30 Pupils Throughout the School If Room Sizes Are Too Small to Justify 33 Pupils, at the Schools’ Request

1 2.3 Revision of the official intake limits for 2006 or amendments to the normal procedures are proposed for the following secondary schools: Boroughm u ir Craigmount James Gillespies St Thomas of Aquins’

3 Main report

Context

3.1 Strategic management of the Council’s schools estate and the way in which accommodation is utilised is vital to ensure the Council is delivering Best Value. Closely aligned with this is the allocation of teachers across the schools to ensure that allocations are made on the basis of Best Value. The process that brings these two strands together for consideration and management on an annual basis is the pupil placing procedure that is outlined in this report. The implementation of the strategies outlined in this report are critical to the Department’s ability to meet the Council’s budget targets for 2006/7 and beyond.

3.2 The education estate is currently characterised by over occupancy and schools close to capacity in the secondary sector, with a few exceptions, but falling levels of occupancy in the primary sector. The occupancy levels in relation to main building capacity are illustrated below. I Occupancy I Primary Schools I Secondary Schools 1

Under40% 6 6 Yo 1 4 Yo Total 94 looo/o 23 100%

3.3 It is important that the Department continues to manage provision of school places on the basis of the strategic management principles and practices that have been applied since the inception of the City of Edinburgh Council. These fundamental principles are:

a) Provision is managed on the basis of distinct catchment areas with parental choice being honoured where possible. b) Supplementary classes are not created for non-district children alone within the primary sector.

C) Intake limits, class size restrictions and whole school class organisational limits are applied to assist in the management of primary school provision.

2 Primary Issues

3.4 This report represents the present stage of an administrative procedure undertaken by the Department on an annual basis, which considers the details of district registration and pattern of placing requests across the City. This process commences in November, with schools being asked to register their district children, and parents being asked to make their placing requests, by the end of December. Head Teachers are involved throughout the process. These figures are then analysed during January to establish class organisation, any accommodation issues and where district pupils exceed school capacity, and finally recommends decisions on intakes set out in this report. The process continues to be managed by the Department through to the start of session in August.

3.5 The process is characterised by complex pupil flows across the City and a constantly evolving picture as late applications are made and pupils are withdrawn. There is a significant drop between the numbers registered in January and those who take up a place in a school by August (in the order of 500 pupils during last year‘s process). This drop is explained by parents deciding to defer entry, choosing the private sector or moving house within the time-span. It clearly adds complexity to the planning process and makes it difficult not to overplan for placements. Accordingly, many schools which look as if they have too many district pupils to be accommodated at this stage in the process, are very likely to have no difficulty in ultimately accommodating their district intake. It also means that many of the placing requests refused in April will be successful in securing a place at the school of their choice by August. There can however be no guarantees and some schools require careful monitoring of their numbers throughout the process.

3.6 Under the Standards in Scotland’s Schools etc Act 2000, the Council has the option to reserve places for district children moving into a school’s catchment area during the school year. This practice is widely used by other local authorities. Accordingly, it is proposed to reserve one place for each primary P1 class until the end of July each year where possible to prevent places being taken up by non-district pupils and there being insufficient places for new district pupils moving into the area.

3.7 The principle of not creating new classes for non-district pupils alone was applied on an extended basis last year in the context of falling primary school rolls. While this principle had been applied for many years on a year by year basis, the strategic decision was taken to apply this principle over a two-year timeframe. Thus schools, which may traditionally have had four classes covering the P1 and P2 year groups, had intakes restricted in anticipation of achieving three classes instead of four over two years. This required an intake of a class and a half in both years. The context for this strategy was reducing . school rolls where fewer pupils should be accompanied by the need for fewer teachers. This strategy responded to the Standards in Scotland’s Schools etc (Scotland) Act 2000,Section 44 (4), which inserts into the 1980 Act the following:

3 [An exception to the duty of the education authority to accede to a parent’s request that a child be placed in a specified school] “assuming that pupil numbers remain constant, make it necessary, at the commencement of a future stage of the child’s primary education, for the authority to elect either to create an additional class (or an additional composite class) in the specified school or to take an additional teacher into employment at that school.”

