Item No B3 By: Director - Operations

To: School Organisation Advisory Board – 18 September 2006

Subject CHURCH OF (VOLUNTARY CONTROLLED) PRIMARY SCHOOL, : PROPOSED CLOSURE - OUTCOME OF PUBLIC CONSULTATION.

Classification: Unrestricted

File Ref: ______Summary: This report sets out the results of the public consultation. It seeks the views of the School Organisation Advisory Board on the proposed closure of Detling Church of England (Voluntary Controlled) Primary School by the issuing of a public notice for the closure of the school. ______

Introduction 1. (1) The School Organisation Advisory Board at its meeting on 8 June 2006 supported the undertaking of a public consultation on the proposal to close Detling Church of England (Voluntary Controlled) Primary School.

(2) Detling CEP School serves the immediate community of the village as well as a number of families from the area. The school has a PAN of 15, with a net capacity of 83. It had 44 pupils on roll in January 2006. The school operates a three class structure, although on projected pupil numbers this is unsustainable. Its roll fell from 44 in January 2006 to just 31 by 8 June 2006. A map is attached in Appendix 1, which shows the location of the school and the current pupil distribution.

Background Information 2. (1) In Maidstone Borough there are 53 primary schools with a combined net capacity of 13,337. There are currently 11,662 pupils attending these schools giving a surplus capacity of 12.6%.

(2) The Primary Strategy (Recommendation 27) states that "wherever surplus primary capacity is projected to rise above 7% in any cluster area, proposals should be brought forward to reduce it to 5%. The retention of a 5% surplus in any area (rather than zero) is considered to be 'good practice' to assist parental preferences being met, and to build in a contingency to deal with any unforeseen short-tem increase in pupil numbers. The DfES require all local authorities to report annually on all schools with an excess of 25% surplus capacity, giving justifications why such schools are not being closed or having their net capacity reduced.

ed&libreports/2006/180906b B3:1

The Proposal 3. (1) The proposal is to close Detling CEP school with effect from September 2007. Pupils at the school requiring an alternative primary school place for the academic year 2007-08 would need to transfer to another primary school at that time.

(2) County Council would provide information, advice and support to parents to help secure alternative school places and ensure an orderly transition. Parents would be able to express a preference for any alternative school. Wherever possible, parental preference would be accommodated. Schools would apply their normal admissions criteria. If parents are unable to secure a place at their preferred school, an alternative place would be offered.

(3) Every child is guaranteed a place in alternative appropriate provision. Available places have already been identified at St Paul’s Infant and Northborough Junior schools. These would be sufficient to accommodate all Detling pupils who wished to remain together.

Public Consultation Process 4. (1) A consultation document, a copy of which is attached as Appendix 2, was circulated according to the County Procedures for Review. This included Local Members, District Council, Parish Councils, local libraries, schools within the two Maidstone Clusters, Member of Parliament and other interested parties.

(2) Approximately 500 copies of the document were circulated.

(3) The document included a separate form on which respondents could express their views.

(4) A public meeting was held at Detling CEP School on 29 June 2006. The meeting was chaired by Mr R Burgess, KCC Member for Margate West. Mr L Ridings, KCC Member for Sandwich (and Vice Chairman of the Council), Mr Chris Jones (Area Education Officer), Mrs Hilary Macdonald (Local Education Officer) and Mr Matthew Nye (School Organisation Officer) were in attendance.

(5) There were 37 members of the public in attendance.

Responses to the Public Consultation Written Responses

5. (1) In total 19 written responses (letters, emails and consultation forms) were received from members of the public, of which 7 were in favour of the proposal, and 12 were against. A Petition was also received, which was signed by 238 people, stating ‘we the undersigned oppose the closure of Detling CE Primary School’

(2) A summary of written responses is attached as Appendix 3. Responses to the main points are included in the Area Education Officer’s Comments in Section 13.

ed&libreports/2006/180906b B3:2

Public Meeting Responses

(3) A summary of comments, views and responses is attached as Appendix 4.

