Derby City Council Education Commission

APPENDIX 2

DERBY CITY COUNCIL EDUCATION COMMISSION

TOPIC REVIEW REPORT SCHOOL PLACE PLANNING IN DERBY SECONDARY SECTOR ISSUES

June 2004

CONTENTS

Pages Executive Summary Introduction Background to the Topic Review Terms of reference 3 – 12 Topic Review methodology Key Outcomes Collated list of recommendations

MAIN REPORT Section 1 Planning the places 13 – 17

Section 2 Secondary School Provision 17 – 20

Section 3 School Planning Pressures 20 – 24

Section 4 Post 16 Issues 24 – 29

Section 5 School Improvement and Standards 29 – 31

Section 6 Special Educational Needs and Disaffection: 31 – 32 Provision and Funding

Section 7 National Issues 32 – 34

The evidence from this Topic Review is held by the Overview and Scrutiny Co- ordination Team, Room 137, The Council House, Derby: please telephone the Overview and Scrutiny Team on 01332 255599, or email [email protected] if you require more information.

2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION

This is the unanimous report of the Education Commission following their Topic Review of school place planning relevant to Derby City. The findings from this Topic Review have been presented in two parts. This second part concentrates on issues for Derby City’s secondary schools. The first part, focusing on school place planning in the primary sector, was presented in December 2003.

Derby City Education Service includes:

• 13 secondary schools, comprising

6 community secondary schools 6 foundation secondary schools 1 Catholic (Aided) secondary school

• 80 primary schools made up of:

65 community primary schools 3 foundation primary schools 1 Church of England controlled infant school 6 Church of England aided primary schools 5 Catholic Aided primary schools

• 5 special schools

• 8 nursery schools

• 1 Pupil Referral Unit (PRU)

Currently, there are over 35,400 primary and secondary pupils attending schools in the city, not including nursery pupils.

BACKGROUND TO THE TOPIC REVIEW

In developing the terms of reference Commission members received a presentation from Simon Longley, Assistant Director, Resources and Planning, Derby City Education Service, and a copy of the Office for Standards in Education (Ofsted)/Audit Commission inspection report of City of Derby Local Education Authority. The inspection report, published in January 2003, included the following quote about the supply of secondary school places in Derby City:

‘The projected trend in secondary numbers is for modest growth between 2002 and 2005 with numbers falling from 2006.” The LEA has recently closed one secondary school1.

1 Note for the Education Commission's Topic Review report - this was Village School

3 This was a politically sensitive decision, given local opposition, but the right one. The LEA is well positioned to manage secondary school places efficiently in the foreseeable future.”

The Commission decided that their terms of reference needed to reflect issues raised by Ofsted and the Audit Commission about the supply of school places. The Commission’s intention to carry out a Topic Review was included in the Council’s post Ofsted/Audit Commission inspection action plan that was agreed by full Council.

TERMS OF REFERENCE – EDUCATION COMMISSION’S TOPIC REVIEW ON SCHOOL PLACE PLANNING

With respect to the Secondary Sector the Commission had regard to the Ofsted/Audit Commission’s view that:

“The LEA is well positioned to manage secondary school places efficiently in the foreseeable future”.

Taking this view into account, with respect to the secondary sector, the Topic Review would look at such issues as:

- Schools outside the boundary having an effect on school place planning issues within the city

- Other key issues around the current tightness in the secondary sector

A variety of other areas of interest arose from the witness interviews and questionnaires returns and these are also covered in the report.

The Topic Review report will feed into school place planning in the city. The Education Service awaits the outcome of the Commission’s Topic Review, and will consider that and Council Cabinet recommendations in agreeing a school place planning strategy.

TOPIC REVIEW METHODOLOGY

The Topic Review’s methodology included a mixture of visits, witness interviews, and a school place planning questionnaire developed by the Commission and sent to all Headteachers and Chairs of Governors in Derby City Schools.

