SCHOOL ORGANISATION ADVISORY BOARD 12 JULY 2006

PROPOSALS FOR THE REDUCTION OF SURPLUS CAPACITY IN PRIMARY SCHOOLS IN THE DOVER DISTRICT – OUTCOME OF PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

(a) Melbourne Primary school and The Powell Primary School – Proposed Amalgamation (b) South Deal Primary School and Mongeham Primary School – Proposed Amalgamation (c) Goodnestone Primary School – Proposed Closure (d) Langdon Primary School – Proposed Closure (e) St Joseph’s Primary School – Proposed Closure (f) St Radigunds Primary School – Proposed Closure (g) The Ripple School – Proposed Closure

Attached at Annex A are comments which have been received from Mr G Prosser, Member of Parliament for Dover and Deal which relate to all seven schools. Where he has commented on an individual school, those comments have been included in the report.

Attached as Annex B are comments which have been received from Dover District Council, whose corporate response focuses on the strategic, overarching policies underpinning this consultation and not giving specific responses on each of the schools.

12 July 2006 Covering note for Annexes A& B

ANNEX A THE RESPONSE OF GWYN PROSSER MP TO KENT COUNTY COUNCIL’S PUBLIC CONSULTATION ON THEIR PROPOSALS TO CLOSE OR MERGE NINE SCHOOLS IN HIS DOVER & DEAL CONSTITUENCY.

Introduction I have had opportunity to raise many of my concerns directly with Kent County Council and with the public, and for the purpose of this written submission I propose to outline some of my general concerns about the whole of the closure process, support the many reasons for objection to closure that have been raised by the threatened schools and highlight some of the most worrying elements of KCC’s proposals.

KCC’s crude and crass proposals In common with most of my constituents I accept that high levels of surplus school places need dealing with but what is not acceptable is the crude and crass way that the leadership at Kent County Council has approached the problem of surpluses – especially in my constituency which covers Dover, Deal and Aylesham. I describe the proposals as crude and crass because instead of exploring imaginative remedies to absorb surplus places by working together with the schools affected ( in the manner adopted by more enlightened authorities) Kent’s LEA has simply said ‘shut down seven schools’ - paying no regard to all the turmoil and distress that such crude actions will have. Other authorities have dealt with surplus places by operating their schools in federations, setting up informal partnerships of neighbouring schools with shared leadership or using the surplus places to reduce class sizes – but not in Kent. Even in the neighbouring authority of Medway, the original plans to close just one school to reduce surplus paces has been abandoned in the light of local objections. I would argue that the local nature of Medway Unitary Authority means that they recognise their accountability to the school closure objectors in a far more meaningful way than do Kent County Councillors who are closeted in far away Maidstone.

KCC’s failure to seek remedies to surpluses in a timely way. A key role of any LEA is to provide strategic and timely planning for the provision of educational services in all areas under its responsibility.

12 July 2006 Annex A for all Dover reports 1 The Council’s reasons for proposing so many school closures in my constituency is that the birth rate has fallen and consequently there are too many surplus places. The LEA is in possession of some of the most sophisticated population forecasts and demographic models to assist them in their planning decisions covering the short, medium and long term. So far they have refused to explain why they seem to have failed to detect the falling birth rate in my constituency until the current time. The Schools Officer and his special adviser told me that the reason why the number of closures proposed in my constituency are so much greater than anywhere else in the County, and the reason why action needed to be taken immediately was that the number of surplus places in Dover, Deal and Aylesham “had reached crisis proportions.” Even if KCC’s Leadership was completely ignorant of all the population trends and forecasts, it should have realised that the actual recorded falling birth figures which were apparent in the late nineties would be feeding through to falling rolls for children starting school in subsequent years. KCC’s failure to predict the problem of falling rolls until the problem became a crisis is important because given more time the Council would have had more opportunity to sit down with the nine schools affected and explore mutually acceptable solutions such as those mentioned above. There is a wealth of experience and expertise amongst the staff, the governors and the parents of the affected schools which could have been harvested in the search for better remedies to our surplus problem but instead the County (because of its failure to properly plan ahead) has been forced into making the sort of crass and crude proposals that could result in the closure of nearly a quarter of the primary schools in the constituency of Dover, Deal and Aylesham.

