Closure of Toftstead Primary School, Amber Hill

Report Reference: 1.0 Executive/Executive Councillor

Open Report on behalf of Peter Duxbury, Executive Director - Children's Group

Mrs P A Bradwell, Executive Councillor for Children's Report to: Services including Post 16 Education Date: 17 June 2010 Proposal to discontinue Toftstead Primary School, Subject: Amber Hill Decision Reference: 01741 Key decision? Yes

Summary: This report seeks to advise the Executive Councillor on making a decision regarding the proposed closure of Toftstead Primary School, Amber Hill. This proposal is being made in the context of very low current and projected pupil numbers in the area leading to an irreversible deficit budget as well as serious concern over the quality of education the school is able to offer its pupils. Falling rolls have meant that the school has been unable to sustain the number of pupils necessary to generate a budget sufficient to maintain the standard of education all children deserve. The school, supported by the Local Authority school improvement partner (CfBT), have explored options to maintain the viability of the school including federation. The Governing Body requested that the Local Authority (LA), the decision maker, co-ordinate consultation on the future of Toftstead Primary School and subsequently the LA has consulted on the proposal to close the school in accordance with the Education and Inspections Act 2006 (EIA 2006) and the guidance of the Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF), now the Department for Education (DfE). This proposal would address the issues surrounding a primary school population in decline in recent years with no sign of recovery, in an area where there are other appropriate schools in more densely populated areas which have sufficient capacity to accommodate displaced pupils. The LA considers this proposal to be the best solution to addressing and meeting the long term educational and social needs of local children and educational provision in the area. It reinforces the priorities in the Children and Young People’s Plan and supports the Council’s aim of ensuring that as many children as possible can reach their full potential.

Recommendation(s): The Executive Councillor is recommended to approve the proposal to discontinue Toftstead Primary School with effect from 31 August 2010.

Page 1

Alternatives Considered:

1. The Executive Councillor is recommended to approve the proposal to close Toftstead Primary School with effect from 31 August 2010.

Advantages

The advantages are set out in the body of the report against each of the decision-making criteria that the Executive Councillor must consider.

• pupils will receive a more rounded education in larger local schools (many of which are still small rural schools)

• greater social interaction will be possible compared to a very small school

• will enable funding to be distributed more evenly across other primary schools and will contribute to the future sustainability of other local primary schools

• promotes potential improvement of standards and diversity with a more balanced proportion of SEN pupils within mainstream provision

Disadvantages

The disadvantages are set out in the body of the Report against each of the decision-making criteria that the Executive Councillor must consider.

• the closure of an existing small rural primary school.

• the loss of a site for educational purposes and the consequent impact on the community (unless the LA can find an alternative community use).

• a number of pupils may have to travel further and this may potentially increase transport costs although this effect is expected to be minimal in the long term. A significant proportion of local children already choose to travel to alternative schools, and some of the children attending the school have to travel further than they would if they were attending their nearest school. 2. Reject the proposal to discontinue Toftstead Primary School and the school would therefore remain open.

Advantages • retains a site within the village of Amber Hill for educational purposes and also as a community focus.

• would enable children living within the village to walk to their local school without the need for transport.

Page 2

Disadvantages • the low pupil numbers will potentially lead to one class covering all year groups in an attempt to reduce costs and there are therefore concerns over the quality of education it would be possible to provide and the development of the children on roll. These pupils will inevitably receive a less rounded education with less social interaction than those benefiting from schools with larger year groups and less cross year group classes. This will limit the range of opportunities available for pupils whereas larger schools can provide a wider and diverse curriculum and better opportunities for the children to progress and meet their full potential.

• there will remain an unacceptable level of surplus places (in September it is likely that the number on roll at the school will be 23 ie 82 surplus places and a surplus capacity of 78%). The DfE and the Audit Commission highlight any school with more than 25% and 30 surplus places as a cause for concern.

• budgets will reduce as a result of low pupil numbers and premises costs will escalate making it increasingly difficult to maintain ageing buildings with reduced funding.

• the school is not financially viable in the short or long term without additional pupils, and will move into a deficit budget during this financial year leading to a significant five figure deficit in the following year and an increasing overspend in subsequent years. Schools are not legally allowed to set a deficit budget without a business plan showing how the situation will be reversed.

• continues a disproportionate distribution of public funding. The current funding formula already offers greater financial support for small schools through the block allocation.

• the school will continue to remain vulnerable given the current low pupil numbers and the very low projected primary aged pupils in the local area.

• could be detrimental to the future sustainability of other local primary schools

• continues a disproportionate distribution of SEN requirements within mainstream provision when the total number on roll at the school is so low.

• federation options have already been pursued to enable the school to continue and provide the chance to turn round the school, but these have not proved to be a successful solution.

Page 3 Reasons for Recommendation: • To comply with the wishes of the Governing Body who see no other option than closure if pupil numbers do not increase – the Governing Body believe that there is the potential for greater pupil numbers as outlined in the ‘Business case for continuation of the school’ which has been put forward and is looked at in more detail later in the report, but this assumes that if the school were to remain open then children would enrol from other schools.

• A changing rural population age profile in recent years has resulted in a continuing trend towards lower numbers of primary age pupils in small rural communities. Rural areas such as Amber Hill continue to be adversely affected by low birth rates and an ageing population. There are no longer sufficient pupil numbers in the area for a viable school to remain educationally, socially and financially sustainable.

• It is projected that the school will enter a deficit budget during this financial year without reducing teaching staff. This would lead to a significant five figure deficit next year with an increasing overspend in subsequent years. It will not be possible to generate the budget sufficient to maintain the standard of education all children deserve.

• To reduce any detrimental effect on educational standards that can potentially occur at schools with very low numbers on roll. To keep the school open would mean children continuing to attend a very small school and consequently placing greater demands on a smaller number of staff to adequately deliver the curriculum. There will be no contracted qualified teaching staff at the school from September 2010 other than the Head Teacher who would have to be a full time teacher. The LA has been informed that at the time of this report being published, subject to formal confirmation, the Head will be resigning to accept a new position from 1st September 2010. This could potentially leave the school with no qualified teachers at the school. The governors would have to recruit a teacher for September if the school were to remain open, and possibly also a new Head Teacher. In the short term cover would need to be found while the recruitment process took place.

