Item No B3 By: Director - Operations

To: School Organisation Advisory Board – 7 September 2006

Subject TROTTISCLIFFE CHURCH OF ENGLAND (VOLUNTARY CONTROLLED) PRIMARY SCHOOL, WEST MALLING: 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 issuing of a public notice for the proposed closure of Trottiscliffe Church of England (Voluntary Controlled) Primary School by September 2007 at the earliest. ______

Introduction 1. (1) The School Organisation Advisory Board at its meeting on 18 May 2006 supported the undertaking of a public consultation on the proposal to close Trottiscliffe Church of England (Voluntary Controlled) Primary School.

(2) Trottiscliffe CE (VC) Primary School has 61 children on roll (January 2006 PLASC) against a net capacity of 84, giving it a 27.38% surplus capacity.

(3) The school is situated within the village of Trottiscliffe. Approximately 37% of its pupils are drawn from within a 1 mile radius, while approximately 40% live more than 3 miles from the school. The latter live mainly in Snodland and East Malling. A map is attached in Appendix 1, which shows the location of the school and the pupil distribution.

Background 2. (1) In the Tonbridge and Malling areas there are 40 primary schools with a combined net capacity of 10,441. There are currently 8,891 pupils attending these schools giving a surplus capacity of 14.8%. Surplus places are slightly higher in the Malling area than in Tonbridge.

(2) Due to increasing pupil numbers, surplus places in the Malling area are forecast to reduce to 7.25% by 2010, whereas in Tonbridge, the surplus is projected to rise to 14.87%. If no action is taken, it is estimated that by 2010 the surplus across the district as a whole will be 10.1%. Retaining surplus capacity at schools such as St Katherine’s, West Malling and Wouldham, will facilitate an orderly management of provision for pupils generated by planned housing developments in the Malling area.

ed&libreports/2006/070906c B3:1

(3) Current estimates are that it will be necessary over the next 4 years to remove approximately 150 places in the Malling area and 400 in Tonbridge to achieve the desired level of surplus capacity. This is being addressed through a range of proposals, including that to close Trottiscliffe.

(4) School places are available within one mile of Trottiscliffe at Vigo Village School and within 3 miles at Platt CEP, St George’s CEP, West Malling CEP, Stansted CEP and Borough Green Primary School.

(5) Trottiscliffe saw a small increase in its popularity between January 2005 and January 2006. It has made significant improvements since it was placed in Special Measures in 2003 and, under the leadership of its current Headteacher, is considered to have the capacity for further self-improvement. Nevertheless, it fails to meet the recommendations of the Primary Strategy in the following ways (numbers in brackets refer to Primary Strategy recommendations).

(a) It is only able to sustain 3 classes, thus necessitating that more than 2 year groups are taught in a single class (22);

(b) There are considerably less than 100 pupils on roll (23) and the school is unable to maintain a 4 class structure (24);

(c) The local community is of insufficient size to sustain the school. In order to be viable, Trottiscliffe is reliant on parents transporting children over more than 3 miles from areas where there are already surplus places in local schools;

(d) Trottiscliffe has 27.38% surplus places based upon 2006 PLASC. This is forecast to increase by 2010. In closing the school, 84 places (net capacity) would be saved. This would, with other measures outlined below, enable the cluster to achieve the target of 5% surplus places.

(6) As part of the 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 (for example a regiment moving). The DfES require all 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.

The Proposal 3. (1) To close Trottiscliffe CE (VC) Primary School. The proposal would take effect from either September 2007 or September 2008.

(2) If Trottiscliffe CE (VC) Primary school were to close, then the site could be declared surplus to requirements.

ed&libreports/2006/070906c B3:2

Accommodation Issues 4. (1) The school has three classes and is accommodated primarily in a 1970s SEAC building. One classroom was added in 2005 to replace a mobile. The Local Authority’s records show that there is £77,765 of outstanding (D1) work required. This includes work to external areas (£15,265) and roof repairs (£62,500). Information received during the consultation indicates that the school has addressed some of the former from its own funds.

(2) One classroom is under-size (51m sq) and the staffroom is also too small. The hall is under-size (90m sq) and is a thoroughfare through which much of the school is accessed. The school playing field is also the local recreation ground.