The Commission’s aim was to produce a report with recommendations around a

- Preferred model for school provision in Derby City - A methodology needed to develop this model - A set of criteria, or a checklist, for assessing school provision in Derby City

4 Derby City Council’s Lifelong Learning and Culture Overview and Scrutiny Commission began this Topic Review in March 2003, by developing terms of reference and then visiting the Audit Commission, the Department for Education and Skills, and Nottingham City Council to discuss and gather views and information on school place planning. Following a reshaping of Derby’s Commissions in May 2003, the Education Commission completed the Topic Review by developing a question pack for witnesses, carrying out a range of interviews, producing the school place planning questionnaire, and formulating recommendations from all of the Topic Review evidence.

Education Commission members carried out interviews with witnesses between July and September 2003. The Commission also developed a folder of background documentation on school place planning, and several witnesses provided additional useful documentation to the Commission.

The Commission’s school place planning questionnaire was sent to Headteachers and Chairs of Governors in all Derby City schools, with replies received in September 2003. The Commission’s Chair attended Headteacher and Governor’s Liaison Group meetings to talk about the questionnaire.

214 questionnaires were sent out and there were 63 replies, a response rate of approximately 30%. The Topic Review main report refers to the questionnaire, drawing on specific responses and reflects points and ideas that were put forward by witnesses in interviews.

Section 4 of the Primary Sector Topic Review headed Responses To The Education Commission’s School Place Planning Questionnaire provides a detailed analysis of the responses.

The complete written responses received for each question were placed on the Derby City Council website in January 2004. Some examples of the type of issues raised in Head Teachers and Chair of Governors responses to each of the Commission’s questions are contained in 4.2 to 4.75 of the Primary Sector report. These are not intended to be a representative summary but purely examples, given that a very wide range of views was shared. While the responses have been made anonymous on the website, the type of school, and whether a Head Teacher or a Chair of Governors has made the response, will be shown.

Appendix 1 of the Primary Sector Topic Review report displays Graphs analysing results from the questionnaire.

Appendix 2 sets out the names of the witnesses and the schedule of interviews of the

5 Appendix 3 of that report provides details of the Commission’s list of questions to witnesses.

A Bibliography and Acknowledgements thanking people who contributed to the development of the Topic Review conclude the Primary Sector report.

As much of the source material is for this report is contained in the Primary Sector report, it is important that the two documents are read in conjunction with each other.

SOME KEY OUTCOMES FROM THE TOPIC REVIEW

Key outcomes from the Topic Review are that much has been learnt from national and local evidence about:

- What is “ best or good practice” in school place planning procedures - Around developing a strategic approach to school place planning. - The need for local sensitivity - what works in one situation may not necessarily work in another

A wealth of examples and ideas has been gathered on how to deal with the complexity of school place planning and these need to be fully considered in a Derby City context.

Specifically, with regard to the secondary sector, the Topic Review supports the inspection view that “The LEA is well positioned to manage secondary school places efficiently in the foreseeable future”. The current closeness between pupil numbers and places allows very little flexibility though the exercise of parental preference that leads to degrees of popularity of schools creates planning issues.

Also, the impact of various school improvement strategies, 14 –19 curriculum developments and declining numbers in the future mean that longer term new approaches may be required.

Evidence points to a need to consider issues of school place planning in Derby in community based geographical clusters - a way forward needs to be developed with clusters which still need to be defined in consultation with schools and ward councillors. A prioritised gradual, rather than a “big bang” approach to school place planning that tries to deal with the whole city together is preferred.

The Commission considers that the questionnaire responses show that schools are keenly aware of the issues that need to be tackled and recognise that value for money and wise use of resources is of paramount importance. However respondents are not in favour of developing a matrix type score sheet or “tick box” approach to decide school place planning issues; the Commission consider that, rather than a matrix, a guide to school place planning should be developed.

6 This would take into account priority issues, for example around educational attainment, or social inclusion as flagged up by the evidence given to this Topic Review.

Questionnaire responses from Headteachers and Chairs of Governors should form a good basis for developing a school place planning strategy in the City, which again will require full consultation in taking it forward. The Commission recommends that Council Cabinet consider where there appears to be unanimity on issues, where there is broad agreement, and where there are diverse views and links this to views on good practice gathered through other Topic Review evidence. The Commission identifies several key issues in this report.

