for this criterion and what is the college looking for? How will pupils in this criterion be ranked? Where is the Supplementary Information Form? Special Educational Needs children should not simply be given priority but must be admitted Page 2 – copies of a Supplementary Information Form must also be available at the Local Authority. Parents have a right of appeal and must be informed of the right of appeal. Can governors really ask for a letter to review the decision in 10 working days? Can the governors look at an appeal? Page 3 – 1) – If a year group has fewer pupils than Planned Admission Number then criteria should not be used – they just admit No waiting list to be employed when oversubscribed? 2) ii – Can governors just look at categories A and B for pupils moving into the area? Page 5 – Is the school allowed to keep the application forms and send copies to the Local Authority? Can parents apply online or direct to the Local Authority? Will parents be informed within 5 working days? Again governors appeal – is this legal? Appendix A mentions the school’s supplementary sheet but this is not mentioned in criteria No definition for Christian and other faith criteria Supplementary Information Form mentions Catholic Baptism Preparation Programme but not in criteria

Page 57 Page 1 of 10 Planned Admission Numbers Proposed for all Schools CY/10/43 Appendix B and Recommended for Community and Voluntary Controlled Schools

Proposed Recommended DCSF school PAN 2009 PAN 2010 IAN PAN 2011 Year 12 PAN 2011 Year 12 PAN 2011 PAN 2011 Community & Voluntary Controlled secondary schools 4000 Axe Valley Community College 151 151 155 155 10 155 10 4061 Bideford College 300 307 300 307 15 300 15 4053 Braunton School and Community College 150 150 150 150 150 4054 Chulmleigh, The Community College 120 120 127 120 120 4009 Clyst Vale Community College 162 162 162 162 15 162 15 4010 Cullompton Community College 150 150 150 150 150 4100 Dartmouth Community College 92 95 107 95 95 (subject of a consultation to be closed and reopened as an Academy in September 2010)

4101 Dawlish Community College 180 180 180 180 180 4012 Exmouth Community College 432 390 393 432 15 432 15 4056 Holsworthy Community College 150 150 138 150 150 4004 Honiton Community College 192 192 181 181 10 180 10 4058 Ilfracombe College 240 240 230 240 15 240 15 4015 Isca College of Media Arts 196 196 196 196 196 4184 Ivybridge Community College 360 360 352 360 25 360 25 4109 King Edward Vl Community College 270 270 270 270 30 270 30 4005 Kings School 180 180 180 180 15 180 15 4183 Okehampton College 240 240 240 240 24 240 24 4060 Pilton Community College 270 280 277 280 280 4003 Queen Elizabeths Community College 265 265 253 265 20 265 20 4011 Sidmouth College 150 150 150 150 10 150 10 4057 South Molton Community College 126 122 122 122 120 4016 St James' School 190 190 190 190 190 (will be a Trust School from 19 April 2010)

4501 St Lukes' C of E Science and Sports College 190 190 190 190 190 4182 Tavistock College 300 319 307 319 30 300 30 4120 Teignmouth Community College 180 180 183 183 10 183 10 4059 The Park Community School, Barnstaple 300 300 270 300 300 4192 Tiverton High School 300 285 299 285 285 4014 West Exe Technology College 260 260 260 260 260 Page 2 of 10 Planned Admission Numbers Proposed for all Schools CY/10/43 Appendix B and Recommended for Community and Voluntary Controlled Schools