• To enable pupils to receive a more rounded education in a larger school offering greater social interaction, and to provide the minimum curriculum requirements to meet student aspirations and provide more viable group sizes of similar aged pupils to stimulate learning.

• To reduce the incidence of teaching several year groups in one class and in groups that involve teaching across more than one Key Stage. To keep the school open, the low numbers on roll would potentially require a school organisation based on teaching all year groups within one class and this is generally not supported by parents or the LA.

• To reduce surplus capacity but still provide sufficient places to meet local needs and parental preference. This decrease in surplus capacity contributes to ensuring the provision of sustainable schools across the county allowing future

Page 4 investment to be used more effectively to support schools in raising standards.

• To enhance the future sustainability of the remaining primary schools in the locality. To keep the school open may threaten the sustainability of other schools in the locality. Ensuring sustainability is vital in that it has an impact on recruiting and retaining staff of a high calibre and also attracting future investment.

• To ensure resources are used effectively and for the benefit of the children in the local area. Much improved value for money is delivered by larger schools whereas very small schools currently take a disproportionate amount of finance. The LA does recognise the need for small schools in such a diverse rural county and therefore does support the finance provided to small schools. However, there is a point at which a school becomes too small and is no longer sustainable having a detrimental effect on pupils and other schools.

• This proposal would address the issues surrounding a very low primary school population in an area where there are other appropriate schools. The Council believes that this proposal provides the best solution to addressing and meeting the long term educational and social needs of the children in the area.

1. Background

Amber Hill is situated in an area of social deprivation caused by the isolated location of many pupils' homes. Children enter school attaining standards below those normally expected, especially in communication, language and literacy. Pupil mobility, both in and out of the school, is high and the number of pupils with special educational needs is above average (26% according to the January 2010 School Census compared to a county average of 21%).

Despite small cohorts, standards in KS2 SATs in 2009 were exceptionally low and well below floor targets as in 2008. Teacher assessment denotes improved attainment but this is not reflected in the SAT’s and the children’s independent work.

In the Ofsted inspection in November 2006 it was judged to be a satisfactory school because, while standards in KS2 were low, the progress of children was satisfactory. The quality of pastoral care and support was judged to be good because the school successfully nurtured each individual pupil and established a caring 'family' atmosphere.

The headteacher has worked hard to secure the viability of this school by embracing collaboration with others and trying to forge links which could improve the quality and range of the curriculum and contribute to staff development. It was hoped a more formal link could be created with New York Primary and Frithville Primary schools but the governing bodies of these schools eventually decided to create a hard governance federation without Toftstead Primary. They have just recently appointed a new Executive Head Teacher for the federation.

Page 5 A senior advisor from the School Improvement Service has worked with the headteacher over the last few years to find a partner school which would be willing to consider federated status. A number of local primary schools have been approached and a secondary school but unfortunately it has not been possible to find another school willing to federate. Swineshead St Mary’s CE Primary School have offered to support standards at Toftstead should they get a viable number of children to ensure long term sustainability. At present they still only have 23 children on roll with the same number confirmed for the next academic year with 3 offered places for September Reception places and 3 leaving year 6 to go on to secondary school.

The Governing Body wrote on 28 January 2010 to request that the LA (the decision maker) begin the process of consultation on the closure of Toftstead Primary School. Following this request the Executive Councillor gave her approval to commence the consultation process. The statutory guidelines for this process are detailed in the guide “Closing a Maintained Mainstream School” (Appendix A) published by the DCSF (now the DfE). Under these guidelines the LA must ensure that sufficient time and information are provided for people to understand and form a view on the proposal and make a response. The consultation document must set out the problem that is being addressed and invite comment on one or more solutions. The LA must take all reasonable steps to draw the consultation to the attention of all those who might be interested and take into account their views. The Education Act 2002 states the requirement for current pupils to be consulted and this was further extended by subsequent legislation to also include all pre- school children over the age of 3. The Education & Inspections Act 2006 specifically includes as interested parties the registered parents of registered pupils at the school and also the appropriate District and Parish Councils for the area.

A letter, together with a consultation document, (copies attached as Appendix B) was sent out to interested parties (Appendix C) on 4 February 2010 to commence a five week period of consultation. The list of interested parties was compiled according to statutory guidelines incorporating as wide a range of consultees as practicable and included the Parish Clerks of all relevant Parish Councils and the Chief Executive of the District Council as well as individual councillors as appropriate.

A public meeting was also held on 10 February 2010 attended by representatives of the LA together with parents/carers and other interested parties. All attendees were given the opportunity to ask questions and notes were taken which were published on the website www.lincolnshire.gov.uk/provisionplanning and are also attached here as Appendix D. Copies of the letter commencing consultation and the consultation were also published on this website. There was the opportunity to provide a response to the consultation by letter, email or by returning the response form (Appendix E) attached to the consultation document by 11 March 2010.

All written responses received during consultation have been provided to the Executive Councillor for consideration and are also summarised in this report (Appendix F). In total there were 24 valid responses with 4 supporting the proposal and 20 against. In addition a petition against the proposal was submitted with in excess of 100 signatures. 1 response was received from Amber Hill Parish

Page 6 Council, being against the proposal, and all other responses were received from individuals. 9 responses were received from parent/carers with 1 in favour of the proposal and 8 responses against which actually represented 7 households. A parent sent in a copy of a report (Appendix G) issued by the Commission for Rural Communities as evidence regarding Child Well-Being and that more children are moving into rural districts than are leaving. However, the report has been prepared to analyse data relating to these issues on a national scale. It does not go into detail within districts at a more local level. 7 responses were received from Governors of the school with 4 in favour and 3 against and 3 responses were received from staff members of the school all against the proposal. A further 4 responses were received from local residents representing 3 households which were all against the proposal.