Education Commission

Chair - Councillor Wynn Vice Chair - Councillor Latham

Councillors Ahern, Chera, J E Hickson, Hird, Macdonald, Winter

Co-opted Members – Mr B Bubber, Mr D Edwards, Mr J Honey, Mr T Johnston, Mr I Samways

COLLATED LIST OF RECOMMENDATIONS

SECTION 1 – PLANNING THE PLACES

RECOMMENDATION

1 The Commission recommends that sustainability should be key to every decision taken around developing a school place planning strategy for Derby.

REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION

Decisions taken around school place planning may not suit everyone: but the over- riding factor must be to put pupils’ needs at the centre of the strategy and to provide the best possible education now and in the future with the resources available.

RECOMMENDATION

7 Derby need to be considered; and whether our systems can successfully track demographic and other trends, and can integrate school place planning with issues such as school improvement. The possibility of sharing information and/or systems with other councils also needs to be considered. Should Cabinet agree the recommendation, the Commission places on record its willingness to be involved in system evaluation should that be deemed appropriate by those charged with implementing this recommendation.

REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION

The Audit Commission and the Department for Education and Skills provided advice during this Topic Review on how school place planning could be improved by considering or planning issues in greater detail, particularly around problem areas.

RECOMMENDATION

3 The Commission recommends that a baseline assessment be carried out of current numbers, including numbers of surplus places, in all school sectors in Derby. This should also include commentary on any present or anticipated issues around the numbers. This baseline assessment should be carried out in close consultation with schools.

REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION

Both the Audit Commission and the Department for Education and Skills suggest that such a baseline assessment, crucially involving local knowledge, is useful in setting out and then trying to reach consensus on the current position regarding school numbers, before progressing a school place planning strategy

SECTION 2 – SECONDARY SCHOOL PROVISION

RECOMMENDATION

4a. The Commission recommends that the planning associated with the potential implementation of Building Schools for the Future continues prior to DfES decisions on Derby’s bid.

4b. The Commission recommends that, as part of the above planning process, a public consultation exercise is held regarding both the general future of schooling in the city and specific aspects such as catchment areas.

8 (The Commission acknowledges that at the time of the evidence gathering this was not in place but that, in fact, it has no begun).

REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION

The importance of Building Schools for the Future as the main planning base for secondary provision is clear and it is vital that the LEA remains in a state of preparedness for implementation and can show the ability to deliver.

In the light of the influence of parental preference and the strong perceptions held about the City’s schools it is important to hear the views of parents and to raise the public level of understanding of issues of contemporary schooling.

SECTION 3 - SCHOOL PLANNING PRESSURES

RECOMMENDATION

5. The Commission recommends that a review of normal areas is conducted together with a review of the location of schools sites in the context of the Building Schools for the Future initiative.

REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION

Changing demography and housing developments support a review and consultation city wide of sites of schools and size of normal areas. Also, education developments and concerns about raising the overall quality of education for all pupils create pressures for school planning decisions. The Commission acknowledges that the LEA is not starting with a blank sheet of paper and that this work can only be developed in the context of existing sites.

6. The Commission recommends that regular systemic cross-border consultation covering education and planning remains firmly embedded in the overall approach to the provision of school places.

REASON FOR RECOMMENDATION

The importance of Derby as the focal point of its surrounding area, the established substantial mutual cross boundary flows and the changes in the housing market around the edge of the city make close liaison with the County essential.

9 RECOMMENDATION

7. The Commission recommends that it maintains regular monitoring of overall developments with respect to the provision of school places.

REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION

Regular updates are required given not only local pressures but also the dynamic nature of secondary education in the light of national developments and also potential changes with Building Schools for the Future and PFI.

SECTION 4 - POST 16 ISSUES

RECOMMENDATION

8. The Commission recommends that it monitors post 16 issues in the light of current developing vision within the City Centre and in the light of emerging changes to 14 – 19 curriculum and qualifications.

REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION

The Tomlinson Report on 14 - 19 learning programmes and qualifications to be published in the autumn is likely to make radical proposals for changes to an already complex and vital aspect of education for the city.