Proposed Recommended DCSF school PAN 2009 PAN 2010 IAN PAN 2011 Year 12 PAN 2011 Year 12 PAN 2011 PAN 2011 Community & Voluntary Controlled primary schools 2400 Abbotskerswell Primary School 16 16 12 16 12 3021 All Saints CE Infant School, Sidmouth 40 40 40 40 40 2017 Alphington Primary School 60 60 58 60 60 2200 Appledore Community Primary School and Nurse 30 30 30 30 30 2401 Ashburton Primary School 30 30 27 30 30 3070 Ashleigh CE VC Primary School 45 45 42 45 45 2201 Ashwater Primary School 10 10 8 8 8 3100 Aveton Gifford CE Primary School 12 12 10 12 12 2000 Axminster Community Primary School 37 34 34 34 34 2085 Bassetts Farm Primary School 45 45 45 45 45 2206 Beaford Community Primary School 15 15 15 15 15 3115 Bearnes Voluntary Primary School 15 15 12 15 15 2600 Bere Alston Primary School 30 30 30 30 30 3101 Berry Pomeroy Parochial CE Primary School 10 10 8 10 12 3053 Berrynarbor CE Primary School 10 10 10 10 10 3165 Bickleigh-on-Exe Church of England Primary Sch 20 20 20 20 20 2210 Bishops Nympton Primary School 15 10 10 10 10 2211 Bishops Tawton Primary School 20 20 15 20 20 2402 Bishopsteignton School 20 20 20 20 22 3056 Black Torrington CE Primary School 7777 7 2403 Blackawton Primary School 20 20 15 20 20 3102 Blackpool CE Primary School 45 45 45 45 45 2601 Boasley Cross Community Primary School 9979 9 2717 Bolham Primary School 16 16 16 20 16 2404 Bovey Tracey Primary School 40 40 40 40 40 2002 Bow Community Primary School 20 20 20 20 20 2042 Bowhill Primary School 60 60 60 60 60 2212 Bradford Primary School 10 10 10 10 10 2472 Bradley Barton Primary School & Nursery Unit 45 45 41 45 45 2213 Bradworthy Community Primary School 20 20 15 20 20 3001 Brampford Speke CE Primary School 10 10 10 10 10 3002 Branscombe CE Primary School 10 10 10 10 10 2214 Bratton Fleming Community Primary School 17 17 15 17 17 2230 Brayford Primary School 7777 7 2602 Bridestowe Primary School 8888 10 3057 Bridgerule CE Primary School 10 10 8 10 10 3776 Brixington Community Nursery & Primary Schoo 60 60 62 60 60 Page 3 of 10 Planned Admission Numbers Proposed for all Schools CY/10/43 Appendix B and Recommended for Community and Voluntary Controlled Schools

Proposed Recommended DCSF school PAN 2009 PAN 2010 IAN PAN 2011 Year 12 PAN 2011 Year 12 PAN 2011 PAN 2011 2004 Broadclyst Community Primary School 40 45 54 60 60 3003 Broadhembury CE Primary 8888 8 2408 Broadhempston Village Primary School 10 10 8 10 10 2217 Broadwoodwidger Primary School 7777 7 2409 Buckfastleigh Primary School 40 40 38 40 40 2218 Buckland Brewer Community Primary School 7777 7 3004 Burlescombe CE Primary School 12 12 10 12 12 3058 Burrington CE Primary School 8888 8 2215 Caen Community Primary School 40 40 40 40 40 2476 Canada Hill Community Primary School 45 45 45 45 45 2720 Castle Primary School, Tiverton 60 60 47 60 60 3151 Chagford CE Primary School 30 30 30 30 30 3104 Charleton CE Primary School 8878 8 2006 Cheriton Bishop Community Primary School 10 10 10 10 10 2007 Cheriton Fitzpaine Primary 15 15 12 15 15 2410 Christow Community School 15 12 12 12 12 3105 Chudleigh CE Community Primary School 60 60 59 60 60 3106 Chudleigh Knighton CE Primary School 15 15 13 15 15 2219 Chulmleigh Primary School 25 25 22 25 25 2220 Clawton Primary School 10 10 8 10 10 2221 Clovelly Primary School 7767 7 3777 Clyst Heath Nursey & Community Primary Schoo 30 30 30 30 30 2008 Clyst Hydon Primary School 10 10 8 10 10 2009 Clyst St Mary Primary School 20 20 20 20 20 2411 Cockwood Primary School 11 10 10 10 10 2010 Colyton Primary School 25 25 25 25 25 2222 Combe Martin Primary School 30 30 25 30 30 2011 Copplestone Primary School 25 25 25 25 25 3152 Cornwood CE Primary School 15 15 15 15 15 2025 Countess Wear Community School 45 45 34 45 45 2015 Culmstock Primary School 15 15 15 15 15 2016 Dalwood Primary School 7777 7 3107 Dartington CE Primary School 45 45 45 45 45 2412 Dartmouth Primary School and Nursery 30 30 25 30 30 2431 Decoy Primary School 60 60 58 60 60 2416 Denbury Primary School 15 15 15 15 15 3108 Diptford Parochial CE Primary School 12 12 10 12 12 2417 Doddiscombesleigh Community School 10 10 10 10 10 Page 4 of 10 Planned Admission Numbers Proposed for all Schools CY/10/43 Appendix B and Recommended for Community and Voluntary Controlled Schools