Public Consultation Process 5. (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 Tonbridge and Malling Clusters, Member of Parliament and other interested parties.

(2) Approximately 1,000 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 Trottiscliffe Village Hall on 22 June 2006. The meeting was chaired by Mr Godfrey Horne, KCC Member for Tonbridge. Sir John Stanley, Local Member of Parliament, Mr Matthew Balfour, Tonbridge & Malling Borough Councillor, Mrs Sarah Hohler, KCC Member for Malling North, Ms Jan Thompson, from Rochester Diocese, Dr Ian Craig (Director of Operations), Mr Chris Jones (Area Education Officer), Mr Tony Froude (Local Education Officer), Mrs Julie Stones (Head of Operations Support) and Mrs Kendra Stanley-Berridge (Education Support Officer) were in attendance.

(5) There were 205 members of the public in attendance.

Responses to the Public Consultation Written Responses

6. (1) In total 1,076 responses had been received. This included a Petition from the Trottiscliffe ‘Save Our School’ Action Group which contained 222 signatures. 3 responses were in favour of the proposal and 1073 were against.

(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 15.

Public Meeting

(3) A summary of comments and views expressed at the public meeting is attached as Appendix 4. ed&libreports/2006/070906c B3:3

Views from Rochester Diocese 7. Rochester Diocesan Board of Education is not in favour of the proposal and made the following comments (taken from an e-mail sent on 17 July 2006);

“…Rochester Diocesan Board of Education does not support the closure of Trottiscliffe CEP School, because it is only now recovering from the adverse effects of the Ofsted decision of a couple of years ago, and our opinion is that it is now a good school and has a viable future, with its rising roll…”

Views of the Local Member 8. Mrs Sarah Hohler, Local Member for Malling North, is not in favour of the proposal. Her comments against the proposal are outlined in Appendix 5.

Views of the Local Member of Parliament 9. Sir John Stanley, MP for Tonbridge & Malling, is opposed to this proposal. His comments against the proposal are outlined in Appendix 6.

Views of the Governing Body 10. The governing body of Trottiscliffe (Voluntary Controlled) Primary School is not in favour of the proposal and made the following comments:

“…Trottiscliffe Primary School is the very heart of this community, we care about our school, our church, the future viability of our village and most importantly the future of our children. All these are threatened by the proposal to close our school.

As Chairman of governors I wish to state categorically that we do not accept the KCC recommendations and challenge many of the statements in the consultation document.

Trottiscliffe has met its challenges well, over the years, with growing strength and commitment by both the school and the community. Our spanking new classroom and general refurbishment, for which the community raised £40,000 has given us a splendid platform to plan for our future. A 50% rise in roll over the last 2 years, together with our results, value added etc, is proof that the school is thriving, our research suggests that we will be asking for an increased pupil admission number in 2007!

The KCC report states that 60% of present pupils come from within 3 miles of the school, I would say that this is an extremely high proportion for such a rural area.

Whilst fully understanding the big picture as regards the Kent Primary Strategy, we genuinely believe that there is no need to close a school in the Malling Area, the projected population growth does not warrant such a draconian and irreversible step. ed&libreports/2006/070906c B3:4

We challenge Kent's policy as regards the effectiveness of small schools. The arguments in favour of small schools are well known. But there can be no dispute that our school does in fact serve this community, that our roll is rising, that the physical condition of our buildings is good and that we deliver a full range of curriculum and social experiences.

We challenge the financial implications of small schools, feeling that they do indeed give value for money.

We do not agree with the statements as regards our buildings and facilities. We are extremely fortunate to be located in such a beautiful spot, with not only our own excellent and well maintained facilities but also the close proximity of the recreation ground, village hall, tennis courts and church.

We challenge the validity of your statistics and forecasted numbers, this cannot be done historically when there is such a rejuvenation taking place in our community, as well as the proposed developments in the area.

The strong Christian ethos in our school, its place in our community, together with the huge enjoyment of learning it provides, mean that there is something at Trottiscliffe that no statistics can prove, it cannot be costed or quantified, all the money in the world cannot buy it, all the state of the art buildings and interactive whiteboards do not influence it, you destroy it at your peril.