SECTION 5 - SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT AND STANDARDS

RECOMMENDATION

9. The Commission recommends that the School Improvement agenda is regarded as integral to school place planning decisions with a citywide approach to the planning of new developments.

REASON FOR RECOMMENDATION

School improvement goes side by side with popular and unpopular schools. Also Building Schools for the Future uses educational plans as one of the bases on which allocations are made.

SECTION 6 SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS (SEN) AND DISAFFECTION:

RECOMMENDATION

10. The Commission recommends the widespread co-location of pupils with special needs on main secondary school sites.

REASON FOR RECOMMENDATION

Co-location of a wide range of provision is a clear signal of the LEA commitment to cohesion and providing for special educational needs

RECOMMENDATION

11. The Commission recommends the development of more Learning Support Units dispersed on main secondary school sites to meet the needs of disaffected pupils.

REASON FOR RECOMMENDATION

Positive steps are necessary to combat the escalation of popular and unpopular schools.

RECOMMENDATION

12. The Commission recommends that in the next school budget review consideration is given to funding following excluded pupils.

(The Commission acknowledges that this recommendation is based on evidence that pre-dates the reconsideration of this issue as part of the budget process. The Commission recommends that the position is kept under review).

REASON FOR RECOMMENDATION

Funding following excluded pupils is regarded as a fairer, more transparent method than compensation being made in the following year’s budget.

SECTION 7 NATIONAL ISSUES

RECOMMENDATION

13. The Commission recommends that, whilst recognising that sensitive management would be required, the possibility of popular schools retaining a few spare places for pupils coming into their catchment area mid year is investigated further.

REASON FOR RECOMMENDATION

The concern of a pupil not being able to attend their local school on moving house is a general cause for anxiety.

11 RECOMMENDATION

14. The Commission continues actively to monitor the impact of 14 – 19 curriculum developments and the implementation of the Children’s Bill and consider how they affect school place planning.

REASON FOR RECOMMENDATION

The next few years will be dynamic in terms of change with many pressures on secondary education and it will be vital to retain a coherent overview of provision.

12 MAIN REPORT

SECTION 1 – PLANNING THE PLACES

1.1 Section one of the Topic Review dealing with the primary sector provides substantial detail about general principles and issues associated with school place planning. Key points that pertain to secondary school provision are dealt with here, though some of the general detail is omitted to avoid massive replication.

1.2 The Commission visit to the Audit Commission in London, March 2003, discussed issues around school place planning. It was clarified that Audit Commission advice and general principles are available but that detailed school planning is unique to each authority. It was noted that Derby‘s projected school numbers are based on clusters and not individual schools and that normally the Authority is expected to draw up projections for individual schools with school involvement. The Audit Commission document ‘Trading Places’ remains a key document.

1.3 It was explained that the Department for Education and Skills (DfES) will have more capital available for Education Services as a whole and this will be based on overall educational priorities.

1.4 With regard to the effects of housing developments on the demand for school places Derby City uses an acceptable model that was developed by the Funding Agency for Schools and the Audit Commission recognised Derby’s degree of accuracy on this issue as impressive.

1.4 The Commission also questioned the reliability of birth statistics in school place planning. It was indicated that this is not a straightforward issue, given mobility of families means that secondary school predictions are difficult. However, there are models that are able to factor in mobility using historical trends and are able to make the distinction between different types of homes.

1.5 The Commission held further school place planning discussions with the DfES in Darlington in April 2003. It was suggested a strategic approach to school place planning requires a baseline assessment of need across the Local Education Authority that sets out the current position in all sectors and that Derby’s School Organisation Plan would benefit from greater detail in terms of the management of specific issues.

1.6 The main examples given by DfES officers were the influence of cross border movement and areas of new housing developments.

1.7 In July 2003, the Education Commission interviewed a group of LEA officers from Derby City Education Service to explore areas of local agreement on issues

13 identified around the supply of school places in the Ofsted / Audit Commission inspection report of Derby City LEA and the additional issues that were raised during the visits to the Audit Commission and DfES.