Proposed Recommended DCSF school PAN 2009 PAN 2010 IAN PAN 2011 Year 12 PAN 2011 Year 12 PAN 2011 PAN 2011 2003 Duchy School, Bradninch 30 30 30 30 30 2418 Dunsford Community Primary School 12 12 10 12 12 2419 East Allington Primary School 15 15 14 15 15 2223 East Anstey Primary School 8777 7 2224 East Worlington School 10 10 8 10 10 2207 East-The-Water Community Primary School 40 40 29 40 30 2609 Erme Primary School, Ivybridge 25 25 25 25 25 2603 Ermington Primary School 22 22 22 22 22 3153 Exbourne CE Primary School 10 10 9 10 10 2043 Exeter Road Community Primary School 30 30 30 30 30 2420 Exminster Community Primary 50 50 50 50 50 2022 Exwick Heights Primary School 60 60 54 60 60 2225 Filleigh Community Primary School 15 15 15 15 15 2204 Forches Cross Community Primary School 30 30 30 30 30 2226 Fremington Community Primary & Nursery Scho 45 45 45 50 50 2475 Gatehouse Primary School 60 60 59 60 60 3059 Georgeham CE Primary School 15 15 15 15 15 3060 Goodleigh CE Primary School 10 10 8 8 10 3061 Great Torrington Bluecoat CE Infant & Nursery S 72 72 72 72 72 2227 Great Torrington Junior School 80 80 77 80 80 2461 Grove Primary School 30 30 29 30 30 2604 Gulworthy Primary School 10 10 8 10 10 2718 Halberton Primary School 13 13 10 13 13 2228 Halwill Community Primary School 15 15 15 15 15 2229 Hartland Primary School 20 20 20 20 20 2605 Hatherleigh Community Primary School 22 22 21 22 22 3012 Hawkchurch CE School 8888 8 3779 Haytor View Primary School 40 40 36 40 40 2012 Hayward's Primary School 45 50 45 50 50 2448 Hazeldown School 60 60 57 60 60 2723 Heathcoat Primary School 60 60 58 60 60 2047 Hemyock Primary School 25 25 23 25 25 2421 Hennock Community Primary School 7777 7 3062 High Bickington CE Primary School 10 10 10 10 10 2255 Highampton Community Primary School 7777 7 2432 Highweek Community Primary & Nursery Schoo 45 45 42 45 45 2607 Holbeton School 15 15 15 15 15 3063 Holsworthy CE Primary School 45 45 42 45 45 Page 5 of 10 Planned Admission Numbers Proposed for all Schools CY/10/43 Appendix B and Recommended for Community and Voluntary Controlled Schools

Proposed Recommended DCSF school PAN 2009 PAN 2010 IAN PAN 2011 Year 12 PAN 2011 Year 12 PAN 2011 PAN 2011 3064 Holywell CE Primary School 14 14 14 14 14 2048 Honiton Primary School 60 60 60 60 60 2608 Horrabridge Community Primary School 30 25 22 22 22 2231 Horwood and Newton Tracey Community Primar 15 11 10 11 11 2087 Ide Primary School 15 15 15 15 15 3065 Ilfracombe CE Junior School 120 121 117 120 120 2232 Ilfracombe Infant and Nursery School 120 120 120 120 120 3110 Ilsington CE Primary School 10 10 10 10 12 2233 Instow Community Primary School 19 19 20 20 20 3774 Inverteign Community Nursery & Primary Schoo 40 40 38 40 40 2423 Ipplepen Primary School 30 30 30 30 30 3111 Kenn CE Primary School 15 15 15 15 15 3013 Kentisbeare CE Primary School 25 25 21 25 25 2234 Kentisbury Primary School 10666 6 2424 Kenton Primary School 15 15 15 15 15 2050 Kilmington Primary School 12 12 10 12 12 2235 Kings Nympton Community Primary 10 10 8 10 10 2257 Kingsacre Primary School 30 30 28 30 30 2425 Kingsbridge Community Primary School 60 60 60 60 60 3112 Kingskerswell CE Primary School 45 45 45 45 45 2427 Kingswear Primary School 10 10 8 10 10 2026 Ladysmith Infants School 90 90 99 90 90 2027 Ladysmith Junior School 90 90 90 90 90 3154 Lamerton CE Primary School 7878 8 2236 Landkey Primary School 30 30 30 30 30 2079 Landscore Primary School 45 45 45 45 45 2237 Langtree Community School 12 12 10 12 12 2260 Lapford Community Primary School 15 15 12 15 15 3155 Lew Trenchard CE Primary School 12 12 10 12 12 2612 Lifton Primary School 17 17 15 17 17 3028 Littleham CE Primary School 17 17 15 17 17 2049 Littletown Primary School 60 60 59 60 60 2428 Loddiswell Primary School 12 10 10 10 10 2613 Lydford Primary School 7777 7 3014 Lympstone CE Primary School 25 25 22 25 25 3114 Malborough with South Huish CE Primary Schoo 15 15 15 15 15 2610 Manor Primary School 40 40 40 40 40 2045 Marpool Primary School 45 45 40 45 45 Page 6 of 10 Planned Admission Numbers Proposed for all Schools CY/10/43 Appendix B and Recommended for Community and Voluntary Controlled Schools