Views from the Canterbury Diocese 6. Mr Rupert Bristow, Director of Education, has made the following comments on behalf of the Diocesan Board of Education:

“In the light of falling primary rolls and the particular circumstances of this school, the Board is supportive of the joint efforts of the governing body of the school and the local authority, in collaboration with the Diocese, to manage the closure of the school in the best interests of current pupils in order to secure their continuing education in other local schools. Despite the great efforts made by the school, staff and governors since the school went into and came out of Special Measures, the falling roll in the school will mitigate against sustainable improvements over the long term.

Subject to appropriate placements of pupils and associated transport arrangements, the board will continue to work to ensure a smooth transition for pupils and a responsible and sensitive approach towards current staff.”

Views of the Local Member 7. Lord Bruce-Lockhart, Local Member for Maidstone Rural East made the following comments on the proposal (from letter dated 26 July 2006);

“After careful consideration, I wish to support the closure of the School. This is also supported by the Headteacher and the Governing Board. I would like to put on record my thanks and appreciation of the enormous effort and progress that the Headteacher and teaching staff have made at Detling in building the standard of education. Nevertheless, at some 40 pupils and with falling rolls the School is unsustainable.”

Views of Maidstone Borough Council 8. The Ward Member for Detling and the Member for have both declared their total opposition to the proposed closure. The following views also have the support of the Ward Member for Stockbury. Although it is stated that the Governing body, Diocesan Representative and the Parish Council are in favour of closure, the Borough Council believes many local parents are vehemently opposed.

“The school is small, below OfSTED requirements in terms of accommodation and costs more per child than elsewhere. Lord Bruce-Lockhart has visited the school and feels that closure is the only appropriate action.

Detling Parish Council is keen to have a Community Interest Company (CIC) run the site, it is understood that this has the support of Hugh Robertson MP.

ed&libreports/2006/180906b B3:3 Ward Members agree that the site should be transferred to a CIC with the intention of keeping it open for educational use within Detling.”

Sadly Detling CE Primary School cannot survive. The proposed Community Interest Company has the Ward Member’s support and provision must be made for acceptable transportation facilities for the present and future children.”

Views of Local the Member of Parliament 9. Mr Hugh Robertson MP for Faversham and Mid Kent has declined to make a comment on the proposed closure of Detling CE Primary School.

Views of the Governing Body 10. “Early this year the governors took the decision to enter into a co-operative process with the LEA, leading to the closure of Detling School.

For over ten years Detling School has had a steadily falling number of pupils. The rate of decline accelerated following the imposition of Special Measures in April 2005. The governors and staff worked very hard to raise standards and the hope was that this would lead to a recovery in pupil numbers. However the reverse happened. The number of pupils coming from Detling village was particularly low.

The governors came to the view, a view supported by professional advice, that, while it would be possible to raise standards to a good level in the short term with all the support coming from the LEA as a consequence of Special Measures, it would not be possible to keep this up on a sustainable basis. This was not solely due to the reducing resources that follow reduced pupil numbers, leading to an excessive number of year groups in each class. The very small age groups and class sizes, with the reduced stimulation and peer competition, would also lead to a poor environment for teaching and learning.

The governors therefore, with great reluctance, decided to recommend closure in the interests of the children.

The recent HMI inspection has resulted in the removal of Special Measures. While this has done marvels to the morale of pupils, parents and staff, and is a tribute to all concerned, it does not alter the long term non-viability of the School.”

Views of Maidstone 2 Cluster Board 11. The Maidstone 2 Cluster Board acknowledges the need to remove places in its cluster in order to achieve a surplus of between 5% and 7%. The Board fully supports proposed reductions in surplus capacity where this involves removal of temporary accommodation or the re-designation of space for community use. It accepts that under the Kent Primary Strategy 2006, some small schools may have to be closed or amalgamated.

ed&libreports/2006/180906b B3:4

Views of Detling Parish Council 12. Mr. Geoffrey Cosgrove, Chairman of Detling Parish Council has made the following comments on behalf of the Parish Council:

“We were very dismayed at the recent decision by the school/LEA that the village school was to close after more than 150 years. We accept that this decision was inevitable and only made after lengthy consultation and discussion.