The main reasons quoted by those against the proposal were as follows:- (a) the impact on the community as the school is the only amenity in the village and therefore the hub of the community. (b) the loss of the school as a venue for meetings, polling station, parish council use etc. (c) disruption to the current pupils’ education. (d) concern over the extra travelling time for local children. (e) parental preference for a small rural school with small class sizes.

Those in favour of the proposal support it because of:- (a) the falling numbers on roll. (b) concerns over limited social interaction of the children. (c) difficulties of offering a diverse curriculum and after school activities. (d) low standards.

Suggestions made as to how the school might overcome these difficulties and remain viable include the following:- (a) Reduce staffing costs by either combining classes to employ less teachers or federate with another school under 1 Headteacher. (b) Close Solutions 4 building nearby and use the old school building at Toftstead. (c) Rent part of the buildings to earn income. (d) Move children from oversubscribed schools to Toftstead Primary School. (e) Subsidise and encourage affordable housing to attract more families to the area (f) Allow more time for the new Parents and Friends group to promote the school and organise fundraising activities.

The Headteacher has consulted with the current pupils at the school by explaining how the proposed closure may affect them. In order that the children will have every opportunity to understand the implications of this proposal it has been discussed both in school assembly and in smaller informal groups. The children have been supported by the staff of the school and feedback throughout the consultation period has been that the children enjoy their time at the school and do not want it to close. Letters and drawings produced by the pupils of the school as part of this consultation process are attached as Appendix H.

Page 7 Following completion of the consultation period on 11 March 2010 all feedback was considered with a full report (which will also be re-considered along with this report) by the Executive Councillor and the decision was taken on 31 March 2010 to publish a statutory notice on the proposed closure of Toftstead Primary School. A statutory 6 week representation period was entered into commencing with the publication of the statutory notice on 14 April 2010 (Appendix I) in the local press, at the school gates and within the local community. The complete proposal, available in paper and electronic format (Appendix J) to which the statutory notice refers, was sent to interested parties as detailed in the DCSF (now the DfE) guidelines and was also published on the website shown above. 11 written responses were received during the representation period with 1 in support of the proposal, 8 against and 2 neither for nor against.

In addition to the above responses was a ‘Business case for continuation of the school’ put forward by the governing body with support from the Parents and Friends Group. This is included in Appendix K and shows that there is belief that the school can remain financially sustainable if they are able to take pupils identified for the 2010/11 academic year were the school to remain open. Many of those pupils identified are from outside of the local community and attend other schools. To get the necessary number of pupils for the 2010/11 academic year would rely on volunteer transport to bring pupils to the school. This would be an arrangement difficult to sustain long term and would be easily disrupted were the driver ill or unavailable. No details have been provided in the business case for contingencies or long term arrangements for this transport provision. The business case claims that the business community is willing to commit at least £5000 to help finance the school and provide transport, but there is no evidence provided in or with the document of any long term commitment from the private sector to show this. It has also been brought to the attention of LA officers that there may also be 3 pupils leaving the school to go to other primary schools, but at the time of writing this report they were still on roll at the school, and the 10+ pupils identified for potentially attending the school next year were still on roll at other primary schools.

The business case puts forward four conclusions, each of which is addressed below:

1. The business case assumes that the number on roll will be 31 or above from January 2011 allowing a balanced budget to be set and educational standards to be maintained. The extra pupil numbers are based on parents telling representatives of the Parents and Friends Group that they would enrol if the school stayed open. There is no guarantee that the parents of these potential pupils will take their children out of the existing schools to take them to Toftstead Primary School, and 31 would remain a very low and potentially unsustainable number. The balancing of the budget also requires that the number of teaching staff at the school is reduced from September 2010 putting more pressure on the head to provide the minimum level of support to the children at the school. There will be no contracted qualified teaching staff at the school from September 2010 other than the Head Teacher who would have the added pressure of a full time teaching commitment. The LA has been informed that at the time of this report being published, subject to formal confirmation, the Head will be resigning to accept a new position from 1st September 2010. This could potentially leave the

Page 8 school with no qualified teachers at the school. The governors would have to recruit a teacher for September if the school were to remain open, and possibly also a new Head Teacher. In the short term cover would need to be found while the recruitment process took place. CfBT have advised that if the school remains open the educational standards and the welfare of the remaining staff is a serious concern. Also, LA officers have taken phone calls from concerned parents who believe that in order to have sufficient pupil numbers for January 2011 it would require the school to take a large number of Portuguese children from Boston. Having to travel from Boston these children would not be from the local community of Amber Hill and will require additional resources at the school to provide the level of education they and the current children at the school deserve. Parents have informed the LA that they will remove their children from Toftstead to give them the opportunity to reach their full potential if necessary. As with those pupils still on roll at other schools that are reported as wanting to enrol at Toftstead, this is not guaranteed and at the time of writing this report they were still on roll at Toftstead Primary School.

2. The business case states that surplus places can be reduced by finding sufficient funding to find a community use for the old school hall. This assumes that funding can be found as currently no funding has been identified and options for seeking and obtaining grants to enable this to happen are being investigated through the parish council and community groups. If an alternative use for the old school building was found and it was no longer counted in the capacity of the school this would take the hall, resource space and one classroom out of the net capacity of the school. This would leave a capacity range of 52 to 90 and a reduction in the Published Admission Number (PAN) to between 12 and 8, the latter of which would give a total capacity of 56. With 23 pupils on roll this would leave 33 surplus places (59% surplus capacity). Although this would help reduce surplus capacity and could potentially reduce overheads, it would still leave significant surplus and rely on funding being found to implement the change. If the school were to close then there may still be the possibility of the old school building being used for community use if there is sufficient demand and available resources.