The Old School bell has run out over this village for over 150 years, we want it to continue to do so, as we also want to continue to hear the sounds of happy children…”

Views of Malling Cluster Board 11. The Malling Cluster Board are unable to support the proposal. Their reasons include the following:

(a) "The Board do not wish to make strategic decisions which directly effect the employment of other colleagues. It sets up a divide between Headteachers on the board, who have volunteered their time to support the school improvement agenda at a local level, and other Headteachers to whom the board represents.

(b) To say that the Board supports the decision of the LEA over the closure of a named school will damage relationships between members and their colleagues. This has to be an LEA decision.

(c) The proposed closure is for a school that is presently successful. The Primary Strategy states that no successful school would be made to close.”

Views of Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council 12. (1) Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council are not in favour of the proposal. Its comments are outlined in Appendix 7. ed&libreports/2006/070906c B3:5 (2) Tonbridge & Malling Borough Councillor, Mr Matthew Balfour for the Downs Ward, is not in favour of the closure. His comments against the proposal are outlined in Appendix 8.

ed&libreports/2006/070906c B3:6

Views of Addington Parish Council 13. Addington Parish Council is not in favour of the proposal and made the following comment (taken from letter received on 28 June 2006);

“…Addington Parish Council is against the closure of Trottiscliffe Church of England Primary School and fully supports the schools campaign to remain open…”

Views of Stansted Parish Council 14. Stansted Parish Council is not in favour of the proposal and made the following comment (taken from letter received on 19 June 2006);

“…It is the view of Stansted Parish Council that village schools provide a happy environment for their pupils, and are effective in providing quality, breadth and depth of education. They are also an integral part of the village communities in which they are situated.

We therefore, feel that such a proposal will have long reaching effects as KCC strive to cut costs in whatever areas they feel is necessary. Stansted Parish Council strongly objects to the proposed closure of Trottiscliffe Church of England Primary School, such a proposal would not be in the best interests of the school, it pupils or the community it serves…”

Views of the Area Education Officer 15. (1) There is need to remove 150 school places in the Malling area. In addressing this, the Local Authority must have regard to proposed new housing developments in the area. For this reason, it would not be appropriate to reduce places at schools which will in time meet the needs of expanding adjacent populations, although it is proposed to remove some places from the Snodland area to create a Children’s Centre. Some responses to the proposal to close Trottiscliffe School suggest that it should remain open in order to provide for children from new housing, whilst simultaneously claiming both that children should be educated in their own communities and should not have to undertake car journeys to school. Trottiscliffe is not, for these very reasons, an appropriate provision for children generated by new housing in the Malling area. Should it be necessary to create additional capacity to provide for new housing in the Ryarsh or Leybourne areas, it would be more efficient to enlarge nearer schools to one or two forms of entry. Trottisclife is distant from these developments and its site does not have the capacity for expansion.

(2) Some concern is expressed in responses about perceived lack of alternative school places in general, and a possible shortage of Church of England school places in particular. There are 101 empty school places within 3 miles of Trottiscliffe and 283 places within 4 miles, including 178 places in Church of England schools (June 2006).

ed&libreports/2006/070906c B3:7

(3) There is very strong opposition from the Trottiscliffe community to its school closing. The greatest volume of negative comments relate to impact upon the community, including the church. These cover a variety of points relating to the school’s central role in village activities which bring residents together and generate a community spirit; its current impact in attracting families with children to the village; the support which the community gives to the school; and the desirability, for both children and the community, of children being educated within the locality in which they live. These concerns are understandable, although it must be pointed out that in January 2006, the 63% (approx) of pupils on the school’s roll who were being brought in from outside the village were not themselves being educated in their communities. Nevertheless, the strength of feeling about the school’s role in the community has to be seen in the context of DfES guidance which identifies community impact as one of the factors which must be considered in relation to the possible closure of a rural primary school (section 70 of the Education Act 2005).