As a Parish Council we are very aware that the village needs to maintain its heart and identity, the school, along with the church, shop and pub are key to the community and we wish to preserve this for future generations. There is always adverse reaction to such momentous decisions but once made we must change, adapt and make best use of an opportunity for the good of the village and its community. The recently completed Detling Village Plan showed that the school was one of the key concerns for the people.

With that in mind, a focus group has been held, representing key people in the village and more importantly the whole of the Pre-school Group that currently operates from the school buildings and has concluded the following:

(a) The Pre-school Group will continue to operate on the site. It has grown over the years and provides quality early education for the children of the village and surrounding areas. (b) The Pre-school Group wish to form a part of the Educational element of a Rural Children’s Centre (c) There is a strong desire to see the school and its grounds continue in public ownership as a central village focus providing a range of benefits to the village. (d) The Parish Council would like to open a Parish Office on the site and perhaps for other Local Authority functions to have a base there.

The Church is currently researching the remit of the donation of the school land, but it is our intention to continue to provide children’s education on the site and therefore to continue to satisfy the conditions of the original donation. The Parish Council is fully in support of this village initiative and is also planning to establish a “Community Interest Company” in order to properly administer, maintain and support the buildings and groups that will use the buildings and grounds as well as the other village assets and services, which may become an “Asset Lock”.

The Parish and the newly formed community focus group will be actively exploring a number of avenues in the future.

The Parish Council, on behalf of the village of Detling, is requesting/urging Kent County Council to transfer the whole site to the Parish when the school finally closes in 2007 and for the Diocese of Canterbury to allow the Detling Parish Community Interest Company to administer the whole site on its behalf for the sole benefit of the community, continuing as an education centre for children, whilst providing better and additional services for the village.

ed&libreports/2006/180906b B3:5

To allow the school to be boarded up and developed would, in our view be a very short sighted step, whilst creating a lot of hostility and opposition that would permanently ruin Detling as a village community. The Parish does not believe development would be of anyone's interest, as this will destroy a community that desperately needs to develop a heart and focus for all of its residents.

Stockbury Parish Council oppose the closure of the Detling school on the grounds that pupils living in the Stockbury area will have to travel even further to school, and transport arrangements to Maidstone and other areas are uncertain.”

Views of the Area Education Officer 13. (1) Detling School has become too small to be viable. It currently maintains 3 classes but its budget would require this to be reduced to 2 if the school was to continue beyond the 2006/07 school year. This would entail all Foundation and Key Stage 1 children being in one class while all the Key Stage 2 children would be in another. Such a structure would not provide a satisfactory basis for delivering a high quality education, which would adequately meet the needs of all age groups.

(2) It is likely that within a two-class structure, there would be an excessive demand upon the Headteacher to teach in order to support differentiation of the curriculum for different age groups.

(3) The school's classrooms are under-size and it lacks necessary facilities such as a dedicated space for a library or information technology or facilities for the disabled. Furthermore, the staff room and office accommodation are in a demountable building. Considerable investment would be needed to address these shortcomings and this is not justified by the school's projected future roll.

(4) Governors and staff are to be congratulated on the school's recent removal from Special Measures. This accomplishment has, however, been achieved with considerable support from the Local Authority and depended heavily upon the skills of the current Headteacher. The school's ongoing financial and organisational challenges will result in it remaining fragile in terms of the quality of education it is able to provide.

(5) It has been suggested during the public consultation that Detling School could be used as an 'overflow' for oversubscribed local schools, with transport provided by the Local Authority. While creative ideas for sustaining the school merit examination, this suggestion does not take account of a parent's right to seek a place for his/her child at any school that has a place or of the constraints of the Authority's School Transport Policy. Parents cannot be compelled to send their children to Detling if they choose not to do so and free transport cannot be provided except under very specific conditions.

(6) It is significant in the case of Detling CE Primary School that the Governing Body, The Diocese of Canterbury and the Local Authority have each concluded that closure is necessary. These three parties recognise and understand the local community's reluctance to accept the loss of its school and have not reached their decisions lightly. Nevertheless, closure is appropriate both in the interests of children's education and the responsible use of resources.

ed&libreports/2006/180906b B3:6

Resource Implications Capital

14. (1) Mouchel Parkman advise that the majority of the buildings and hard team sports area is owned by KCC, whilst the Canterbury Church of England Diocese own the remainder. If the school was to close, the property would be suitable for conversion of the existing buildings. About half of the school buildings are located within the Conservation Area and the remainder are not. The existing buildings will be suitable for conversion to 3-4 units with one or two possible new build units on the site.