3.8 This principle would save the Authority from the need to employ an additional teacher in the second year. These savings form an essential part of the Council’s budget decisions. In areas where a number of schools may be affected, an assessment has been made regarding the geography of the area and the parental demand which may dictate that some flexibility is required at one of the schools in an area.

3.9 The justification for the Council’s implementation of a class and half intake over a two-year period is set out in some detail in Appendix 1. This principle of saving the costs of teacher in a future year was successfully defended at the Sheriff Court last year when the ruling was in favour of the Council. In this report schools are described as being in Year One or Year Two of this process.

3.10 The schools proposed for class and half intakes are listed below

Second Year of Hermitage Park Class and a Half Murrayburn (two-year strategy) Preston Street St Mary’s, Leith The Royal High Trinity First Year of a Class Balgreen and Half (two-year Clermiston strategy) Craiglockhart Liberton St Mary’s (East London Street)

3.1 1 The Council made a commitment last year that should district numbers create the need for a fourth class to be created through the PI and P2 year stages during the school year, this would be honoured where there was the physical capacity to do so. It should be noted that some of the schools would not have the physical capacity to allow more than a class and half. This commitment rema ins .

3.12 Some schools in Positive Action areas choose to allocate their additional Positive Action monies to employ additional teachers, thus creating more, smaller classes. In these instances the introduction of additional non-district pupils would not create the need for the employment of an additional teacher. Accordingly non-district pupils will not be restricted in these cases.

4 3.13 Following the concerns from parents about the one and half intakes for some schools from August 2006, it was agreed that a communications strategy would be put in place to manage the PI intake process. The timeline for this consultation process is set out in Appendix 2. This consultation sets the

I framework for specific feedback from schools where a class and half intake is proposed. This feedback, from School Boards, Parents and others, and the Council’s response, is attached in Appendix 3.

3.14 The Scottish Executive has confirmed its decision to introduce maximum class sizes of 25 pupils for PI pupils from 2007. This initiative will primarily affect next year’s intake. There are, however, a number of schools where it is proposed to create a composite class between this year’s intake and next year’s intake. In these instances it is proposed to limit the intakes this year to 40 pupils. This will allow for the following class organisation and an intake of 40 pupils for both years.

Class Year 1 Class Year 2 200617 2007/8 P1 20 PI 25 PI 20 PI12 15/30 P2 30

3.15 As part of the normal administration of the placing process each year organisational structures are put in place at each school to reflect the number of pupils attending the school. In many cases this has involved composite arrangements for PI and P2 classes where the accommodation or the combined projected PI and P2 pupil numbers dictate. Many schools have had this type of intake for many years - particularly the organisations of between 10 and 12 classes in total which lend themselves to a class and half intake each year. The schools where composite arrangements for PI and P2 year stages are proposed for August 2006 are indicated in Appendix 4.

3.16 As class organisations are not finalised until the beginning of the session in September, the list in Appendix 4 is provisional only. Some of the listed schools may not require to form composite classes and likewise it is possible that some schools not listed may be required to form composite classes.

3.17 It is anticipated that, as with every year, non-district placing requests will require to be refused at a number of schools. The schools where this is anticipated, along with their maximum proposed intake, are listed in Appendix 5 for clarity. Further detail about particular schools is described below.

Bonaly Primary School

3.18 This school is scheduled to be rebuilt as part of the PPP2 scheme in 2007 as a two stream (14 classes) school. There are currently 70 district children registered at the school, plus 16 placing requests for admissions to the school. The school will only have sufficient capacity for 60 places, unless team teaching

5 is employed. It is anticipated that district numbers will fall to 60 in line with the pattern of previous years. Accordingly it is proposed to limit the PI intake to 60 subject to monitoring of the numbers. If the district numbers exceed 60 team teaching should be considered.

Action: Limit the PI intake to 60.

Corstorphine Primary School

3.1 9 There are currently 70 district children registered with the school with 11 requests out and 17 placing requests for admissions to the school. The school only has sufficient capacity for 60 places. It is anticipated that district numbers will be containable within the 60 limit through expected nursery.deferrals and if all placing requests out of Corstorphine are successful. In order to ensure this, it is proposed to prioritise these placing requests out.

Action: Prioritise placing requests out of Corstorphine Primary School.