3. A Parents and Friends Group has been set up and has demonstrated that there is significant support for the school. The group has committed their support to raising funds and bringing in new pupils if the school remains open. This commitment must be considered before taking any decision on the future of the school. However, the business case does not offer a detailed robust long term sustainable plan as to how sufficient pupil numbers and funding can be found to maintain a suitable standard of education and a balanced budget.

4. The establishment of a parent and toddler group may help to provide new pupils to the school over the next few years. The governing body have been aware of the vulnerability of the school for many years though and have worked hard to ensure its future. There is no guarantee that by introducing this now will bring in more pupils or that if it is established there is sufficient demand to make it a sustainable and viable model. The school have tried over the years without success to set up a parent and toddler group, although the Parent and Friends Group claim to have found new support for this provision and have identified a requirement. The

Page 9 business case does not detail the type of provision and it can only be assumed that it is a parent and toddler group using the school as a venue. This would not provide official nursery/pre-school provision allowing parents to leave their children whilst at work. The LA has not been approached about any official childcare provision or the registering of any such arrangement, nor have the LA identified the need for pre-school provision at this 4-11 school.

The business case does not address in detail the long term viability of the school with any firm sustainable solutions through a robust business plan. Nor does it address concerns regarding the educational standards at the school or the lack of social interaction experienced by such small numbers (23) of pupils at a school in isolation from other primary schools, although the head teacher of Swineshead St Mary’s has offered to support the school to help raise educational standards if the school can get sufficient pupil numbers to remain open. The governing body have collated information provided by the Parents and Friends Group to form this business case to show how the school could remain financially viable if pupil numbers are increased through the measures proposed by the Parents and Friends Group. The business case also makes suggestions to help make the school more sustainable if pupil numbers were sufficient to retain the school. This all assumes that pupil numbers can increase above their current level, beyond what is indicated by historic trends apparent in the area for many years based on existing pupil data and GP NHS pre-school aged pupil data. The governing body are still of the opinion that current and projected pupil numbers are not sufficient to ensure an educationally and financially sustainable school for the future.

The governing body have not informed the LA that they would appose any decision taken to close the school, but the Executive Councillor should be made aware that as a Community school the governing body has no right to appeal a closure decision or refer it to the School’s Adjudicator.

The LA invited all parents and carers of children on roll at the school to meet during the representation period with LA officers for a one to one discussion regarding the proposal and the potential impact on transport and alternative school arrangements were the school to close. 7 meetings were held with parents and carers that represented 6 families with children at the school. Notes of the meetings were provided in full to Cllr Mrs Bradwell for consideration. In summary, 6 expressed strong views that the school should remain open, some of those have also sent in written responses included in the summary of responses.

Based on this report and the individual responses received, seen in full by the Executive Councillor and summarised in Appendix F a decision from the Executive Councillor is required to determine whether the proposal to close Toftstead Primary School from 31 August 2010 should be implemented. If a decision is not made within 2 months from the end of the representation period then the proposal and representations must be forwarded to the Schools Adjudicator for a decision.

Page 10 Reaching the decision – Preliminary Considerations

The requirements for decision making relating to the discontinuance of maintained mainstream schools are set out in the document “Decision Makers’ Guidance (Local Authorities and Schools Adjudicator) for: Closing a Maintained Mainstream School”. A copy is attached as Appendix A.

The Guide sets out certain checks that the decision maker should follow before proceeding to take a decision. These are addressed below:

(i) Is any information missing? It is considered that there is no information missing and that the Executive Councillor has before her the information that is required to enable a decision to be reached.

(ii) Is the proposal related to other published proposals? The answer to this is no.

(iii) Do the published notices comply with statutory requirements and has the statutory consultation been carried out prior to the publication of the notices? The published statutory notices were in accordance with section 15(1) of the Education and Inspections Act 2006 and were approved by the DCSF (now the DfE) prior to publication. Consultation must, and has, included all parties specified within sections 15 and 16 of the EIA 2006 including children, staff, parents/carers, the Diocese and other interested parties listed in Appendix C.

Reaching the decision – the merits

In reaching a decision the Executive Councillor must have regard to Statutory Guidance issued by the Secretary of State. This Guidance is set out at paragraphs 4.16 to 4.63 of the Guide (see Appendix A). This section of the report goes through each of the requirements of the Statutory Guidance highlighting and addressing the matters to which the Executive Councillor must have regard in reaching a decision. In what follows the paragraph numbers in brackets refer to the relevant paragraphs in the Guidance.

The complete proposal (Appendix J) also includes information which must be considered in making a decision alongside the feedback from consultees received throughout the entire process. Reference will be made to this document in what follows where relevant.

A System Shaped by Parents (paragraphs 4.17 and 4.18)

The Executive Councillor should take into account the extent to which the proposals are consistent with the County Council’s duties to secure diversity in the provision of schools; to increase opportunities for parental choice when planning the provision of schools in their area; and to respond to representations from parents about the provision of schools.

Page 11 All written representations from parents have been summarised in Appendix F and must be considered in detail by the Executive Councillor. It should be noted that in the consultation period there were 9 responses from parent/carers, representing 7 households, with 1 in favour and 8 against the proposal. In the representation period there were 3 responses from parents which was against the proposal, representing 2 families.

The LA named 2 receiving schools for displaced pupils in the statutory notice in order to provide for parental preference, and other neighbouring schools in the area also have available spaces offering further opportunity for parental choice.

Diversity is covered under its own heading later in this report.

Standards (paragraphs 4.19 to 4.21)

The Executive Councillor should be satisfied that the proposal will contribute to raising local standards of provision and will lead to improved attainment for children and young people. Particular attention must be paid to the effect on groups that under-perform with the aim of narrowing attainment gaps.

In the Ofsted inspection in November 2006 it was judged to be a satisfactory school because, whilst standards in KS2 were low, the progress of children was satisfactory. The quality of pastoral care and support was judged to be good because the school successfully nurtured each individual pupil and established a caring 'family' atmosphere.