(4) There is praise for the work of the current Headteacher and her staff in lifting the school from its low point in 2003, when it was placed in Special Measures and had a falling roll. It is clearly regarded by many respondents as an effective and increasingly popular school. It is important to note, however, that recent success has depended upon the qualities of this Headteacher and the small group of staff whom she has been able to attract, together with support from the Local Authority. It is the experience of the Local Authority, both at Trottiscliffe and in other small schools, that this dependence on a small staff can render such schools equally vulnerable to sudden decline when there are changes of personnel.

(5) A significant number of parents have praised the school’s `safe’ environment. These comments have in part referred to the school’s physical location but have more commonly been concerned with a perceived lack of bullying or disruptive behaviour among pupils. Pupils’ politeness has also been noted. In making these observations, many responses have associated them with Trottiscliffe being a `small’ school and contrasted them with their negative experiences of larger schools. In practice, good or poor pupil behaviour can occur in both large and small schools and is more likely to be associated with a school’s location and its policies rather than simply its size. Nevertheless, these qualities are clearly perceived as strengths of Trottiscliffe School.

(6) Many respondents are concerned that recent investment in the school would be wasted if the school was to close. They are particularly annoyed that expenditure on a new classroom, sourced by KCC (£102,500) and through local fund- raising (£40,000), would represent poor value for public money. In addition, responses observe that the Local Authority has invested considerable human resource in supporting the school’s recent improvement in standards, and that the community has raised money for a number of initiatives to improve the school’s resources. It is inevitable that the timing of any county-wide review of schools will coincide with recent expenditure on some premises and where this occurs, it will have to be weighed against longer-term gains in the use of resources. To educate a child at Trottiscliffe in 2006/07 costs 28% more than the county average, based on figures which exclude additional funding for special educational needs. However, the cost of any entitlement to free transport would reduce potential savings.

ed&libreports/2006/070906c B3:8

Resource Implications Capital

16. (1) The Rochester Diocesan Board of Education own the majority of the school site where buildings are constructed and also all the road frontage. KCC own part of the rear of the site including where some buildings are erected. KCC also leases some land from the parish.

(2) Any development on this site is likely to involve joint development of KCC and Diocesan land together. The school is not within the Conservation Area. However, the area is an one of Outstanding Natural Beauty and extensive development would not be possible. There are restrictions in this village on extensive development.

Revenue

(3) There would be a short-term saving of at least £62,500 in urgent repairs and maintenance. In 2006/07, the cost per pupil for Trottiscliffe is £3,319 compared with a county average of £2,819, or £3,140 compared with £2,453 when funding for special educational needs is discounted. The cost of educating Trottiscliffe’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

(4) Staff would need to seek alternative employment in the event of closure. The Local Authority and Cluster would actively support any redeployment of staff where appropriate positions in other schools become available.

Equality Issues 17. Of the 61 children on roll, 2% are classified as Gypsy/Roma, 68. 6% as White British and 29.4% as Unclassified. There are no pupils for whom English is not their first language (2005 PANDA).

Transport and Environmental Impact Including Community Implications 18. Just under 40% of pupils (January 2006) live within 1 mile of Trottiscliffe school, while a further 40% live more than 3 miles from the school in areas where alternative provision is available. The Local Authority’s Transport policy would make arrangements for the provision of free transport for children aged under eight (at the beginning of the school term) for whom the home to school journey, by the shortest available walking route is two miles or more, and for older children of statutory school age for whom the journey is three miles or more.

ed&libreports/2006/070906c B3:9

School Improvement Implications 19. (1) Trottiscliffe was inspected by OfSTED in January 2003 when aspects of the school were found to be unsatisfactory and it was placed in Special Measures. A new Headteacher was appointed in January 2003 and under her leadership, the school made good progress. In June 2004, HMI assessed Trottiscliffe as providing an acceptable standard of education and no-longer requiring Special Measures.

(2) The current Headteacher provides good leadership and management, and the quality of teaching and learning is now judged to be good. Numbers of children entitled to free school meals and the percentage with special educational needs are both below national averages, suggesting that the school caters for children from families experiencing low economic or social disadvantage. Comparisons of examination results involving small cohorts of children are statistically unreliable and for this reason, those of Trottiscliffe were not published for 2005. However, the school’s value-added suggests that pupils’ performance is broadly in line with the national averages.