Davidson’s Mains Primary School

3.20 Until recent years, this school accommodated a three class intake each year, with much of its accommodation for the third stream of the school being provided by Temporary Unit accommodation. In recent years, where district numbers have allowed, the intake has been limited to two classes and temporary unit accommodation removed when possible, in line with the Council’s Asset Management Plan for the Children and Families estate. District numbers currently stand at 56 of whom 15 have requested other schools. In addition there are 25 placing requests for admissions to the school. Accordingly it is proposed to restrict the intake to two classes with a view to removing further temporary unit accommodation in the future.

Action: Limit the P1 intake to 60.

Flora Stevenson Primary School

3.21 There are currently 78 district children registered for the school, of whom sixteen have requested places elsewhere. In addition there are 28 placing requests for admissions to the school. It is anticipated that district numbers will fall to 60 in line with the pattern of previous years. Accordingly it is proposed to limit the PI intake to 60 subject to close monitoring of the numbers. If the district numbers exceed 60 then reconsideration will require to be given in full discussion with the Head Teacher and School Board.

Action: Limit the PI intake to 60, subject to close monitoring. If the district numbers exceed 60 then a revised strategy will be consulted upon. ,

6 Towerbank Primary School

3.22 There are currently 79 district children registered for the school, of whom 3 have requested places elsewhere. It is anticipated that district numbers will fall to 60

8 in line with the pattern of previous years. Accordingly it is proposed to limit the PI intake to 60 subject to close monitoring of the numbers. If the district numbers exceed 60 then reconsideration will require to be given in full discussion with the Head Teacher and School Board.

Action: Limit the P1 intake to 60. If the district numbers exceed 60 then a revised strategy will be consulted upon.

Primary School Room Sizes - Changes 3.23 The Authority limits class sizes to 30 pupils throughout the school if room sizes are too small to justify 33 pupils, at the schools’ request. The schools where this applies are listed in Appendix 6. It is proposed to limit the class sizes at James Gillespies Primary School to 30 pupils per class because of the small room sizes at this school.

3.24 Blackhall and East Craigs Primary Schools previously had a room size limit of 30 pupils applying to all classes. New extensions to the schools have recently been completed, and this limit would no longer be appropriate to the new rooms. Accordingly it is proposed to remove the room size limit at Blackhall and East Craigs Primary Schools.

Secondary Schools

3.25 As with the primary sector it is proposed to reserve two places at S1 across the estate to the end of July each year where possible to prevent places being taken up by non-district pupils and there being insufficient places for new district pupils moving into the area.

3.26 It is recommended to continue to reserve places with enhanced support for children with moderate learning difficulties or language and communication difficulties at Leith Academy, Drummond High School, Craigmount High School and St Thomas of Aquin’s RC High School. This recommendation is in pursuance of the policy of mainstreaming which has statutory basis in the Standards in Scotland’s Schools etc (Scotland) Act 2000. It is consistent with the decision of SMT, confirmed by Committee in 2003.

Boroughmuir and James Gillespie’s High Schools

3.27 The 2006/7 start of session is the first session that the new catchment areas for these two schools will apply. As part of that review, the Council gave the commitment that younger siblings who were directly affected by the review would get priority over other placing request pupils who were not affected by the review.

7 Action: Prioritise sibling placing requests affected by the catchment review into Boroughmuir and James Gillespie’s, above all other priorities.

Craigmount High School

1 Official intake limit: I260 Total Catchment pupils: 277 Reauests in 23 Requests out 15 PrODOsed intake limit: 260

3.28 The official intake limit in line with Craigmount’s notional capacity is 260. In 2003 under exceptional circumstances the S1 intake was increased to 280 to reflect particularly high catchment numbers. For 200415 the intake limit was returned to the official intake limit of 260, which was only possible through prioritising placing requests out.

3.29 Craigmount currently has 277 district pupils, and there is the need to reserve 5 places within this school for pupils with Moderate Learning Difficulties (MLD). It is necessary to ensure that all pupils requesting out of Craigmount are able to secure places elsewhere in order to accommodate the district numbers within the available places. Accordingly it is proposed to prioritise these placing requests out of Craigmount. With prioritisation out, it is expected that the district numbers will fall sufficiently to be accommodated within the limit.