Future population forecasts There is evidence that the national birth rate is stabilising and might start growing but that apart, it is common knowledge that Dover District Council is encouraging high levels of house building in future years throughout the constituency, including the areas where KCC wants to shut down schools which will clearly impact on the magnitude of future surplus places. The LEA has failed to properly address this issue. (see St Radigund’s section)

POINTS OF PARTICULAR CONSERN

Closure of the four small schools I support the arguments put forward against closure by the four small primary schools of Goodnestone, Langdon, St Joseph’s and Ripple.

12 July 2006 Annex A for all Dover reports 2 All four schools are performing well and each plays a vital role in binding together their local communities and providing an important focus for community activities. It has often been said that taking away small schools from our rural villages would have the effect of tearing the hearts out of our those local communities and I agree with this view.

In a less emotional manner, OFSTED is on record as saying: “…… a good case emerges for the place of small schools in the education system as a whole when the quality of their educational performance is added to the broader contribution they make to their communities”

Closure of South Deal by amalgamation with Mongeham I support the augments against closure made by South Deal Primary School and I would press the point that this school serves the former coal mining dormitory area of Mill Hill which suffers serious deprivation and the children living in this area should be entitled to receive additional help and support from the LEA not the prospect of losing their local school. All of the schools campaigning against closure have enlisted massive support from local people but South Deal have demonstrated an exceptionally high level of support as measured by the hundreds of people who joined their protest march and the 2,000 people who supported their petition.

Closure of Melbourne by amalgamation with Powell I support the augments against closure made by Melbourne Community Primary School which is situated in an area of high deprivation. I would draw attention to the excellent way that this school has adapted over the 25 years that I’ve known it, to become genuinely fully inclusive in a way which few other schools could demonstrate. Melbourne has made an attribute of welcoming and supporting children with all sorts of special needs both emotional and physical and it’s the only school I know which is adapted to allow total wheelchair access. I have recommended the school to parents of disabled children who had almost given up on gaining mainstream teaching and I’ve seen those children flourish in the special culture that Melbourne provides. I believe it would be close to impossible to replicate this culture and the physical adaptations on another site and that this issue alone is augment enough to justify it’s continuation.

Closure of St Radigund’s Community Primary School I support the augments against closure made by St Radigund’s School and I would emphasise the following:

12 July 2006 Annex A for all Dover reports 3 In common with South Deal, Melbourne and St Joseph’s schools, St Radigund's CP serves an area of high deprivation and has a very high proportion of children with special needs and it’s sad if not shameful to reflect that a common theme that runs through KCC’s biggest closures in my constituency is that they are all situated in deprived areas which have never returned a Tory Councillor to County Hall. Because of its catchment area, St Radigund’s has struggled for many years and never received the level of support from the LEA that it is entitled to. There is a sad irony in the fact that while Government has recognised the needs of the area by directly funding help for the under 5 year olds through the Sure Start program at one end of the estate – on the other end, KCC is shutting down the estates only primary school. Journeys to the nearest alternative schools entail crossing busy roads and negotiating numerous traffic junctions and because of this barrier and other well rehearsed reasons I agree with the view of local people and professionals who predict that school attendances will fall dramatically if St Radigund’s is closed. In common with other school closure areas, there are current plans drawn up for new additional housing units in the St Radigund’s area and the potential for many more. There is evidence that at least one developer is waiting for the decision on St Radigund’s School before committing to building because in his word: “These units were going to be small attractive family homes - but what parent wants to move into a house in an area that doesn’t have a primary school?”

Conclusion Reports from the consultation meetings in the nine schools affected indicate that the County Council’s proponents of closure had their augments comprehensively destroyed. The clear emerging view of the public participants is that Conservative Councillors and their Officers were well aware how inappropriate and unpopular their proposals were but felt obliged to ‘tough-out’ the meetings, ignore all the inputs and then forge ahead with their original closure program. What’s not clear is whether these crude and crass proposals were the brain child of Tory Councillors who then instructed their Officers to do their bidding or whether it was the result of hapless Councillors being led by the nose by uncaring Officials – which ever it be, KCC’s current proposals will be damaging to those in most need and should be opposed.