Revenue

(2) There would be a short-term saving of £51,000 in urgent repairs and maintenance. In 2006/07, the cost per pupil for Detling School is £3,661 (£4,433 with SEN funding) compared with a county average of £2,453 (£2,819 with SEN). The cost of educating Detling’s pupils at other local schools would be lower, thus creating savings which would be redistributed to other schools through the delegated budget formula.

Human

(3) Every effort would be made to assist staff in finding suitable alternative posts in order to avoid compulsory redundancies. The support of Maidstone 2 and adjoining clusters of schools will be sought in finding alternative employment for displaced staff.

Accommodation Issues 15. The school has three classes and is accommodated primarily in a Victorian building. The staff room and administration are in a demountable building. There is no dedicated library, IT space or disabled facilities and classrooms are under-sized. There is currently £51,000 of outstanding (D1) work required, consisting largely of repairs to the roof, external windows and doors, and to external areas.

Equality Issues 16. Of the 44 children on roll, 4.3% were classified as Gypsy/Roma and 95.7% as White British. There were no pupils for whom English is not their first language. 26.4% of pupils were entitled to free school meals and 34% were on the school's register of pupils having Special Educational Needs. Both of these figures were above the national average. (All figures are taken from the school’s 2005 PANDA Report).

Transport and Environmental Impact including Community Implications 17. (1) Pupils under 8 years of age who are required to travel more than three miles would be entitled to free transport while for older pupils, the qualifying distance is 3 miles. It will be necessary to provide some transport for children living in Detling and the surrounding area. Some older pupils would qualify for free transport due to the hazardous nature of the route to the nearest available school. ed&libreports/2006/180906b B3:7

(2) Detling School has links with the local church and plays a part in village events. Its hall is used by outside groups and there is an independent pre-school setting on site.

School Improvement Implications 18. (1) Detling was inspected by OfSTED in April 2005 when it was found to be ‘very ineffective’ and to give ‘poor value for money’. Standards in year 2 were well below average and those in year 6 below average. The poor achievement and low standards were attributed to poor teaching and poor leadership and management, although it was noted that the new Headteacher had clearly identified and begun to address the many weaknesses. The school was placed in Special Measures.

(2) Since April 2005, the school has made significant progress and during term 6 2006, it was removed from Special Measures. Comparisons of examination results involving small cohorts of children are statistically unreliable but Detling’s value-added scores in its 2005 PANDA showed an improvement from well below average in 2004 to average in 2005 (Key Stage 2 English, Mathematics and Science).

Links to Primary Strategy 19. This proposal is consistent with recommendations 17, 22, 23, 24, 27, 28 and 29 of the Primary Strategy 2006.

Proposed Timetable 20. If it is decided that a public notice should be issued in respect of the proposal, the following timetable could apply:

Cabinet Member decision October 2006 Public Notice issued 19 October 2006 End of Public Notice period 30 November 2006 Report to Kent School 20 December 2006 Organisation Committee (if required) Closure September 2007

ed&libreports/2006/180906b B3:8

21. The views of the School Organisation Advisory Board are sought on:

(a) on the proposed closure of Detling Church of England (Voluntary Controlled) Primary School by the issuing of a public notice for the closure of the school.;

(b) subject to approval of the proposal following the end of the objection period, the resources necessary to implement the scheme being provided on the basis identified in this report.