3.30 The Council decided in May 2004 to reduce the catchment size of Craigmount High school from 2007, by realigning Gylemuir primary school to feed solely to Forrester High School. This will relieve the pressure for places currently experienced by the school.

Action: Prioritise placing requests out of Craigmount.

Current intake limit 220 Total Catchment pupils: 194 Reauests in 12 Requests out 24 ProDosed intake limit: 220

3.31 An intake limit of 220 was introduced at this school in 2001. While subject to annual review, the intake limit has been maintained at this level in order to accommodate the catchment demand. This intake is, however, in excess of the school’s main building notional capacity of 1000 places. This school is scheduled to be rebuilt as part of the PPP2 scheme in 2007 with a larger capacity of 1200 places.

8 3.32 There are currently 194 district pupils, with 24 requests out, however it is unlikely that 20 of these requests will be successful as they are to St Thomas’ Leith Academy and James Gillespies. Accordingly it is proposed that an intake limit of 220 will be necessary to accommodate district demand.

Action: Maintain the SI intake limit of 220 for the 2006/7 start of session, to be reviewed annually.

St Thomas of Aquins’ Roman Catholic High School

1 Official intake limit: I140 1 Total Catchment pupils: 151 Reauests in: 29 Requests out: 12 Proposed intake limit: 140

3.33 The school was rebuilt in 2002 with a notional capacity of 750 and a corresponding intake SI limit of 140. There is also a need to reserve 5 places within this school for pupils with Moderate Learning Difficulties (MLD).

3.34 The school currently has 151 district pupils of whom 12 have requested out. It is unlikely that the school would be able to accommodate its district demand. It is proposed to prioritise requests out from this school to alleviate pressure for places. This is not, however, expected to sufficiently reduce district demand to below the intake limit. Accordingly it is proposed to prioritise pupils holding Roman Catholic baptism records. The remaining places will be allocated on the basis of sibling attendance and distance from school. Where places cannot be offered at St Thomas’, parents’ second choice of school will be given priority over non-sibling placing requests.

Action: Prioritise placing requests out of St Thomas of Aquins’. Prioritise pupils holding Roman Catholic baptism records into the school. Prioritise parents’ second choice school for those who are unsuccessful in securing a place at St Thomas’. To note that the 140 intake limit includes the 5 places for MLD pupils.

4 Financial Implications

4.1 The proposals outlined above are essential to match reducing pupil numbers with available resources.

4.2 Through the restriction of primary school intakes to a class and half over two years, it is anticipated that a saving of f200,OOO in 2007108 can be achieved to contribute to the Council’s decisions on efficiency savings.

9 5 Recommendations

5.1 That the Executive notes the contents of this report and agrees the following:

Hermitage Park Murrayburn Preston Street St Mary’s, Leith The Royal High Trinity Limit PI Intakes to a Class and Half Balgreen Clermiston Craiglockhart Liberton St Mary’s (East London Street)

Bonaly PS Limit PI intake to 60

Corstorphine PS Prioritise placing requests out

Davidson Mains Limit the PI intake to 60

Flora Stevenson PS Limit PI intake to 60, unless district numbers require a revised strategy

Towerbank PS Limit the PI intake to 60 unless district numbers require a revised strategy

Boroughmuirl Prioritise siblings affected by catchment review James Gillespies

Craigmount HS Prioritise placing requests out.

Holy Rood HS Maintain S1 intake at 220 for 200617 (to be reviewed annually)

St Thomas of Aquins’ Maintain SI intake at 140 for 200617 Prioritise pupils holding Roman Catholic baptism records. Prioritise placing requests out, and parents’ second choice schools.