Proposed Recommended DCSF school PAN 2009 PAN 2010 IAN PAN 2011 Year 12 PAN 2011 Year 12 PAN 2011 PAN 2011 2238 Marwood School 15 15 15 15 15 2622 Mary Tavy and Brentor Community School 12 12 10 12 12 2052 Membury Community School 7757 7 2614 Milton Abbot School 15 15 15 15 15 2715 Modbury Primary School 25 25 25 25 25 2239 Monkleigh Primary School 10 10 10 10 10 2028 Montgomery Primary School 60 60 60 60 60 2430 Moretonhampstead Primary School 25 25 25 25 25 2053 Musbury Primary School 9777 10 2258 Newport Community School 60 60 59 60 60 3156 Newton Ferrers CE Primary School 15 15 15 15 15 2054 Newton Poppleford Primary School 24 25 30 30 30 2055 Newton St Cyres Primary School 15 15 15 15 15 2029 Newtown Primary School 20 25 21 25 25 2240 North Molton School 20 20 15 15 15 2615 North Tawton Primary School 25 25 21 25 25 3157 Northlew and Ashbury Parochial CE Primary Sch 7777 7 3015 Offwell CE Primary School 15 15 14 15 15 2616 Okehampton Primary School 90 90 84 90 90 2727 Orchard Vale Community School 45 45 45 45 45 2056 Ottery St Mary Primary School 60 60 47 60 60 2241 Parkham Primary School 10 10 9 10 10 3066 Parracombe CE Primary School 8888 8 3016 Payhembury CE Primary School 10 10 10 10 10 2205 Pilton Infants School 60 60 59 60 60 3017 Plymtree CE Primary School 15 15 15 15 15 2617 Princetown Primary School 10 10 8 10 10 2208 Pynes Infant School and Nursery 90 90 89 90 90 3067 Pyworthy CE Primary School 6666 6 2031 Redhills Community Primary School 60 60 60 60 60 2474 Rydon Primary School 60 60 60 60 60 3124 Salcombe CE Primary School 12 12 12 12 12 3019 Sampford Peverell CE Primary School 17 17 15 17 17 2059 Sandford School 25 25 25 25 25 2060 Seaton Primary School 60 54 54 54 54 2440 Shaldon Primary School 30 30 30 30 30 2618 Shaugh Prior Primary School 10 10 7 10 10 2243 Shebbear Community School 10 10 10 10 10 Page 7 of 10 Planned Admission Numbers Proposed for all Schools CY/10/43 Appendix B and Recommended for Community and Voluntary Controlled Schools