Chris Jones Area Education Officer Maidstone and Tonbridge & Malling Tel: (01233) 898560

The Local Member is Lord Bruce-Lockhart

______

Background Documents: None

Previous Committee Reports: Report to School Organisation Advisory Board 8 June 2006

Other Sources of Information LEA School Organisation Plan Kent Primary Strategy 2006 ed&libreports/2006/180906b B3:9

ed&libreports/2006/180906b B3:10 Appendix 3

Proposed closure of Detling CE (Voluntary Controlled) Primary School

Summary of Written Responses

Consultation documents distributed 500 Responses received 19

Numbers in favour of the proposal 7 Numbers against the proposal 12

Support Against Undecided Totals Parents of children at the School: 1 5 6 Parent of a pupil at another school 0 0 0 Members of staff at the School: 1 0 1 Member of staff at another school 2 0 2 Governors of the School: 0 0 0 Governors from other schools 1 0 1 Other interested party 2 7 9 TOTALS 7 12 19

A Petition was also received, which was signed by 238 people, stating ‘we the undersigned oppose the closure of Detling CE Primary School’.

Views against closure

Community

• Negative impact of the school closing on the community (3) • Need to support rural communities (1)

Class size

• Advantages of small schools / small classes for children's education (3)

School performance

• Recent positive OfSTED report (1)

Parental choice

• Parental choice - parents should have option to choose this school (1)

Transport and environment

• Difficulties for parents with no transport in accessing alternative schools (2) • Impact on the environment of travel to alternative schools (1) • Distance into Maidstone schools for parents of children living in Stockbury (2)

ed&libreports/2006/180906b B3:19

Changing school

• Unsettling effect on current pupils of changing school (1)

Other points

• Could the Local Authority consider federation with another small school? (1)

Views in favour of closure

Financial viability

• Closing the school makes economic sense if the children can be kept together (1)

ed&libreports/2006/180906b B3:20

Appendix 4

Proposed closure of Detling Church of England (VC) Primary School

Summary of the public meeting held at Detling CE Primary School On 29 June 2006

Issue or comment Response

Transport

Requests guarantee of free transport for A description of KCC transport Detling pupils to Maidstone schools regulations highlighting concessions throughout their school lives. for “hazardous routes” was given (routes into Maidstone schools have been designated ‘hazardous’)

Concern that pupils from Stockbury will Detailed plans for the transport of have an unreasonably long day having to individual pupils will not be made commute to Maidstone. What plans are until a decision is reached on this there for these pupils? proposal.

I don’t drive. I have no choice. I’m stuck. KCC transport policy states that if the nearest appropriate school is over two Do we have to send pupils to schools miles away for Key Stage One pupils identified (by KCC) to get transport and three miles away for Key Stage concessions? Two then pupils qualify for transport.

Stockbury is nearer to Hartlip. If Detling If the nearest appropriate school is full pupils choose Hartlip will they get and the next nearest is further away transport? transport will be available.

If a child is offered Hartlip or Tunstall will Where families choose schools not they get transport? Will all pupils go as a deemed to be the nearest appropriate group to the new school? school KCC transport rules apply.

ed&libreports/2006/180906b B3:21

Local management of school places

If Maidstone schools are oversubscribed Parents may choose a place at any why not bus in pupils (to Detling CE school which has vacancies. No Primary School) from those schools who mechanism to direct pupils to attend live nearer to Detling? It would reduce specific schools. traffic.

Can I have an assurance that the All views will be taken into account. Authority will look dispassionately at Schools Organisation Advisory Board the figures? The Area Education Officer will monitor responses to ensure they has already mentioned federation are adequate. between schools. Good quality transport between other areas and Detling would attract families.

Maidstone Borough Council supports KCC recognises the issue of families the concern for Stockbury pupils, and already commuting from the Stockbury the desire to see all options explored area to Detling CE Primary School and regarding numbers and placement at those choosing to travel from Detling to schools other than those identified in surrounding primary schools. Hooker’s the proposal (North Borough Junior and Lane has been designated a “hazardous St. Paul’s Infant Schools). route” and therefore transport will be made available.

Building developments described (e.g. There is no facility under the allocation Bearsted) could give rise to increase in of places to direct pupils to attend demand for places locally. Maidstone specific schools. Local housing schools – Roseacre and Thurnham – are developments have been taken into already oversubscribed. Are there plans account in KCC calculations of pupil to increase their capacities? There numbers. It is estimated that 100 new needs to be closer examination of the houses are needed to provide 25 pupils. data and catchment areas. This could Over time this requires a constantly lead to co-operation between these changing population in order to schools and Detling reducing the need maintain pupil numbers. There is no for families to commute. Routes to evidence currently to require increased Maidstone include Hooker’s Lane which accommodation at local schools. This would avoid main, busy roads. The and the current Detling school decision to close could prove a false population have led to the proposal for economy. closure.