29/06/06

12 July 2006 Annex A for all Dover reports 4 ANNEX B

Kent County Council’s proposals for the reduction of surplus capacity in primary schools in Dover district

Thank you for your recent letter inviting comments on the proposals for local primary schools, including the:

• Amalgamation of South Deal Primary School and Mongeham Primary School • Closure of Langdon Primary School • Closure of Ripple School • Closure of St Radigund’s Community Primary School • Amalgamation of Powell School and Melbourne Community Primary School • Closure of St Joseph’s Catholic Primary School • Closure of Goodnestone CE Primary School

In preparing this response, Dover District Council has considered the detailed report to Schools Organisation Advisory Board (SOAB) on the 19th April 2006 and the public consultation documents circulated by Kent County Council on the 22nd May 2006.

At a Council meeting on the 26th April 2006, Martyn Doole kindly presented a detailed report to the Council outlining the proposals for the above primary schools within Dover district. We acknowledge and understand the sensitivity of this consultation and seek to give a strategic response, as a public authority and also as ambassadors for our local communities. At Council it was resolved that ‘Dover District Council recognises the need to deal with genuine surplus places in primary schools however, Dover District Council expected further work be undertaken to ensure a fully inclusive consultation process is adhered to.’ We therefore accept the received consultation documents for each of the identified schools and the scheduled open meetings as part of this process.

Dover District Council has agreed that individual ward members, as advocates for their local communities, are responsible to respond on the individual school consultation documents. Furthermore, it was agreed inappropriate for the Council to give specific responses on each of the schools identified through this consultation and therefore the corporate response will focus on the strategic, overarching policies underpinning this consultation.

The Council response is outlined below, agreed at Council meeting on the 28th June 2006. Due to the sensitivity and importance of the consultation on our local communities, further points have also been identified, for which we seek clarification and reassurance that all aspects of these proposals will be fully considered in the decision-making process.

1. Statistical evidence

1.1 Dover District Council fully accept the birth rate in England and Wales is falling steadily and the direct correlation of this demographic change to primary school rolls.

1.2 Through the LDF process at Dover District Council, projected statistics are used to consider the impact of the future housing growth options on the demography of the population. Within the LDF process, three options for growth are being considered – 6,100, 8,100 and 10,000 households. For the district as a whole, if the original growth of 6,100 households is accepted, there will be a 20% reduction in 0-15 year olds throughout the district by 2026. With this in mind, Dover District is considering growth of 8,100 as a realistic target,

12 July Annex B for all Dover reports 1 however, this will still see a reduction of 15% in the 0-15 year old age range by 2026. This will not only affect primary school rolls but also secondary education. Has this consultation process taken full account of the projected demographic change? Is Kent County Council taking into account the impact of the projected growth in the provision of all education, including secondary schools? Dover District Council requests assurance that the long- term sustainability and viability of these proposals has been considered in light of the projected demographic changes. Dover District Council also seeks clarification that all educational provision and future requirements are being explored in the forward planning process.

1.3 The falling level of 0-15 year olds cannot be disputed, however, local variations must also be considered. We therefore urge Kent County Council to fully consider local statistical data, e.g. on a ward basis, in the decision making process to ensure an accurate account of demographic change affecting the identified schools. For example, within some urban Dover wards, including St Radigunds and Buckland, and Aylesham (where high levels of housing growth are planned) there is a higher proportion of 0-15 year olds than the district average with around a quarter of all residents falling within this age group1. Dover District Council requests that a survey is carried out of all schools in the District to recalculate pupil capacity based on usable classrooms. Pupil numbers should be based on a maximum class size of 30 for KS1 and 34 for KS2.