Proposed Recommended DCSF school PAN 2009 PAN 2010 IAN PAN 2011 Year 12 PAN 2011 Year 12 PAN 2011 PAN 2011 2244 Shirwell Community Primary School 10 10 8 10 10 2062 Shute Community Primary School 12 12 10 12 12 3020 Sidbury CE Primary School 15 15 15 15 15 2063 Sidmouth Infants School 40 40 40 40 40 3022 Silverton CE Primary School 20 20 20 20 20 2441 South Brent Primary School 40 40 37 40 40 2245 South Molton Infants 45 45 39 45 45 2619 South Tawton Primary School 30 30 30 30 30 2216 Southmead School 45 45 42 45 45 2089 Spreyton School 6666 6 2014 St Andrew's Primary School, Cullompton 45 45 41 45 45 3008 St Davids CE Primary School 15 15 15 15 15 2242 St Giles On The Heath Community School 12 12 10 12 12 3127 St Johns CE Primary School, Totnes 30 30 30 30 30 2013 St Leonard's Primary School 60 60 60 60 60 3069 St Mary's CE Primary School, Bideford 60 60 46 60 60 3128 St Michaels CE Primary School, Kingsteignton 50 50 50 60 60 3163 St Rumon's CE Infants School 50 50 45 45 45 2032 St Thomas' Primary School 30 30 29 30 30 2442 Starcross Primary School 30 30 28 30 30 2246 Sticklepath Primary School 45 45 45 50 50 3023 Stockland CE Primary School 15 15 15 15 15 3024 Stoke Canon CE Primary School 24 24 22 24 24 2443 Stoke Fleming Community Primary School 30 30 27 30 30 2444 Stoke Gabriel Primary School 12 12 10 12 12 2033 Stoke Hill Infant & Nursery School 90 90 90 90 90 2034 Stoke Hill Junior School 90 90 89 90 90 2445 Stokeinteignhead School 13 13 10 13 13 2446 Stokenham Area Primary School 25 25 25 25 25 2709 Stowford Primary School 60 60 59 60 60 2247 Sutcombe Community Primary School 8888 8 2623 Tavistock Community Primary School 60 60 55 60 60 2088 Tedburn St Mary School 17 17 15 17 17 3025 Thorverton CE Primary School 12 12 10 12 12 2719 Tidcombe Primary School 30 30 27 30 30 2090 Topsham School 30 30 30 30 30 2721 Two Moors Primary School 60 60 60 60 60 2072 Uffculme Primary School 30 30 30 30 30 Page 8 of 10 Planned Admission Numbers Proposed for all Schools CY/10/43 Appendix B and Recommended for Community and Voluntary Controlled Schools

Proposed Recommended DCSF school PAN 2009 PAN 2010 IAN PAN 2011 Year 12 PAN 2011 Year 12 PAN 2011 PAN 2011 2710 Ugborough Primary School 16 16 15 16 16 2248 Umberleigh Community Primary School 8888 8 3026 Uplowman CE Primary School 8888 8 2073 Upottery Primary 15 15 12 15 15 2038 Walter Daw Primary School 45 45 45 45 45 2624 Wembury Primary School 30 30 30 30 30 3123 West Alvington CE Primary School 8888 8 2250 West and East Putford School 8888 8 2209 West Croft Junior School 90 90 90 90 90 2249 West Down School 12 12 10 13 13 2058 West Hill Primary School 30 30 29 30 30 2415 Westcliff School 45 45 45 45 45 2074 Whimple Primary School 20 20 20 20 20 2039 Whipton Barton Infant School 90 90 90 90 90 2040 Whipton Barton Junior School 90 90 90 90 90 2625 Whitchurch Community Primary School 30 30 30 30 30 2463 Widecombe in the Moor Primary School 10 10 10 10 10 2722 Wilcombe Primary School 20 20 20 20 30 2075 Willand School 45 45 45 45 45 2084 Willowbank Primary School 40 40 40 40 40 2724 Willowbrook School 45 45 45 45 45 2252 Winkleigh Primary School 22 22 21 22 22 3068 Witheridge CE Primary School 15 15 15 15 15 3011 Withycombe Raleigh CE Primary School 60 60 60 60 60 2716 Woodlands Park Primary School 50 50 49 45 45 2253 Woolacombe School 25 25 25 25 25 2254 Woolsery Primary School 20 20 18 20 20 3375 Wynstream Primary School 60 60 54 60 60 2626 Yealmpton Primary School 25 25 25 25 25 2256 Yeo Valley Primary School 50 50 45 50 50 2076 Yeoford Community Primary School 8 10 8 10 10 Page 9 of 10 Planned Admission Numbers Proposed for all Schools CY/10/43 Appendix B and Recommended for Community and Voluntary Controlled Schools

Proposed Recommended DCSF school PAN 2009 PAN 2010 IAN PAN 2011 Year 12 PAN 2011 Year 12 PAN 2011 PAN 2011 VA, Foundation & Trust secondary schools 5400 Colyton Grammar School 120 120 129 120 5 (School has determined a Year 12 PAN of 0) 4112 Coombeshead College 240 240 240 240 30 4055 Great Torrington Community School 180 180 180 180 4110 Kingsbridge Community College 203 203 195 203 35 5404 Newton Abbot College 203 203 196 203 4108 South Dartmoor Community College 270 270 270 270 25 4607 St Peter's C Of E School 245 245 245 245 5402 Teign School 232 232 228 232 23 5405 Uffculme School 188 188 181 188