Small cohorts of pupils and a wide age range within each class mean that the curriculum must be sufficiently differentiated to ensure challenge for the more able. Providing a high quality and diverse curriculum with opportunities for enrichment is a considerable demand on the teaching staff. There is also reason for concern with the need for social interaction within today’s curriculum when great emphasis is placed on children’s active participation in lessons through ‘Talking Partners’, collaborative learning and shared experiences. The size of the cohorts makes it very difficult to provide adequately for all the opportunities demanded by the Early Years Foundation Stage and National Curriculum.

Information regarding the latest Ofsted reports for Toftstead Primary School and surrounding schools is provided in the table below:

Page 12

In the surrounding area 6 of the schools have been judged by Ofsted to be ‘Good’, with the remaining schools all rated as ‘Satisfactory’ therefore, according to Ofsted, all alternative neighbouring schools offer a similar or better education. The named schools of New York and Swineshead St Mary’s, where all displaced pupils can be guaranteed a place, received an overall ‘Satisfactory’ rating from Ofsted, with ‘Good’ for personal development and well-being. Toftstead received a ‘Satisfactory’ rating in all of the main categories.

New York Primary School entered into a hard governance federation in January 2010 with Frithville Primary School. They have recently appointed an Executive Head Teacher across the federation. This is supported by the school improvement service (CfBT) who commend this as a sustainable model allowing high standards to be achieved through established class structures. Swineshead St Mary’s CE Primary School has been in a successful hard governance federation with Sutterton Fourfields CE Primary with an Executive Head Teacher since November 2007.

The standards and opportunities for displaced pupils would be safeguarded by the alternative provision proposed which will also be subject to the statutory SEN improvement test as required.

Diversity (paragraph 4.28 to 4.30)

The Executive Councillor should take into account how proposals will impact on local diversity, considering the range of schools in the area and how the proposal will ultimately impact on the aspirations of parents and help raise local standards and narrow attainment gaps.

There remains significant diverse provision in the area to meet the aspirations of children and parents and this provision has a wide range of activities, facilities and equipment to better meet the needs of local children.

The LA and school improvement service believe this proposal will lead to both improved standards and an enhanced quality of education for current and future children in the area whilst maintaining diversity.

Page 13 Balance of Denominational Provision (paragraph 4.31 and 4.32)

The Executive Councillor should consider the effect that closing a school with a religious character will have on the balance of denominational provision in the area. This proposal will not have any effect on the overall denominational provision in the area.

Every Child Matters (paragraph 4.33)

The Executive Councillor should consider how the proposals will help every child and young person achieve their potential in accordance with Every Child Matters principles. This should include considering how all pupils will continue to have access to extended services, opportunities for personal development, measures to address barriers to participation and support for children with particular needs (e.g. looked after children or children with special educational needs and disabilities). The current size of Toftstead Primary School limits access to extended services and opportunities for personal development whereas the proposed receiving schools are able to offer participation in a wide range of activities and opportunities. This will enable a wider range of services and facilities to be made available helping to ensure that children are able to achieve their full potential in accordance with the Every Child Matters principles:

● being healthy: enjoying good physical and mental health and living a healthy lifestyle.

● staying safe: being protected from harm and neglect.

● enjoying and achieving: getting the most out of life and developing the skills for adulthood.

● making a positive contribution: being involved with the community and society and not engaging in anti-social or offending behaviour.

● economic well-being: not being prevented by economic disadvantage from achieving their full potential in life.

Provision for Displaced Pupils (paragraph 4.34)

The Executive Councillor should be satisfied that there is sufficient capacity to accommodate displaced pupils in the area taking into account the overall supply and likely future demand for places together with the quality and popularity of the schools with parents. Places are guaranteed for displaced pupils at either New York Primary School or Swineshead St Mary’s Church of England Primary School from 1 September 2010 depending on the following criteria: All pupils on roll at Toftstead Primary School, irrelevant of distance, will be offered a place at New York Primary School. Pupils will also be offered a place at Swineshead St Mary’s Church of England Primary School if it is their closest school by road. There is spare capacity at both schools, but additional accommodation would be considered if required. Parents

Page 14 may also seek places at any other schools in the area, which have places available, if they do not wish to take up the offer of a place at one of the named schools. Provision for any child with a statement of special educational need will be agreed through the annual review of the statement.

Offers for 2010 Sept PAN 2010 Rec Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4 Y5 Y6 Total C a p ac ity Su r p l us P l aces Su r p l us C a p ac ity Amber Hill (Latest Number On Roll) 15 3 5 5 4 1 1 4 3 23 105 82 78% Amber Hill Pupils That Live Closest to New York 1 2 2 1 5 Amber Hill Pupils That Live Closest to Swineshead 2 3 5 2 1 1 4 2 18

Swineshead (Latest Number On Roll) 36 31 35 36 32 33 32 27 36 231 252 21 8% Swineshead (NOR if Amber Hill pupils closest to school attended) 36 33 38 41 34 34 33 31 38 249 252 3 1%

New York (Latest Number On Roll) 10 5 6 6 6 6 5 11 4 44 70 26 37% New York (NOR if Amber Hill pupils closest to school attended) 10 6 8 6 8 6 5 11 5 49 70 21 30% New York (NOR if all Amber Hill pupils were to go to New York) 10 8 11 11 10 7 6 15 7 67 70 3 4%

Latest number on roll in above table as at April 2010 The table above shows a hypothetical model if Amber Hill were to close and all pupils went to the closest of the two named schools. In reality, as proven by historical events, it is likely that only a small proportion of the displaced pupils will go to one of the named schools. Many parents would choose to take them elsewhere. If all pupils were to go as shown above then Swineshead (although showing above PAN in Reception and Year 1) would be able to take those pupils due to the organisation of the school. The head has confirmed that this would not take any infant class sizes to above 30, and that the pupils can be physically accommodated without being detrimental to the education of the children. Feedback from parents indicates that there will be a small number of pupils that would attend New York Primary School which would be best represented by the row showing 49 pupils on roll at the school if all closest pupils were to attend. The class structure and organisation of New York Primary School allows all of those displaced pupils to be accommodated if required and still allow for some additional places if some of the parents living closest to Swineshead choose to take their child(ren) to New York Primary School.