10 Secondary school placing request priority order would be conducted in the following manner:

1. Boroughmuir and James Gillespie’s catchment review siblings 2. St Thomas of Aquins’ requests out 3. Craigmount requests out 4. Sibling Requests 5. St Thomas of Aquins second choice schools 6. All other requests

doy Jobson Director of Children and Families

Appendices Appendix 1: P1 Intakes - Falling School Rolls - 1W Class Intakes Appendix 2: P1 Intake Timetable Appendix 3: School Consultation for Proposed Class and Half Intakes Appendix 4: Primary Schools with Proposed P112 Composite Classes Appendix 5: 2006/07 Oversubscribed Primary Schools - Proposed P1 Intakes Appendix 6: Primary Schools Class Size Intake Limits Appendix 7: Secondary Schools Intake Limits Previously Agreed by the Council

Contactltel Lindsay Glasgow 469 3312 Wards affected City wide Background E/506/03-04/ED - Strategic Management of School Provision: Accommodation Issues Papers for August 2005 and Beyond - Executive of the Council 15 March 2005

11 APPENDIX 7

P1 INTAKES

4 Fallina School Rolls - “I1/’Class” Intakes

* (a) Introduction

In session 2005-06 one of the strategies to address the issue of falling school rolls was the introduction of “1% class” intakes to certain schools as part of a two year planning process designed to avoid the creation of an additional class due to non-district requests.

(b)

The decision is based on the Standards in Scotland’s Schools etc (Scotland) Act 2000, Section 44 (4). This inserts into the 1980 Act the following:

[An exception to the duty of the education authority to accede to a parent’s request that a child be placed in a specified school] “assuming that pupil numbers remain constant, make it necessary, at the commencement of a future stage of the child’s primary education, for the authority to elect either to create an additional class (or an additional composite class) in the specified school or to take an additional teacher into employment at that school.”

The legislation makes it quite clear that the need to create an additional class is sufficient grounds for refusal, even if that additional class will be at a later stage of education.

This was confirmed in a judgement in the Sheriff Court in August 2005.

The funding provided to the authority reduces in proportion to the numbers of pupils in our schools and the dominant cost for the authority is the number of teachers. Primary rolls in Edinburgh are dropping and are projected to continue to fall. It would be unaffordable to maintain the same number of schools and classes in view of these dropping rolls. Authorities, including Edinburgh have thus been in the process of reducing the number of classes in primary schools. Edinburgh has recently taken three approaches:

Merging primary schools serving the catchment areas of two previous schools where falling rolls have caused overcapacity (7 mergers in recent years) School closures (2 in recent years) Reducing the number of classes in schools as district pupil numbers fall

In all cases no teachers lose their jobs. The number of staff leaving the service naturally (e.g. through retirement) allows us to relocate surplus teachers in other schools. Staff in schools would often prefer that the number of classes remained at previous levels as this can mean additional resources. Understandably they are seeing matters from a local point of view - the authority has to manage the whole service and public funds responsibly. 12 (d) Schools Identified for “1 W Class” Intakes

Schools whose district numbers are expected to exceed 30 but are not expected to exceed c.40 have been considered.

In some cases, this results in composite classes being created from session 2006-07 (with P2 classes currently in Pl). This reflects normal practice of many years duration.

As in 2005, in other cases, the intake is to be limited to “1% classes” to allow a two year plan to be implemented. (This limited intake of 40 pupils* will be organised into two classes for year one of the plan.)

The formation of “1% classes” in such schools represents one way of reducing the overall number of classes while at the same time accommodating &I district pupils and some non-district placing requests. The examples below illustrate this:

ExamiDle 7 Without limit District Non-District No of Classes Intake Year 1 31 + 29- 2 Intake Year 2* 26+ 19- 2 Total 110- 4 One full class equivalent of non-district children. Additional teacher required for school at cost of c.f38,000of public funds.

ExamiDle 2 With limit District Non-District No of Classes Intake Year 1 31 + 9- 1.5 (running as 2 classes in year 1) Intake Year 2* 26+ 14- 1.5 Total 80- 3#

Notes * Maximum class size in P1 and P2 is 30 in session 2006-07 Maximum class size in Pi in session 2007-08 will be 25 # P1 - 25 pupils PI12 - 25 pupils P2 - 30 pupils

During year 1 (session 2006-07) district placing requests into Pi will be accepted but non-district placing requests refused. Should it be necessary to form two P1 classes in year 2 to accommodate all district applications, these will be put in place.

Likewise, the intake would be increased at these schools should refusal of the non- district placing requests require the formation of an additional class at the district school of the refused applicant.