VA, Foundation & Trust primary schools 3305 All Saints C of E Primary, Axminster 17 17 15 17 3608 All Saints C of E Primary, Marsh 17 17 15 17 3612 All Saints C of E Primary, Thurlestone 17 17 15 19 3300 Awliscombe C of E Primary 15 15 10 15 3771 Bampton C of E Primary 17 17 15 17 3309 Beacon C of E (VA) Primary 30 30 29 30 3303 Beer C of E Primary 15 15 15 15 3768 Bickleigh Down C of E Primary 60 60 58 60 3451 Bluecoat C of E Junior School, Pilton 66 66 60 64 3453 Chittlehampton C of E Primary 10 8 7 8 3456 Clinton C of E Primary 15 12 10 12 3005 Clyst Honiton C of E Primary School 8 8 8 8 3454 Dolton C of E Primary 12 12 10 12 3308 Drake’s C of E Primary 12 12 10 12 3311 Farway C of E Primary 8 8 8 8 3312 Feniton C of E Primary 30 30 30 30 3604 Harbertonford C of E Primary 13 15 12 15 3755 Lady Modiford’s C of E Primary 17 17 15 17 3307 Lady Seward’s C of E Primary 12 12 10 12 3606 Landscove C of E Primary 15 15 15 15 3455 Lynton C of E Primary 17 17 15 17 3607 Marldon C of E Primary 23 26 23 26 3753 Meavy C of E Primary 16 16 15 16 3462 Morchard Bishop C of E Primary 20 20 15 20 3320 Mrs Ethelston’s C of E Primary 20 22 22 22 Page 10 of 10 Planned Admission Numbers Proposed for all Schools CY/10/43 Appendix B and Recommended for Community and Voluntary Controlled Schools

Proposed Recommended DCSF school PAN 2009 PAN 2010 IAN PAN 2011 Year 12 PAN 2011 Year 12 PAN 2011 PAN 2011 3316 Otterton C of E Primary 12 12 10 12 3611 Our Lady’s and St Patrick’s Roman Catholic Prim 30 30 29 30 3452 Our Lady’s Catholic Primary, Barnstaple 30 30 30 30 3328 Pinhoe Primary School 55 55 55 55 3772 Rackenford C of E Primary 12 15 8 15 3317 Rockbeare C of E Primary 12 12 10 12 3459 South Molton United C of E Junior 45 45 44 45 3752 St Andrew’s C of E Primary, Buckland Monachor 30 30 30 30 3306 St Andrew’s C of E Primary, Chardstock 15 15 15 15 3605 St Catherine’s C of E Primary 30 30 30 30 3461 St George’s C of E Infant and Nursery 60 60 52 60 3450 St Helen’s C of E Primary 20 20 20 20 3603 St John The Baptist Roman Catholic Primary 12 12 10 12 3773 St John’s Catholic Primary, Tiverton 30 30 30 30 3310 St Joseph’s Catholic Primary, Exmouth 30 30 29 30 3610 St Joseph’s Catholic Primary, Newton Abbot 30 30 30 30 3457 St Margaret’s C of E (Aided) Junior School 60 60 60 60 3751 St Mary’s C of E Primary, Brixton 15 15 10 15 3301 St Mary’s Catholic Primary, Axminster 20 20 20 20 3602 St Mary’s Catholic Primary, Buckfast 15 15 13 15 3324 St Michael’s C of E Primary, Exeter 60 60 60 60 3318 St Nicholas C of E Junior, Sidmouth 85 90 85 90 3326 St Nicholas Catholic Primary School, Exeter 45 45 42 45 3756 St Peter’s C of E Junior, Tavistock 45 45 31 45 3304 St Peter’s C of E Primary, Budleigh Salterton 35 35 35 35 3323 St Sidwell’s C of E Primary, Exeter 30 30 30 30 3460 Swimbridge C of E Primary 18 17 13 17 3319 Tipton St John C of E Primary 15 15 15 15 3313 Webber’s C of E Primary School 12 12 10 12 3620 Wolborough C of E Primary 35 35 33 35 3321 Woodbury C of E Primary 20 24 24 24 3322 Woodbury Salterton C of E Primary 14 15 15 15