Both of the named schools have agreed to take the displaced pupils if needed and have existing class structures which have the flexibility to allow for them to take above PAN in required year groups this September if necessary, without having a detrimental effect on the education of pupils at the schools. There will be no requirement to increase the number of school places available as a consequence of the proposed discontinuance. The level of current and projected surplus places across schools in the local area ensures that there is sufficient capacity in neighbouring schools to accommodate all displaced pupils.

Page 15 Surplus places (paragraph 4.35 and 4.36)

The Executive Councillor should be satisfied that education is provided as cost- effectively as possible and empty places represent a poor use of resources which could potentially be used more effectively to raise standards elsewhere. The removal of surplus places should always support the core agenda of raising standards and respecting parents’ wishes by seeking to match school places with parental choices. The decision-maker should normally approve proposals to close schools in order to remove surplus places where the school proposed for closure has a quarter or more places unfilled and at least 30 surplus places and where standards are low compared to standards across the local authority. The projected number on roll in September 2010 of 23 will result in 82 surplus places and a surplus capacity of 78%.

Existing and projected pupil numbers:

Toftstead Primary School, Amber Hill and surrounding schools – Number on Roll as at 08/03/10

08/03/2010 Pupils On Roll

2010 Rec- School Name PAN* eptiony1 y2 y3 y4 y5 y6Total C a p ac it y S u r p l s P l a c es S u r p l s C a p ac it Amber Hill Toftstead Primary School 15 5 6 4 1 2 4 3 25 105 80 76% Billinghay CE Primary School 30 20 22 18 18 20 21 24 143 210 67 32% Boston West Primary School 40 40 39 40 34 40 41 37 271 280 9 3% Coningsby St Michael's CE Primary School 40 39 36 37 40 36 40 40 268 280 12 4% Frithville Primary School 10 11 6 8 6 8 10 9 58 70 12 17% Gipsey Bridge Primary School 10 15 11 12 10 13 14 9 84 70 0 0% Heckington St Andrew's CE Primary School 30 30 27 25 28 26 32 27 195 210 15 7% Kirton Primary School 60 60 59 60 58 51 58 64 410 420 10 2% New York Primary School 10 6 6 6 5 5 11 3 42 70 28 40% Swineshead St Mary's CE Primary School 36 32 34 30 33 31 26 36 222 252 30 12% Tattershall Holy Trinity CE Primary School 16 16 16 15 15 16 16 15 109 112 3 3% Tattershall Primary School 20 20 16 15 14 9 15 20 109 140 31 22% Area Total 317 294 278 270 262 257 288 287 1936 2219 297 13% *Published Admission Number (Number Of Places In Each Year Group)

Toftstead Primary School, Amber Hill and surrounding schools – Projections

2010 PAN

School P l a c e s Of f r ed I n t a k e 10 / 11 P r o j e c t d N O R 10 / 11 P r o j e c t d S u r p l s 10 / 11 P r o j e c t d S u r p l s % 10 / 11 P r o j e c t d I n t a k e 11 / 12 P r o j e c t d N O R 11 / 12 P r o j e c t d S u r p l s 11 / 12 P r o j e c t d S u r p l s % 11 / 12 P r o j e c t d I n t a k e 12 / 13 P r o j e c t d N O R 12 / 13 P r o j e c t d S u r p l s 12 / 13 P r o j e c t d S u r p l s % 12 / 13 Amber Hill Toftstead Primary School 15 2 24 81 77% 3 23 82 78% 3 24 81 77% Billinghay CE Primary School 30 18 137 73 35% 21 137 73 35% 15 132 78 37% Boston West Primary School** 40 58 292 8 3% 40 291 9 3% 40 291 9 3% Coningsby St Michael's CE Primary** 40 50 278 12 4% 40 278 12 4% 40 282 8 3% Frithville Primary School 10 4 53 17 24% 6 49 21 30% 5 46 24 34% Gipsey Bridge Primary School 10 10 85 0 0% 10 81 0 0% 8 76 0 0% Heckington St Andrew's CE Primary Scho30ol 24 192 18 9% 25 185 25 12% 29 188 22 10% Kirton Primary School 60 51 397 23 5% 56 395 25 6% 60 404 16 4% New York Primary School 10 5 44 26 37% 8 41 29 41% 7 43 27 39% Swineshead St Mary's CE Primary School36 29 215 37 15% 33 222 30 12% 35 226 26 10% Tattershall Holy Trinity CE Primary School16 16 110 2 2% 16 110 2 2% 16 110 2 2% Tattershall Primary School 20 21 110 30 21% 20 115 25 18% 17 123 17 12% Area Total 317 288 1937 327 15% 278 1927 333 15% 275 1945 310 14%

*Projections based purely on existing pupil numbers and potential intakes from current birth data and historic intakes from natural catchments (not including pupil yield from housing developments, migratory trends or changes in parental preference) **Boston West (60) and Coningsby (50) will be taking above PAN this year due to demand in their local communities.

Page 16

More detailed analysis was done to look at the pupil population in the Amber Hill area. This is included as Appendix L and shows that there is no indication that the numbers of pupils in future intakes is likely to increase beyond recent years.

Impact on community (paragraphs 4.37 and 4.38), Community Cohesion and Race Equality (paragraph 4.39)

Some schools may already be a focal point for family and community activity, providing extended services for a range of users and their closure may have wider social ramifications. In considering proposals for the closure of such schools the effect on families and the community should be considered by the Executive Councillor together with ensuring that options for maintaining access to extended services in the area have been addressed. The Executive Councillor should also consider the impact of the proposal for closure on community cohesion taking into account the nature of the alternative provision for displaced pupils.

Under this proposal an educational site would no longer provide services for children and young people. The LA understands that the school is an important part of the community, not just as a school but as a facility used by other members of the public. The County Council would work with the local community to try to ensure that the impact of this proposal would be mitigated.