1.8 Topic Review responses highlighted few areas of consensus about how to deal with secondary sector issues. It is generally agreed that with respect to the provision of more detailed pupil numbers information for individual schools, rather than school clusters, issues are different in comparing the primary and secondary sectors. It was suggested that the secondary sector is more manageable though the demographics vary across the city making it hard to work to a consistent school-based approach and giving the use of clusters a great deal of merit.

1.9 Derby LEA officers highlighted that improvements are being made in the area of using birth information and that postcode data is now being used in relation to birth rates. Indeed the Audit Commission had praised the Authority’s degree of accuracy on managing this issue. They explained that making future predictions around school place planning is “an art rather than a science” and that with respect to new housing planned in Derby and Derbyshire, there are developments for people without children, adding to the difficulties in making accurate predictions.

1.10 The Commission also visited Nottingham City Council in April 2003 to look at how they had tackled the issues of school place planning and surplus places meeting local Councillors and officers. The Nottingham City Local Education Authority Ofsted report of 2000 stated an urgent need to tackle the situation concerning secondary surplus places. This has now been addressed

1.11 Commission members were very interested in a presentation on Nottingham City’s pupil planning system – a bespoke in-house Access System that takes into account a range of data in the planning of school places including the number of live births in each year, the number of pupils in each year group and where they live, the capacity of each school, housing developments and transport routes

1.12 Any proposals to make changes to a particular school must reflect the needs of the local community while respecting the needs of the City as a whole.

1.13 Pupil numbers data for individual schools are input twice a year for secondary schools along with information such as births, arrival percentages and housing developments to produce overall projections. A DfES number is created for the birth address of every child, which is then matched to schools and catchment areas.

1.14 Additionally, around two years ago, there was a major piece of work involving consultations with schools, other LEAs, and estate agents on the impact of new housing developments on school places. There is consultation in the autumn term with all schools and their opinions and local knowledge are also

14 taken on board to validate the data. It was recognised that mid-year additions caused by mobility have created some problems.

1.13 The Commission learnt that Nottingham City is now developing new processes and management information reports. The priority is that reports test actual figures against projections. These reports contain mobility issues and patterns for schools, birth data reports, tracking arrival percentages/ changes over the years, and cohort tracking for every individual school.

1.14 LEA officers accepted that while there is a lot to learn from Nottingham’s information management systems it leads to the question of how much investment Derby can put into developments, given that the issues are fewer and a cost benefit analysis would be required to justify major system changes.

1.15 Best Value performance indicators for Derby City and Nottingham City in 2001/ 2, the latest year for which we have information, showed the percentage of secondary schools with more than 25% surplus places as 32% in Nottingham, - the highest for a unitary authority - and 0% in Derby.

1.16 The Commission was also very interested in a series of articles that appeared in the Times Educational Supplement on 14 November 2003; in the School Leadership section, on the topic “ Falling rolls”, giving a national perspective on the issue. In the article “ Don’t panic!” Ted Wragg writes, “ A tidal wave is about to devastate primary and secondary schools, yet little has been done about it “.

1.17 He goes on to say, “It has happened before, in the 1970s and 1980s – “ and how “Recent figures show that the birth rate has been dropping sharply. Every year the numbers of pupils entering primary schools will fall, and before too long secondary schools will also be affected. It is like a giant snowball, gathering momentum until it becomes an avalanche.” He also says “ The good news, however, is that intelligent planning can turn adversity into advantage. In the past, considerable ingenuity was deployed to make sure a potential catastrophe was at least mitigated and even converted into success … schools set up a resources centre, established smaller classes and special groups, or introduced daytime adult education or community activities. “

1.18 His view is that “ The problems of falling rolls are resolved by cool thinking, goodwill and imagination, not hasty schemes “. Nick Barnard, in the article “Where did all the babies go?” says “ Unions say falling rolls are the perfect opportunity to make the workload agreement work. If staffing levels stay the same while pupil numbers go down, it will give teachers the non-contact time they’re promised. This would require a change to pupil-led funding to allow shrinking schools to keep their budgets “.

15 RECOMMENDATION

1 The Commission recommends that sustainability should be the key to every decision taken around developing a school place planning strategy for Derby.

REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION

RECOMMENDATION

2 The Commission recommends that the Council undertake a review of Derby City’s current management information systems for school place planning. The review should include a cost benefit analysis of purchasing or developing an information system similar to that used by Nottingham City Council. Issues around “future proofing” school place planning in Derby need to be considered; and whether our systems can successfully track demographic and other trends, and can integrate school place planning with issues such as school improvement. The possibility of sharing information and/or systems with other councils also needs to be considered. Should Cabinet agree the recommendation, the Commission places on record its willingness to be involved in system evaluation should that be deemed appropriate by those charged with implementing the recommendation.

REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION

RECOMMENDATION

16 REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION

SECTION 2 – SECONDARY SCHOOL PROVISION

2.1 Ofsted/Audit Commission inspection report of City of Derby Local Education Authority published in January 2003, included the following statement about the supply of secondary school places in Derby City:

“The projected trend in secondary numbers is for modest growth between 2002 and 2005 with numbers falling from 2006…. The LEA is well positioned to manage secondary school places efficiently in the foreseeable future.”

2.2 The secondary sector is “tight” for places so limiting the scope for manoeuvrability. The Commission learnt that there are sufficient places across the secondary sector in Derby but not necessarily in the right geographic places. Parental preference leads to some schools having surplus places with others being full. This situation is commonly found nationally.

2.3 The Commission asked for detail of how long Derby would be at the current levels of “tightness” and were told that the decline in secondary student numbers after 2006 should act as relief. Those schools with some spare capacity have taken in disaffected pupils from other schools, and so tend to have a disproportionate number of pupils whose education has been disrupted. The LEA aim is to try to make each school as good and as popular as each other and counteract problems caused by poor reputations. However, Derby City schools do not have similar histories or public perceptions and in a demographically mixed city they serve different communities.

2.4 One secondary Headteacher made reference to a Headteacher meeting where a view was expressed that “if they were starting now they wouldn’t put the secondary schools where they are”. Nevertheless, it was recognised that significant relocation is not a possibility even with possible future substantial rebuilding programmes.

2.5 Witness views regarding the option of expanding popular schools varied. Practical limits to expansion were acknowledged though existing popular schools saw merit in some further growth. Health and safety issues were apparent in responses as well as educational issues. One Headteacher added advice against split site schools, from personal experience.

2.6 In response to the question about the appropriateness of a “big bang” approach, for example, closing four schools and expanding and investing in other schools the Commission were told that there is not the spare land available for such an approach. Also they were informed that it would compromise capacity at other schools and raise issues of whether children should be bussed across the city. One preferred solution is to improve schools on current sites.

2.7 Opinions provided in interview and through questionnaire returns with respect to an optimum size for secondary schools also varied. A number of respondents from the primary sector argued for smaller secondary schools but most views argued for a range between around 750 and 1500 or so. Clearly, the establishment or otherwise of post 16 provision in a school is a factor and the need for viable sixth forms influences the expressed desired size of original intake.

2.8 The Audit Commission publication, Trading Places, suggested that schools under 600 are expensive to run though it does not comment about what is “too big”. The Commission acknowledged the heightened levels of disaffection and non-attendance potentially experienced by very large schools, and the challenging health and safety responsibilities they created.

2.9 The Commission asked LEA officers about Building Schools for the Future, the planning process, and the effect of new houses being built on the edges of the city. Derby City Education Officers meet with other relevant authorities and in particular Derbyshire County Council officers to discuss the impact of housing developments and local plans on the education service on a regular basis.

2.10 The Commission was very conscious of the cross-boundary flow of pupils into and out of the county and the need for joint planning. The Headteacher of a county school that is a major recipient of Derby City pupils acknowledged that there is a long established tradition of this flow

2.11 A Commission member suggested cross authority meetings should be held quarterly to maintain dialogue and momentum though another member felt that termly would be satisfactory.

2.12 There could be 2,000 houses built South East of Derby, in Mickleover, Littleover and near Findern and joint planning already is in place. While the LEA does not currently feel that a new secondary school will needed, this cannot be excluded as a possibility, with the concomitant issue of which LEA may provide it. All housing developments around the city are being monitored closely though this work does not appear to as well known by the schools likely to be affected as might be expected.