If these local schools are oversubscribed Oversubscribed schools will obviously – figures have been scrutinised – where not be able to take Detling pupils. The will Detling pupils go? Will KCC build Authority will endeavour to move pupils new classrooms? in one group that wish to remain together. Figures provided by the Authority show that (other) schools locally have an It is in the interests of Detling pupils excess number of pupils on roll, above that a decision is reached sooner rather their registered number (net capacity) than later since this will allow a 12 which amounts to about 60 pupils. This month transition period in which is the figure which this school needs to negotiations with Detling survive. Very concerning for the village. pupils/families can be carried out in ed&libreports/2006/180906b B3:22 seeking appropriate places. Detling pupils have no choice. Parents with names on local schools’ waiting lists have discovered that they have not moved up the list over time but down due to applications from families living nearer those schools or with siblings having priority. Detling pupils are viewed unfavourably by other local schools.

Denominational and alternative school places

Can you guarantee that pupils will go to Issue of placement – a decision at the a Church of England school? end of the consultation period will allow 12 months transition in which the placement of pupils will be negotiated. No guarantee of a Church of England school place. Appropriate places will be sought in schools where there is spare capacity.

Some Church of England schools which may have available places and that are near to Detling are further north in the Borough, or in Swale Borough (for example, and Hartlip CE Primary Schools). Maidstone need not be the sole focus.

North Borough Junior and St. Paul’s North Borough Junior and St. Paul’s Infant Schools have been identified as Infant Schools have been identified as probable placements. Surprised that schools in stable areas, which would be North Borough had been identified as prepared to take substantial numbers the nearest school for Stockbury pupils. of Detling pupils (potentially all). St Paul’s recently received an excellent OfSTED report and has the ability to take Detling pupils in September 2007 if necessary.

School site, buildings and alternative use

What will happen to the site if the Questions of ownership of the site are school closes? still being resolved. Legal advice is being sought over ownership/definitions of Can we have a guarantee that it will not rights. Revertor issues still to be be used for residential development? resolved.

Diocese will ensure full and open disclosure of discussions aimed at securing the best, community-based use of the site. ed&libreports/2006/180906b B3:23

Where did the Parish Council’s group The issue of the future use of the site ‘wish list’ come from? (on proposed was discussed by a small group set up community use of school site) by the Parish Council and this group has made suggestions for community use of the site in the case of closure. The Parish Magazine also invited residents to respond. This is an agenda item for the July Parish Council meeting, which is open to all. If residents know the site may continue to be used by the community this could positively influence attitudes (towards school closure).

The consultation process

“No decision taken” (about closure) – Discussion of the future of the school disagrees. Poor parental attendance at between the Authority, Diocese and this meeting is due to the perception Governing Body has been open. that a decision has already been taken. Why are we having this meeting?

The perception is that there has been a decision to close the school and that there’s nothing can be done about it.

It may be the case that no decision has There was no representative because yet been made but there was no decision to go to public instability/uncertainty leads to families consultation. This is the meeting for leaving. There is a need for reassurance parents to express their views and to from the Authority. There was no Local hear the responses of the Authority. Authority representative at the village hall meeting.

Will the closure of this small village No decision has been made. Comments school impact on parents of other small received from consultation will be schools? considered by the School Organisation Advisory Board (SOAB). If SOAB (and Local people have assumed that closure subsequently KCC Cabinet) agree to the was decided and final. What if parental proposal for closure, a formal public views locally change? Closure is notice will be issued which will trigger a irreversible. Need to explore all options. set period for (further) objections to be Detling is a scapegoat. voiced. If necessary the proposal will then go to an independent adjudicator. It has been stated that no decision has been made. There is great concern about getting pupils to new schools. The village hall meeting gave the impression that the decision had been made.

ed&libreports/2006/180906b B3:24

ed&libreports/2006/180906b B3:25