1.4 From a practical point, the public consultation documents produced generally provide a consistent approach regarding the information provided. However, there are some inconsistencies between the documents that may affect the detail of responses that Kent County Council receives to the consultation process. The consultation documents do not make the grounds by which these schools have been selected, entirely clear. To ensure a transparent process, information around the weighting of criteria to be used e.g. cost per head, catchment areas, surplus capacity should be publicised. For example, not all consultation documents give percentage figures for the number of children attending the school within a set vicinity. A further example is that within the small school consultation documents, generalised phrases such as ‘many’ or ‘overwhelming majority’ are used rather than exact figures. Additionally, not all identified schools have a surplus capacity in excess of 25%, where the DFES requires an annual report justifying why such schools are not being closed or having their net capacity reduced. Where an affected school does not have such a high level surplus capacity, this information is not mentioned and other schools within the district with higher surplus capacity are not included in the consultation. Clearly, other factors have been given a higher weighting for KCC to include them in the proposals and the background to the proposals should reflect this. Dover District Council seeks clarification of the criteria to be used in the decision making process.

2. Resources to reflect priorities

2.1 Dover District Council fully accepts the limited resources of public authorities to deliver a growing range of services, and the challenges of meeting the expectations and requirements of all communities.

2.2 We understand the difficult balance with prioritising spend on public services with the duty to take on board the views of local residents. The UK currently has one of the highest teacher pupil ratio in Europe and with this in mind, the reducing birth rate and falling rolls could be an opportunity for Kent County Council to provide children with an enhanced educational environment with smaller classes, where this is financially and educationally viable. 3. Role of schools as community assets

3.1 The role of schools as community assets also needs to be given consideration in the decision- making process. The nature of schools make them natural hubs for social and community

1 Against the Kent and District percentages of around 20% for 0-15 year olds (based on Census 2001).

12 July Annex B for all Dover reports 2 activities, and we urge Kent County Council to consider this element of primary schools in their deliberations.

3.2 We request that Kent County Council ensures due consideration is given to recommendations 28 and 30 outlined in the Kent Primary Strategy 2006 regarding falling rolls and surplus capacity: 28) In making any proposal for closure, the capacity of a school to provide effective educational and social provision for each child should be the prime consideration; 30) Where excess space is generated by falling rolls, provision of extended schools, community and/or early years and childcare facilities should be given priority consideration.

3.3 The public consultation documents appear heavily focused on the financial costs ‘per pupil’, and in this case no one could argue that financially some schools may be unsustainable. We therefore request that other social factors are fully considered as part of the decision-making process and alternative options considered to make these schools financially and socially viable.

4. Impact on deprived communities

4.1 Dover district has a number of vulnerable communities in terms of deprivation. The Indices of Deprivation 2004, 6 Super-Output Areas2 in the district fall within the top 20% most deprived wards nationally. These SOA’s primarily fall in the urban wards of St Radigunds, Maxton Elms Vale & Priory, Buckland and Tower Hamlets.

4.2 The ‘Education, Skills and Training’ domain within the Indices of Deprivation 2004 clearly shows the level of deprivation within Dover district with 8 SOA’s falling within the top 20% of the most deprived wards nationally. One SOA falling within the top 5% nationally is part of St Radigund’s ward, and 2 further SOA’s within the worst 10% nationally are part of Aylesham and Buckland wards.

4.3 With this is mind, St Radigund’s Community Primary School proposal recognises the school serves a community with a high degree of need. The proposal suggests the school is unable to meet the educational needs of the pupils. However, the proposal fails to clarify how closing a school in a community suffering from high levels of deprivation will help improve the educational attainment of these children and their families.

4.4 As previously highlighted in paragraph 1.3, there is a direct correlation between wards with higher levels of deprivation and a higher proportion of children aged 0-15 years of age. Dover District Council therefore asks that Kent County Council consider the local statistics in more depth, particularly around the levels of 0-15 year olds in communities with identified higher levels of need.

4.5 This evidence further reinforces the link between deprivation and educational attainment and Dover District Council would like to see further consideration of the impact of KCC’s proposals, particularly in deprived wards. Additionally, Dover District Council would like further information on these proposals and the aims to raise the education levels, particularly in deprived communities.