Links to Primary Strategy 20. This proposal is consistent with recommendations 17, 22, 23, 24, 27, 28 and 29 of the Primary Strategy 2006.

Proposed Timetable 21. If it is decided that a public notice should be issued in respect of the proposal, the following timetable could apply:

Cabinet Member decision September/October 2006 Public Notice issued 4 October 2006 End of Public Notice period 15 November 2006

Report to Kent School Organisation Committee (if required) 5 December 2006 Implementation September 2007 or September 2008

ed&libreports/2006/070906c B3:10

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

(a) the issuing of a public notice for the closure of Trottiscliffe Church of England (Voluntary Controlled) Primary School;

(b) whether September 2007 or September 2008 should be the implementation date if the proposal proceeds;

(c) 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 Ashford and Shepway Tel: (01233) 898560

The Local Member is Mrs S Hohler ______

Background Documents: None

Previous Committee Reports: Report to the School Organisation Advisory Board on 18 May 2006.

Other Sources of Information: LEA School Organisation Plan Kent Primary Strategy 2006

ed&libreports/2006/070906c B3:11 Appendix 3

Proposed Closure of Trottiscliffe (Voluntary Controlled) Church of England Primary School

Summary of Written Responses

Consultation documents distributed 1,000 Responses received 1076

Numbers in favour of a September 2007 implementation 2 Numbers in favour of a September 2008 implementation 0

Support Against Undecided Total Parent of children at the school 0 75 0 75 Members of staff at the school 0 6 0 6 Governor of the school 0 8 0 8 Parent of a pupil at another school 0 131 0 131 Member of staff at another school 1 14 0 15 Governors from other schools 0 9 0 9 Other interested party 2 608 0 610 Petition – received from the Trottiscliffe ‘Save 0 222 0 222 our School’ Action Group (consisted of signatures). TOTALS 3 1073 0 1076

Comments in Favour of the Proposal

Standards and Quality of Education

ƒ Concern that mixed-age classes of more than 2 year groups do not facilitate high standards of education (1)

Viability of the School

ƒ All schools should receive the same funding per pupil (1)

Impact on Village Community

ƒ The school does not serve local community - hardly any children live in the village (1) ƒ School is a drain on local authority resources - site should be redeveloped to provide local community facilities more appropriate to the average age (50+) of the village's inhabitants (2)

Traffic and Road Implications

ƒ Parents’ parking (1) ƒ Impact on environment of so many pupils travelling to the school every day (4)

ed&libreports/2006/070906c B3:20

Comments not in Favour of the Proposal

Standards and Quality of Education

ƒ Appreciation of the school’s strength in supporting children with special needs – not specifically linked to the school being `small’ (1) ƒ Some responses disputed the assertion that children are disadvantaged educationally in mixed-age classes and instead saw this form of organisation as a strength (7) ƒ The school now has a successful/effective headteacher and dedicated, caring staff (17) ƒ The school has worked hard to improve since its low point prior to the appointment of the current Headteacher(22) ƒ Trottiscliffe is a good and/or successful school (55) ƒ The school provides high quality education / a good standard of education / children are thriving / examples of how the school has contributed to the subsequent successes of former pupils (72) ƒ Trottiscliffe School is becoming a pathfinder for good education (1)

Impact on the Pupil (Values and Education)

ƒ The school is characterised by openness, approachability and friendliness, and knows each of its children as individuals (10) ƒ Concern about the educational disruption and upset which would be caused to children who had to transfer to another school if Trottiscliffe were to close (12) ƒ Trottiscliffe seen as fostering politeness, good behaviour, self confidence, and good social adjustment among its pupils (13) ƒ Responses placing a high value on Christian schools / schools with a Christian ethos (18) ƒ Trottiscliffe provides an environment in which children feel safe and are happy. Responses associated this with lack of bullying or disruptive behaviour, and the safe environment. In some cases, this was contrasted with larger schools which parents perceived as lacking these attributes (47)