13 APPENDIX 2 €D I NBVRG H THE CITY OF EDINBURGH COUNCIL

CHILDREN AND FAMILIES

P1 INTAKES COMMUNICATIONS STRATEGY

1 November Consultative Committee with Parents (CCWP). Briefing on communications strategy for P 1 intakes and intake policy.

8 November Presentation to Primary Head Teachers’ Association Meeting on Communications Strategy and policy for managing P1 intakes.

Early November Council Children and Families spokespeople and Group Leaders offered briefings on P1 intake policy (carried out via CCWprocess).

1 December Briefing on P 1 intake policy and process to Primary School Business Managers.

Early February Information on proposed P1 intakes sent to Head Teachers.

Early February All schools likely to be included in the March Executive Report to be contacted individually and proposals discussed. School Services Managers also informed of proposals.

W/c 6 February School Board meetings may take place in those schools where significant changes are being proposed to allow School Board to discuss proposals and give quick feedback of comments to the department.

Mid February Letter to Head Teachers setting out draft staffing allocations for 2006107 based on class organisation.

7 March Report for Council Executive published. Briefing for Evening News. Copy of final report e-mailed to all schools.

14 March Council Executive meeting. E-mail to schools following meeting to report Council Executive decisions.

14 A PFENDlX 3

SCHOOL CONSULTATION FOR PROPOSED CLASS AND HALF INTAKES

Following concern from parents about the 1 ’/2 class intakes for some schools from August 2006, it was agreed that a communications strategy would be put in place to manage the P1 intake process. As part of this process School Boards and/or parents at schools where a class and half intake was proposed were invited to comment on proposals. A resume of the letters and comments received follows:

1 St Mary’s (East London Street) Primary School

A letter was received from the School Board, an MSP, a Councillor and 54 standard letters from parents or potential parents. The points made were:

1. Siblings of pupils already at St Mary’s may not be accommodated 2. Pupils from the 2006 P1 classes will be composited into a PUP2 arrangement from 2007 3. Concerns at there being more composite classes throughout the school in coming years and that this will disadvantage bright and less able pupils and be socially disruptive

Response

Of the ten requests in, five have siblings. It is likely that one or two may not be successful. 0 Many of our schools have been successfully running composite classes, including at P1/2 for many years. 0 Composite classes are a perfectly normal form of class organisation for delivering effective primary education. Composite classes follow the same 5-14 curriculum with the same assessments. Children are taught at their own level and assessments are carried out when a pupil reaches a level rather than a particular age. In this respect all classes can be regarded as ‘composite’ classes.

2 Clermiston Primary School

A letter from the Clermiston School Board noting: 1. That it was difficult for them to form a view as they did not know what impact this would have on other schools in the area 2. Understanding that the Council has to manage its resources

Response

It is anticipated that the non-district applicants will be able to be placed at their district school without the formation of an additional class at that school.

3 Balgreen Primary School

A combined letter from the School Board and Parents’ Association noting the success of Balgreen as well as: 1. The right of parents to choose a school outwith their catchment area and that some inequality now exists with some schools able to offer non district places and others not 2. Some siblings of existing pupils may be denied places 3. There will be an impact on the school budget 15 4. The proposals include composite classes that have previously not been required at Balgreen.

Response

0 Our policy, consistent with legislation is to accommodate wherever possible all district pupils and a number of non-district requests where these can be accommodated without the formation of an additional class. Where it is possible to accommodate placing requests through the formation of a composite class, we are required by legislation to facilitate this. Parents have the statutory ‘right’ to make a placing request but this may not be granted. The number of places available for non-district pupils varies school by school and year by year depending on the numbers of district pupils. 0 In accordance with the above policy, all parents making non district placing requests are made aware that they are not guaranteed a place and similarly there is no guarantee that future non district siblings will have a place. 0 The Children and Families department is funded on the basis of the number of pupils of school age within the City. Pupil rolls are falling year on year and therefore the Department is require to manage its resources within this context. 0 Composite classes are a perfectly normal form of class organisation for delivering effective primary education. Composite classes follow the same 5-14 curriculum with the same assessments. Children are taught at their own level and assessments are carried out when a pupil reaches a level rather than a particular age. Many of our schools have been successfully running composite classes, including at P112 for many years. Class organisation is based on the projected total number of pupils and their distribution within the school for a particular year. Many schools now require to form composites, that previously did not, particularly with falling rolls across the City.