Alternative community uses for the school building would be considered prior to any decision being made about the future of the premises.

Extended services currently provided at Toftstead Primary School are already in existence at other neighbouring schools.

Travel and Accessibility for All (paragraph 4.40 to 4.41)

The Executive Councillor should be satisfied that facilities are accessible by being located close to those who will use them and that proposed changes do not adversely impact on disadvantaged groups. Proposals should not have the effect of unreasonably extending journey times or increasing transport costs or result in too many children being prevented from travelling sustainably due to unsuitable routes. The proposal should be considered on the basis of how it will support and contribute to the Council’s duty to promote the use of sustainable travel and transport to school.

It is possible that the closure of any school will cause a longer journey for some pupils but for other pupils the journey will be less. The County Council’s home to school policy provides for free travel to pupils of primary age from home to school, providing the school is the designated one for transport purposes or is the nearest one to their home address and the distance from home to school is more than 2 miles. Pupils travelling over 2 miles and meeting the free transport criteria would be provided with transport by means of local bus services or contracted vehicles, as this is considered to be the safest and most environmentally cost-effective method of transportation over medium distances, and will make use of any existing service routes. Alternatively parents may, as usual, exercise their preference to look for

Page 17 alternative places at neighbouring schools. A significant proportion of local children already choose to travel to alternative schools.

Many of the pupils at Toftstead Primary School already use school transport. From the data collected for the January 2010 School Census the ‘mode of travel’ data showed that on 21st January 2010 of the 23 pupils 7 went to school by car, 9 by dedicated school bus, 4 by taxi and 3 walked. The council transport policy, nearby suitable schools and existing travel routes will help ensure that there would be no unreasonable journey times or increased costs. It is not envisaged that there would be any need to increase the number of car journeys to transport children to and from school as a result of this proposal. The nearest schools to Toftstead are in New York, Swineshead and Gipsey Bridge. These schools are 10.2, 6.4 and 8 miles by road from Toftstead Primary School respectively. In April 2010 16 of the 23 pupils on roll lived closest to Toftstead than any other school. Only 5 of those 16 pupils live within 2 miles of the school, 18 live more than 2 miles away. If Toftstead were to close then 22 of the 23 pupils would live more than 2 miles away from their closest school.

Pupils travelling over 2 miles and meeting the free transport criteria would be provided with transport by means of local bus services or contracted vehicles, which is considered to be the safest and most environmentally cost-effective method of transportation over medium distances, and will make use of any existing service routes. The discretionary element of the County Council’s transport policy which provides free transport to pupils aged 8-11 years who live more than 2 miles from their designated or nearest school (the statutory maximum walking distance for 8-11 year olds is 3 miles) discourages car use for these pupils who live between 2-3 miles of their designated or nearest school.

Parents have been given the opportunity to discuss their preferences and the LA have listened to and will work with parents of children who will go to alternative schools to assist with sustainable travel.

Rural Schools and Sites (paragraphs 4.42 – 4.44)

There is a presumption against the closure of rural schools. As this proposal relates to a rural primary school designated as such by an order made for the purposes of section 15 of the EIA 2006, the following statements by the LA apply:

(a) Careful consideration has been given by the LA to the likely effect of discontinuance of the school on the local community. The LA would work with the local community to mitigate the effect of closure if the proposal was implemented. This will include the consideration of the possibility of the future use of the existing school buildings for community use following closure.

(b) The availability and likely cost to the LA of transport to other schools were considered as part of this proposal. It is possible that the closure of any school will cause a longer journey for some pupils but for other pupils the journey time will be less. In the case of Toftstead Primary School a number of the current pupils live nearer to one of the named receiving schools than to Toftstead School. There is a potential increase in transport costs but this will be minimal.

Page 18

(c) The LA has considered any increase in the use of motor vehicles which is likely to result from the discontinuance of the school, and the likely effects of any such increase. There is not anticipated to be any significant extra car usage caused by the proposal to close Toftstead Primary School. A significant proportion of local children already choose to travel to alternative schools. The LA Transport Policy will ensure that suitable transport is provided to ensure that there is no need to increase the use of motor vehicles should the school be discontinued.

(d) Any alternatives to the discontinuance of the school, as required by section 15(4) of the EIA 2006, have been considered. The governing body of the school, the County Council and the school improvement service (CfBT) have all worked hard over a number of years to explore possible alternatives to the discontinuance of the school, including considerable efforts to pursue federation options. The recent business case (Appendix K) submitted as an alternative to the discontinuance of the school has also been considered but as described in section 1 (Background) this is not thought to be viable.

All of the above points have therefore been considered. The County Council and the School Improvement Service consider that the only remaining solution is to close the school. The governing body also see no alternative if pupil numbers do not increase significantly.

Equal Opportunity Issues (paragraph 4.46)

The decision maker should consider whether there are any sex, race or disability discrimination issues that arise out of the change being proposed. There needs to be a commitment to provide access to a range of opportunities which reflect the ethnic and cultural mix of the area while ensuring that such opportunities are open to all.

There are no sex, race or disability discrimination issues arising from this proposal. The commitment remains to provide access to a range of opportunities which reflect the ethnic and cultural mix of the area while ensuring that such opportunities are open to all.

Special Educational Needs (SEN) Provision (paragraphs 4.56 to 4.62)

The Executive Councillor should consider the impact of the proposal on the Special Educational Needs provision taking into consideration the guidance laid down in the guide and be assured that the proposal is designed to improve on existing arrangements and enable all children to achieve the five Every Child Matters outcomes.

The following key factors must be considered in order to meet the requirement to demonstrate likely improvements in provision:

a) improved access to education and associated services including the curriculum, wider school activities, facilities and equipment, with reference to the LA’s Accessibility Strategy;

Page 19 b) improved access to specialist staff, both education and other professionals, including any external support and/or outreach services; c) improved access to suitable accommodation; and d) improved supply of suitable places.