Viablity of theSchool

ƒ Challenge to the assumption that birth rates are falling in the manner described in the public consultation document / assertion that local birth rates are more buoyant (4) ƒ Belief that surplus places in the area should be reduced through removing them from large schools (4) ƒ Financial: belief that closing the school would not generate significant cost savings / assertion that what the school offers cannot be measured financially and that it provides value for money (22) ƒ Concern about limited availability of alternative school places / concern that other schools are over-subscribed / concern that closing the school diminishes parental choice (22) ƒ The school's roll is rising and there is potential future demand for places due to a combination of increasing popularity, larger numbers of young children in the village and potential housing growth in the Malling area (50)

ed&libreports/2006/070906c B3:21

Impact on Village Community

ƒ Negative impact on local businesses through loss of custom from parents who bring their children to the village school from outside the area (2) ƒ Trottiscliffe school supports sport and healthy living (1) ƒ Concern about the impact of closure on the local playgroup, toddler group and the village hall (6) ƒ responses valuing the school’s links with the local church / belief that this has a positive impact on church attendance (17) ƒ The school is central to its community / is essential to the continued life of the village / is at the heart of community activities / the community supports the school / the positive impact on children of being educated in the community in which they live (215)

Rural Schools and Small Classes

ƒ Perceived advantages for children of living in and being educated in a rural environment (16) ƒ Concern about the rights and needs of rural communities (including references to recent or impending legislation) (10) ƒ Appreciation of small class sizes (32) ƒ General support for small / village / rural schools. Conviction that some children need this environment e.g. sensitive children and those with certain types of special needs (51) ƒ Keep education local (20)

Buildings

ƒ Concern about what would happen to the site if the school were closed (4) ƒ Strong dissatisfaction that recent investment by the community and KCC in a new classroom, together with other improvements and resources, would be wasted if the school was closed (63) ƒ The quality of buildings and facilities are excellent (2)

Impact on Staff

ƒ Concern about the risk to the staff’s jobs (2)

Traffic and Road Implications:

ƒ Transport: concern about transport costs, traffic congestion, pollution and road safety if the school is closed (23) ƒ Concern to emphasise the advantage and desirability of the school being within walking distance / support for the general principle of having a `local’ school (35)

ed&libreports/2006/070906c B3:22

Consultation Process

ƒ Dissatisfaction with the public consultation document, eg: too negative about the school (2) ƒ Concern about the credibility of the Kent Primary Strategy. Parents and governors were not represented during its development / processes of consultation were unsatisfactory (2) ƒ Concern that that the consultation process will deter parents of potential entrants from enrolling their children at the school (2) ƒ The proposal is negative. The document does not present a fair and balanced position/whole exercise is flawed (3)

ed&libreports/2006/070906c B3:23

Appendix 4

PUBLIC MEETING SUMMARY

Proposed Closure of Trottiscliffe (Voluntary Controlled) Church of England Primary School

Summary of the public meeting held on Thursday 22 June 2006 at Trottiscliffe Village Hall

Issue or Comment Response Community

Trottiscliffe school is the centre of the community. The Trottiscliffe School Association (TSA) organises many social non-fundraising events in the village which have children as the main beneficiaries. It takes a whole village to raise children – the school benefits the community and the community benefits the school. The children know the difference between right and wrong; are accountable for their actions and grow into responsible contributing adults. Trottiscliffe Primary School provides a good education – the school is in the top 15-20% of the county but the Local Authority wants to close it.

The school is part of the community. There is no violence or delinquency; the children are not dysfunctional and do not attract attention. Is Trottiscliffe Primary School therefore the soft option, to be attacked? The Local Authority is following a strategy which is prejudiced against small schools.

Trottiscliffe Primary School serves the community; the roll is rising; the curriculum is delivered; the building is in good condition. I thought Special Measures were a thing of the past in Kent because of the support from Local Education Officers, School Improvement Partners, clusters etc. The school is in a beautiful spot with excellent facilities and uses the recreation ground and church.