4 Liberton Primary School

A letter from the School Board noting the following: 1. The possibility that not all siblings of existing pupils will be placed in the school 2. Asking for an indication of whether placing requests out of Liberton will be successful thus guaranteeing places for the non-district siblings 3. Asking for clarification of why only district pupils arriving during the year would be placed above the 40 intake limit 4. Asking if the P1 intake for every school has been subject to the same process, what is the critical number for deciding that the intake should be restricted, what margin for error is allowed. 5. What about potential pupils from nearby new housing 6. Is the drop in roll a one year blip or a trend 7. The longer term impact on the school, particularly for new families moving into the district 8. Impact on budgets, ethos and parental involvement

Response

Our policy, consistent with legislation is to accommodate wherever possible all district pupils and a number of non-district requests where these can be accommodated without the formation of an additional class. Where it is possible to accommodate placing requests through the formation of a composite class, we are required by legislation to facilitate this. In accordance with the above policy, all parents making non district placing requests are made aware that they are not guaranteed a place and similarly there is no guarantee non district siblings will have a place. Currently there are 49 district pupils including 13 for placing requests to other schools and 2 possible nursery deferrals. This could leave a district roll of about 34. There are 16 currently 19 non district requests into the school, 9 of them have siblings. At this stage it is likely that at least 6 of the requests for siblings would be met. 0 If it is agreed that the roll is restricted to 40 and a number of non district placing requests refused, it would serve no purpose to then allow those refused places to be offered places after the start of the session; the principle is to accommodate district pupils wherever possible. 0 Meetings have taken place to discuss the intake levels for all schools. All schools were examined on the basis of the anticipated numbers of district pupils and the pattern of reduction in district numbers last year between February and the start of the session. Six schools ran this arrangement last year and a further 5 schools are proposed for this coming session, including Liberton. 0 The Children and Families Department does take account of new housing developments. Should there be a need to form an additional class(es) in future years this would be done. 0 The fall in school rolls is a general trend across the City. 0 Should district numbers increase in future years the situation would be reviewed as it is our policy to accommodate all district children wherever possible. 0 The Children and Families department is funded on the basis of the number of pupils of school age within the City. Pupil rolls are falling year on year and therefore the Department is require to manage its resources within this context. It is not the experience of other schools that the formation of composites affects the ethos of the school or the extent of parental involvement.

5 Craiglockhart Primary School

A letter has been received from the Craiglockhart School Board following a well attended meeting. 3 other letters have been received, 2 from parents and one from an MSP. The main points noted are: 1. Denial of reasonable choice of school for parents, particularly where siblings are refused places and might force parents to move older children within the school 2. Seeking assurance from the authority that the introduction of composite classes will not be detrimental to the quality of learning and teaching. 3. Asking for some local discretion for gender and learning progress in the selection of pupils for composite classes -this is normally by age 4. The intake cap will restrict enrolment of out of district pupils who have traditionally made up a large proportion of the school roll 5. Siblings of existing non district pupils may not be placed 6. New apartments and houses are being built at Meggatland and may provide pupils for the school 7. Concern for composite classes at PllP2

Response

17 when a pupil reaches a level rather than a particular age. Many of our schools have been successfully running composite classes, including at P1/2 for many years. The policy suggests the use of age as the primary criterion as it tends to be the least discriminatory. There are, however, other circumstances where other criteria may be more appropriate, for example where there is bullying or in the case of twins. Council policy, consistent with legislation is to accommodate wherever possible all district pupils and a number of non-district requests where these can be accommodated without the formation of an additional class. Where it is possible to accommodate placing requests through the formation of a composite class, we are required by legislation to facilitate this. In accordance with the above policy, all parents making non district placing requests are made aware that they are not guaranteed a place and similarly there is no guarantee that future non district siblings will be accommodated. The Children and Families Department does take account of all new housing developments. Should there be a need to form an additional class(es) in future years to accommodate rising numbers of catchment pupils, this would be done. Composite classes are a normal form of class organisation for delivering effective primary education. Composite classes follow the same 5-14 curriculum with the same assessments. Children are taught at their own level and assessments are carried out when a pupil reaches a level rather than a particular age. In this respect all classes can be regarded as ‘composite’ classes.