5. Impact on children of relocation

5.1 Within each of the public consultation documents, the relocation and/or transfer of children is touched upon. The impact of such a dramatic change for young children and their families

2 Super Output Areas (SOAs) are a new geographic hierarchy designed to improve the reporting of small area statistics in England and Wales, first used in determining the Indices of Deprivation in 2004. They cover a minimum of 5000 population and are consistent with local authority boundaries.

12 July Annex B for all Dover reports 3 cannot be underestimated. Children thrive in comfort surroundings and any change can be extremely distressing. To many parents and families, the statement that ‘Kent County Council will ensure a place at an amalgamated school or nearby school’ will not in itself be sufficient reassurance. Dover District Council requests that an independent expert is engaged to advise on the educational and social impact of children being relocated to a different school outside of their community.

5.2 Other factors that need to be considered are the impact that some children could be precluded from after school clubs due to additional travel, the potential dip in performance of existing and new children during any transitional period, while children resettle. Dover District Council requests that an independent expert advise on the impact on educational standards and emotional maturity due to the disruption of breakfast, after-school and holiday clubs.

5.3 If Kent County Council agrees to go ahead with any of these proposals, we request that the appropriate level of Special Education Needs support is available from the outset to ensure continuity.

5.4 For schools to fully support the families of their pupils, it is paramount that Kent County Council ensures siblings currently attending the same school are able to relocate together.

5.5 We therefore request that further consideration be given to this element and adequate support given to parents and children if the proposals are agreed.

6. Accessibility

6.1 Accessibility and school travel in light of the potential closures and amalgamation are considered within the public consultation documents. However, the documents fail to take into consideration local issues such as the topography of the area. Urban Dover itself consists of seven valleys resulting in steep residential areas.

6.2 Also, the additional travel, particularly for rural families affected by the proposed closures of small schools need to be taken into account. Dover District Council requests that a traffic impact study is undertaken to assess the increase in car journeys as a result of these proposals.

6.3 Dover District Council request this is taken into account, particularly with the urban Dover schools.

6.4 The more detailed report does highlight specific concerns in terms of accessibility for physically disabled pupils. Specific reference is given to the need for adaptations in Powell School if the amalgamation is agreed. Dover District Council doubts that one or more schools can be made compliant with the DDA and best practice guidance for pupils and their parents. Dover District Council therefore requests that all disability issues are capable of resolution before the proposals to amalgamate or close a school are progressed further.

6.5 We also request that Kent County Council consider fully the Government’s statutory guidance on issues to be considered in deciding proposals, in particular for rural schools whereby “the Decision Maker should have regard to the need to preserve access to a local school for rural communities. There is therefore a presumption against the closure of rural schools. This does not mean that no rural school should ever close, but the case for closure should be strong and the proposals clearly in the best interests of educational provision in the area.”3

3 DFES - Decision Makers Guidance, Section 1, paragraph 54 - http://www.dfes.gov.uk/schoolorg/guidance- view.cfm?Expand=True&id=33&#p22886

12 July Annex B for all Dover reports 4

7. Long-term viability and investment in all schools

7.1 Additional to this consultation process, Dover District Council requests consideration of the long-term investment required in schools across the county. Many school buildings are unsuitable for current teaching and provide sub-standard accommodation. On behalf of local residents, Dover District Council seeks commitment that the long-term investment of all schools be considered and addressed.

8. Nursery provision

8.1 The Government’s Ten Year Childcare Strategy4 highlights that “by the age of two, poorer children are doing less well than more economically and socially advantaged children and the gap between them widens during the first years of school.” Therefore, it is essential that pre-school needs are met, particularly in deprived communities. Dover District Council acknowledges the key role of Children’s Centres in linking children and families to a wider range of local services.

8.2 To meet the commitment for greater integration and accessibility, it is vital these centres and other nursery provision is available in the most appropriate geographical location.

9. Equal opportunities

9.1 The detailed report states that the need to meet the diverse needs of individual pupils is acknowledged and addressed within the proposal. Dover District Council is content that diversity issues have been considered, however, would like Kent County Council to ensure ‘equalities’ is considered in the broadest sense and not just in terms of ethnicity or cultural minority groups.