The playgroup has always worked closely with the school. They share resources and visits are made between the two. Parents are able to keep in close contact with their children as they progress. The number of children entering in September is higher than before. Many children are looked after by grandparents and childminders and the location of the school is convenient.

ed&libreports/2006/070906c B3:24

Buildings

£120k has just been spent on Trottiscliffe Primary School. The community raised £40k and £80k of public money. There is a new classroom, the toilets have been refurbished and the school uses village facilities. In the Local Government Act the powers of investigation of the District Auditor, under the Act, the auditor is empowered to enquire if the audited body has made proper arrangements to ensure the efficiency, economy and effectiveness in the use of public resources. Would it be in breach of this, to spend the money in one year, only to pull it down later? This is a serious issue for KCC members to consider.

Ethos

The popularity of the school is shown by the rising numbers of Reception children and the fact that many children join further up the school. In every year group, there are children coming in to benefit from the good education, strong Christian ethos and the lack of bullying.

What choice will parents have if they want a rural village school with a church school ethos? The church values the contribution of the school to the church and to the community. Canon John Smith and the diocese are behind the school. There are three elements – the close-knit community; the school and the church. It would be tragic for one of these to go.

Transport

The alternative local schools cited are at least 2½ To put into a local context. There are actually miles by road – roads which can become 10 schools in a four (not three) mile radius by impassable in winter. Closure will mean parents road, including Trottiscliffe. Figures show that have to travel further. in these schools 56 more children will leave Year 6 in July than will enter reception in September 2006. From Year 4 down, numbers decline.

Standards

The school has come out of special measures; the numbers are rising; the school is popular and provides a safe and happy environment. Closure will affect the whole community. Closure of village schools is against KCC policy if the closure will have an adverse effect on the village so why Trottiscliffe Primary School? The Headteacher is excellent and the school came out of Special Measures earlier than predicted. Point 28 of the Primary Strategy states that the prime consideration is the education provided. For capacity and for financial reasons, closure of other

ed&libreports/2006/070906c B3:25 schools would be better. There are 14 schools with more surplus places. Trottiscliffe Primary School does not have the above 30 empty places specified. The PANDA statistics show key stage 1 points have risen and are above the county average. Conversion rates between key stage 1 and key stage 2 are 100%. Value added charts show maths and English in quadrant 2 and science in quadrant 3. There were 61 children in January 2006 – there are now 64. Parents choose to send their children here and keep them here despite the threat of closure. People have seen the posters and know the school deserves great support. An Educational Psychologist asked for a child to come to this school, as the safest place for the child. A safe school is important - there is safety in the classroom and the grounds. Children learn by their mistakes – the learning culture here provides a safe environment. In 2004 the HMI said the ethos of the school was good and the climate of learning good. Viability

This is partly about money and cost- effectiveness. Trottiscliffe Primary School costs 28% per child more than the average primary school. KCC has to use the money effectively. It supports rural schools but the support can never be absolute – questions must be asked. Over the last three years only six or seven children have entered Reception. This does not suggest the school is a thriving, over-subscribed school. Not all local children come to Trottiscliffe Primary School.

There is parental choice where possible. The Local Authority tries to comply with parental preference but resources have to be used effectively. An intake of six or seven children does not suggest a popular school.

The statistics show 14,000 spare places – the Closure of Trottiscliffe Primary School will save closure of Trottiscliffe Primary School will save just 84 places. He does not move from the point that 20 of these. The cost to the community is this does not seem to be a popular school. If the irreparable and disastrous. PAN is 10/12 and only 7 children are taken in, questions must be asked. Birth rates

Birth rates for the 1990s are irrelevant – those of Birth rates nationally are going down. There 2004-5 are relevant. Figures from the Office of was a slight upturn in 2003-4; the 2005 figures National Statistics show the increase across Kent were published two weeks ago and there is a is 5.9% and just under 1% in Tonbridge and slight upturn. Kent figures are showing a slight Malling. The birth rate is rising. Women are upturn, but despite new housing are still lower postponing having families because of work and than in 2001. Changes in the birth rate will not lifestyle changes. This is postponing the influx of have a real impact for seven or eight years. The children into primary schools. birth rate in Tonbridge and Malling dropped despite new housing developments.