Preston Street

A letter has also been received from Preston Street School Board expressing ongoing concern about the arrangement for a 1 ’/2 class organisation that was agreed by Council in 2005.

7 Other Correspondence

There has been some additional correspondence from parents expressing concern about composite classes in Pl/P2. In particular the School Boards at Broughton and Parson’s Green Primary Schools are concerned.

Response

Composite classes are a perfectly normal form of class organisation for delivering effective primary education. Composite classes follow the same 5-14 curriculum with the same assessments. Children are taught at their own level and assessments are carried out when a pupil reaches a level rather than a particular age. Many of our schools have been successfully running composite classes, including at P1/2 for many years. Class organisation is based on the projected total number of pupils and their distribution within the school for a particular year. Many schools now require to form composites, that previously did not, particularly with falling rolls across the City. APPENDIX 4

PRIMARY SCHOOLS WITH PROPOSED PI12 COMPOSITE CLASSES - SESSION 200617

Broughton Castleview Clovenstone Dalmeny Dean Park Echline* Ferryhill* Granton Hermitage Park Hillwood Juniper Green* Kirkliston* Lorne Murrayburn Parson's Green Preston Street Prestonfield Pirniehall Ratho St Margaret's St Mary's (Leith) St Ninian's Sighthill* The Royal High Tollcross Trinity Victoria

* Possible P1/2 composite depending on district numbers

As class organisations are not finalised until the beginning of the session this list is provisional only. Some of the listed schools may not require to form composite classes and likewise it is possible that some schools not listed may be required to form composite classes.

19 APPENDIX 5

2006107 OVERSUBSCRIBED PRIMARY SCHOOLS: PROPOSED P1 INTAKES

” SCHOOL PROPOSED INTAKE Balgreen 40 Blackhall 60 Bonaly 60 Bruntsfield 60 Buckstone 60 Corstorphine 60 Craiglockhart 40 Cramo nd 60 Dalmeny 17 Davidson’s Mains 60 Duddingston 60 Flora Stevenson’s 60 Gylemuir 60 Hermitage Park 41 James Gillespie’s 60 Kirkliston 40 Leith Walk 30 Liberton 40 Oxgangs 60 Prestonfield 20 Roseburn 30 Sciennes 90 South Morningside 90 St John Vianney’s 30 St John’s 60 St Mary’s (London Street) 40 Stockbridge 30 The Royal High 42 Tollcross 20 Towerban k 60 Trinity 40 Victoria 14 Wardie 60

20 APPENDIX 6

PRIMARY SCHOOLS CLASS SIZE LIMITS

21 APPENDIX 7

SECONDARY SCHOOLS INTAKE LIMITS PREVIOUSLY AGREED BY COUNCIL

School I SI Intake Limit I Date Applied 1

* limit increased to 220 to accommodate district pupils for August 2002. ** limit increased to 280 to accommodate district pupils for August 2003 *** limit increased to 240 for 2001, 2002 & 2003 subject to annual review. **** limit increased to 260 for August 2003 ***** limit increased to 200 to accommodate district pupils for August 1997, 1999, 2000, 2001,2002 8,2003 intakes ****** limit increased to 200 for August 2002 only

22 Agenda item:

Report title: Strategic Management Of School Provision: Intakes for August 2006

In accordance with the Council’s Standing Orders, the contents of this report have been noted by the appropriate Executive Member.

Without prejudice to the integrity of the report, and the recommendations contained within it, the Executive Member expresses hidher own views as follows:

Date: 7 March 2006

For information - Standing Order 57( 1) states:

“Heads of Department will prepare reports, with professional advice and recommendations, on matters requiring decisions by the Executive:

k a report seeking decisions on matters of corporate strategy, corporate policy and corporate projects will be submitted direct to the Executive

P a report seeking decisions on matters relating to the special responsibilities allocated to an individual member of the Executive will be submitted, in the first instance, to that member. The member will add his or her own recommendation to it before submission to the Executive. Where the Executive member disagrees with the advice and the recommendation of the officers, the Executive member will also state his or her reasons.”