10. Future housing growth

10.1 As stated in Kent County Council’s detailed report, Dover District Council is considering options for additional growth of up to 10,000 new houses over a 20-year period. The report also stated the “District Council has advised that the bulk of any new housing would be in and around Dover town, rather than Deal, Sandwich or the rural areas.” Debate is still ongoing regarding the site option appraisals, however, regarding these proposals we would like to draw your attention to consideration for sites in neighbouring villages adjacent to Langdon. Particularly, Whitfield and Guston with the potential redevelopment of the Connaught Barracks site and permanent housing at Burgoyne Heights for Ghurkha families. The current timetable envisages this will be considered at Council in July 2006. It is essential the future housing growth inform the decision making process of these proposals if the long-term impact and sustainability is to be taken into account and we request KCC consider the LDF timetable.

10.2 Current development sites also need to be taken into consideration; for example, the proposed redevelopment of the Buckland Mill site will include 300 additional households. In addition, the Aylesham Project will see 1,000 new houses built in the village in the next 10 years.

10.3 The report also mentions the use of section 106 agreements to generate funding in the long term to provide additional school provision, should it be necessary. With large developments, Dover District Council already works KCC in developments to consider

4 Choice for parents, the best start for children: making it happen – an action plan for the ten year strategy: http://www.everychildmatters.gov.uk/_files/CA5356DFF0DD26E7D051144E9BC96D52.pdf

12 July Annex B for all Dover reports 5 if there are any issue with the education provision in the affected area and deliver accordingly. However, it must be acknowledged that Section 106 agreements are a limited resource with many demands upon them for community and social infrastructure including affordable housing, open space and community facilities. Dover District Council seeks reassurance that any reduction in current surplus capacity is sustainable in the short and medium term.

10.4 Regarding Aylesham, if the closure of St Josephs goes ahead, Aylesham Community School does not have the capacity to deal with the growth. The report confirms that the Aylesham Community School site could cater for a higher capacity; however, the long-term sustainability needs to be weighed against the short-term financial implications of this proposal. Dover District Council therefore requests that Kent County Council consider the long-term sustainability and capacity of existing schools to accommodate future growth.

11. Combined impact of proposals

11.1 Through the public consultation, each affected school is considered in individual consultation documents, which will enable each case to be explored and determined on its own merits. Has the impact of various scenarios been considered by Kent County Council, for example, what is the overall impact on surplus capacity in a cluster area if all these proposals go ahead? Has Kent County Council the resources to deliver the agreed proposals by 31st August 2007?

11.2 In the consideration of the closures, has the current capacity of alternative, neighbouring schools been fully taken into account? Additionally, where amalgamations are being considered, have the financial and social implications been fully considered? For example, within the proposal for the amalgamation of Powell and Melbourne, it is noted within the detailed report that the current Powell School’s capacity is 280, against a combined roll for the two schools of 315. The detailed report states that two additional classrooms would need to be built at the estimated cost of around £330,000. These additional costs have not been supplied in the public consultation document and Dover District Council asks for reassurance that these additional financial costs are taken into consideration. Also, do these additional two classrooms provide for any surplus capacity for long-term sustainability?

12. Conclusion

12.1 Dover District Council accepts Kent County Council’s conclusion that ‘doing nothing is not an option’ and agree that some change is necessary regarding the surplus capacity of schools within the district. The principle outcome of this consultation must be to ‘secure sustainable and cost effective, high quality provision over the long term’5 for all children in the Dover district. Dover District Council considers that the proposed closures and amalgamations do not provide the best long-term solutions to the capacity issues raised in the initial Kent County Council report. Dover District Council therefore requests that a thorough audit of the age and state of all schools in the area is carried out with a view to compiling an investment plan that takes account of all the issues raised in this response and the likely needs over the next 25 years. Kent County Council should aim to maximise the opportunities presented to improve the educational environment and academic standards for all children, as well as achieving the maximum benefits for local communities.

5 ‘Proposals for the reduction of surplus capacity in primary schools in Dover district’ report to Schools Organisation Advisory Board, 19th April 2006, p.25

12 July Annex B for all Dover reports 6