The LA will continue to ensure suitable alternative provision for those children with special educational needs. The proposal will lead to improvements in the standard, quality and/or range of the education provision for the children of Amber Hill and the surrounding area through ensuring a more balanced proportion of pupils with special educational needs integrated into mainstream schools with specialist facilities to help ensure all pupils have the opportunity to reach their full potential.

Views of Interested parties (paragraph 4.63 )

The Executive Councillor should consider the views of all those affected by the proposals or who have an interest in them. This includes statutory objections and comments submitted during the representation period. The Executive Councillor should not simply take account of the numbers of people expressing a particular view when considering representations made on proposals, but rather give the greatest weight to representations from those stakeholders most likely to be directly affected by the proposals.

All representations, especially from the direct stakeholders, must be considered by the Executive Councillor in relation to this proposal prior to the decision being taken. All responses received have been made available in full to the Executive Councillor and are summarised in Appendix F.

It is clear from feedback during the consultation and representation period that the school is the heart of this rural community and there is concern from some interested parties that closure would have a detrimental effect on many aspects of village life. In general the children, parents/carers and community feel that the school should remain open and that it is a vital community asset.

Although the governing body would support the school remaining open were additional pupils found as indicated by the Parents and Friends Group, the governing body support the proposal to discontinue the school based on existing and projected pupil numbers and the case put forward relating to educational and financial sustainability.

The decision

In considering the proposals the Executive Councillor can

· reject the proposals · approve the proposals · approve the proposals with a modification (e.g. the school closure date) or · approve the proposals subject to them meeting a specific condition

Page 20 It is not recommended that the Executive Councillor lays down any specific conditions and therefore the ‘Alternatives Considered’ section at the start of this report simply deals with the rejection or approval of the proposal. In setting out the advantages and disadvantages the section operates as a concluding section to the discussion of the Guidance set out in the body of this report.

As detailed in the complete proposal and earlier in this report, this consultation is on the proposed discontinuance of a rural primary school and serious consideration has been given to:

· The closure of an existing school and the likely effect of the discontinuance of the school on the local community

· The availability, and likely cost to the Local Authority, of transport to other schools

· Any increase in the use of motor vehicles which is likely to result from the discontinuance of the school, and the likely effects of any such increase

· Any alternatives to the discontinuance of the school

Consultation must, and has, included all parties specified within sections 15 and 16 of the EIA 2006 including children, staff, parents/carers, the governing bodies of the schools, the Diocese, trade unions representing interested parties, The Learning Skills Council, MPs and local district and parish councils and other interested parties listed in Appendix C.

2. Conclusion

A decision is required from the Executive Councillor to determine whether to implement the proposal to discontinue Toftstead Primary School with effect from 31 August 2010. The factors to consider in making this decision are within this report and all responses received during consultation must be considered. The Council is supporting the Governing Body in this proposal as it considers it to be in the best interests of local children and educational provision in the area. It reinforces the priorities in the Children and Young People’s Plan and supports the Council’s aim of ensuring that as many children as possible can reach their full potential.

6. 3. Legal Comments:

The Council has power under section 15 of the Education and Inspections Act 2006 to approve the discontinuance of the school. The Report sets out the processes that the Council must have gone through prior to taking the decision and the Guidance that Executive must follow and the matters it must take into account and balance in reaching its decision.

The Executive Councillor only has power to place specific conditions on the decision which are laid down in Regulations. None of those conditions applies in this case.

Page 21

The proposal is consistent with the Policy Framework and within the remit of the Executive Councillor.

7. 4. Resource Comments:

The recommendation in this report provides an opportunity for more effective use of resource. Although a significant element of the revenue funding will in future transfer with the pupils to their new schools, there will be a saving in respect of the block allocation and this will be re-invested through the Dedicated Schools Budget and thereby benefit all other schools. Initially, there may be some modest additional transport costs, but these are expected to be minimal in the longer term.

5. Consultation

a) Has Local Member Been Consulted? Yes

b) Has Executive Councillor Been Consulted? n/a c) Scrutiny Comments n/a

d) General The governing body, supported by CfBT, has considered various options to maintain the viability of the school including federation and collaboration with other schools. However the very low current and projected pupil numbers in the area leading to an irreversible deficit budget and the resulting concerns over the quality of education provided led to the governing body’s decision to ask the LA to consult on closure of the school.

Statutory consultation has been carried out in accordance with the Education and Inspections Act 2006 and DCSF guidance from: Closing a Maintained Mainstream School – A Guide for Local Authorities and Governing Bodies with all interested parties.

Information regarding the proposal has been updated and made available through the County Council website since formal consultation began on 4 February 2010.

The LA met with the staff at the school in February 2010 followed by a public meeting for parents and the local community.

A five week period of consultation and the statutory representation period were

Page 22 undertaken and all responses received have been provided in full to the Executive Councillor and must be given due consideration before making a decision.

The local and district councillors have been kept aware of the progress of the proposal and therefore involved in the process. The local County Councillors have been kept informed of developments and proposals through the Executive Councillor who has been engaged throughout the entire process.

The issue has also been discussed in the local media.

e) Policy Proofing Actions Required Policy proofing has been undertaken and issues raised taken into consideration.

6. Appendices

These are listed below and attached at the back of the report Appendix A Decision Makers Guidance Appendix B Letter and Consultation Document Appendix C List of Interested Parties consulted Appendix D Questions and Answers from the public meeting Appendix E Response form Appendix F Summary of written responses Appendix G Commission for Rural Communities Report Appendix H Responses from current pupils Appendix I Statutory Notice Appendix J Complete Proposal Appendix K Toftstead Primary School Business Case Appendix L Pupil Population Analysis For Amber Hill Area

7. Background Papers

The following background papers as defined in the Local Government Act 1972 were relied upon in the writing of this report.

Document title Where the document can be viewed Toftstead Primary Lincolnshire County Council Committee Records School, Amber Hill (Reference 01705) 31/03/2010

This report was written by Paul Holmes, who can be contacted on 01522 553366 or [email protected].

Page 23

Page 24