ed&libreports/2006/070906c B3:26 There has been a 40% rise in roll and the projected roll means the school will be asking for an increase in the Planned Admission Number (PAN) from 2007. 60% of pupils live within 3 miles of the school. There is no need to close any schools in the Malling area, because of the planned population growth. Statistics show that the figures quoted by the KCC is having to address the issue of surplus Local Authority are contradicted. The birth rate is capacity in primary schools and moving into increasing; Trottiscliffe and other villages are being secondary schools. There are 14,270 spare regenerated. The school has grown in strength and primary school places in Kent – this is a waste popularity under the current Headteacher and of money. Education money is finite and must staff. The projected figures for the September 2007 be spent effectively – surplus capacity must be intake exceed the PAN. The school is sustainable. dealt with. Small schools, defined as less than Young families are moving to the area. Trottiscliffe 100 pupils, are a DfES issue. Kent has 58 small pre-school offers an ideal foundation and values. schools. Small schools were five times more likely to be in Special Measures or Serious Weakness. It is now 17 times more likely for small schools to be failing. The issue is about the ability of the schools to cope with all expectations. Housing development

Building developments to take place in Despite all the building, there are still 1,685 Holborough, East Malling, Ryarsh and Larkfield. surplus places in the Tonbridge and Malling The Thames Gateway is just up the road with an area. The government will uphold planning estimated 2,500 houses in the next 10 years. applications on appeal. Developer’s Snodland Town council and Borough Council and contributions cannot be claimed if there are Leybourne Grange are against a separate schools spaces in existing schools, nor can they be put going into Holborough, which would divide the toward improvements in existing schools community. Developers will put money into new without special agreement. There is pressure on schools, which must go to the right places. KCC by developers and people moving in not to deplete existing schools. The Managing Director of the Liberty Property Kings Hill and Discovery schools are full. Trust, responsible for developing Kings Hill, has Children come from outside and sibling links said there are now 3,500 residents and this is are keeping Kings Hill children out. The places projected to double by 2011. Parents are already are blocked because legislation allows other furious that there are not enough primary school children in – extra provision made at Kings Hill places to accommodate their children. would be filled up in the same way. There is space at the Discovery School for all classes, but it is up to the Headteacher and Governing Body to decide to teach in corridors. Kent Primary Strategy

This proposal is about cost, not about the quality of education or support for village schools. It is based on the net capacity in the cluster. The cost per pupil is inevitably higher than average but no educational justification has been produced by KCC. DfES will reject the proposals unless the case is strong and in the best interests of education. The basis of the Kent Primary Strategy is fundamentally flawed, not a single Headteacher of a village primary school was represented. The most important people in education, next to the children, are the parents. How many parish councillors, school governors, village representatives were included? The answer was

ed&libreports/2006/070906c B3:27 none of any of these groups. The document is flawed in content. The demographic projections have been challenged. I have seen demographic projections before.

The Kent Primary Strategy is in breach of statutory It is not KCC policy to close schools just guidance. It states that primary schools should not because they have fewer than 100 pupils. Of generally fall below 100 pupils. the 32 proposals currently being consulted most are larger schools. The Audit Commission has said that local authorities with over 10% surplus capacity will trigger further attention, as their view in this case is that the authority is wasting public funds.

ed&libreports/2006/070906c B3:28 Appendix 5

ed&libreports/2006/070906c B3:29 Appendix 6

ed&libreports/2006/070906c B3:30

ed&libreports/2006/070906c B3:31

ed&libreports/2006/070906c B3:32 ed&libreports/2006/070906ced&libreports/2006/070906c B3:33

ed&libreports/2006/070906c B3:34

ed&libreports/2006/070906c B3:35

ed&libreports/2006/070906c B3:36

ed&libreports/2006/070906c B3:37

ed&libreports/2006/070906c B3:38

ed&libreports/2006/070906c B3:39

Appendix 7

ed&libreports/2006/070906c B3:40

ed&libreports/2006/070906c B3:41 ed&libreports/2006/070906c B3:42

ed&libreports/2006/070906c B3:43

ed&libreports/2006/070906c B3:44

ed&libreports/2006/070906c B3:45

Appendix 8

ed&libreports/2006/070906c B3:46

ed&libreports/2006/070906c B3:47

ed&libreports/2006/070906c B3:48