18 2.13 Some Headteachers expressed concern re the viability of any brand new school given the popularity of existing schools, suggesting that the demand for places may be met better by extending current sites though the long term changing demographics makes planning problematical.

2.14 A Commission member commented on the physical limitations of building on existing sites adding that it is not possible to keep adding classrooms or widen the size of corridors.

2.15 The Commission enquired about issues around faith schools, including the possibility of a Church of England secondary school. The degree of government pressure for faith schools is recognised and there are on-going consultations with the Anglican Diocesan Board of Education and other faiths on the issues of site, transport and exclusiveness/inclusiveness.

2.16 The LEA recognises the crucial nature of decisions and timescales of Building Schools for the Future but considers that re-location will be the exception given land restrictions and the fact that most have existing definable communities. The main developments may be for inner city pupils and they appreciate the value of a city centre school especially in the light of city centre housing developments. Relationships between housing, planning and education in Derby are well understood.

2.17 The LEA understands the key issues to be associated with Building Schools for the Future and Private Finance Initiative as well as any City Technology College and Derby College developments.

2.18 The LEA also want to facilitate loose federations between schools to share specific strengths in terms of facilities, as well as expertise, including cross school interactive collaboration and the use of East Midlands Broadband to facilitate networking.

2.19 They also consider the that the vision of Building Schools for the Future puts schools more at the heart of their communities and needs to embrace co-location of other community facilities – a view supported by the City’s Headteachers.

2.20 The Commission said that they would like to see the consultation on the Building Schools for the Future concept spread beyond Headteachers at this stage to include the Health Authority. LEA officers accepted the need for broader consultation. However, more detail re the timing of Building Schools for the Future should be known in the autumn when a broader based debate related to which neighbourhoods of the city will be more meaningful.

2.21 Commission members commented that in their primary school place planning evidence gathering many witnesses had given the same answers, but in

19 this part of the review there had been many different views about appropriate actions in the secondary sector.

RECOMMENDATION

4a The Commission recommends that the planning associated with the potential implementation of Building Schools for the Future continues prior to DfES decisions on Derby’s bid.

4b The Commission recommends that, as part of the above planning process, a public consultation exercise is held regarding both the general future of schooling in the city and specific aspects such as catchment areas.

(The Commission acknowledges that at the time of the evidence gathering this was not in place but that, in fact, it has now begun).

REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION

SECTION 3 - SCHOOL PLANNING PRESSURES

3.1 The Commission was clearly informed that there are over-subscribed and under-subscribed schools in the city with the former in a position to refuse pupils while the latter schools see themselves as being “receiving” schools with consequent effects on the academic and social mix.

3.2 LEA officers reported to the Commission that, globally, parental preference is used to opt out of catchment into the more popular schools. However, with the recent system changes, parents are tending to put down different options, i.e. they are now including reserve places at schools that they probably would not have considered in the past.

3.3 They believe that the new preference system will make it easier to see where places are available after the initial calculations. The new system allows up to three preferences ranked in order by parents. If parents put down 3 preferences, and get their first preference, then their lower preferences will be freed up

20 straightaway. There will be one offer, not multiple offers, meaning that everyone will receive their offer at the same time. The LEA will contact Derby schools and ask them if they can offer a place so being able to work out the highest available preference and have a clearer picture straight away.

3.4 The Commission queried whether this would be just better administratively but also whether it would change outcomes. Officers consider that because all parents receive only one offer it should help to remove uncertainty for families about where their child will be going as well as being administratively clearer.

3.5 The Commission also questioned whether it would provide for a more equitable distribution of places. It was agreed that parents would still request the more popular schools and that Local Authorities cannot necessarily provide for all first preferences. However all children are offered a place at their normal area secondary school, if they apply at the right time for the start of the school year. The downside is parents may not get their first or second choices under the new one offer system though this is expected to be rare.

3.7 The Commission then asked about the’ three choices and whether parents have to give reasons for their choices; and if so how are their reasons taken into account. Officers replied that parents do have to give reasons but that the information is crucial for the ranking of places on over-subscription criteria. The information can also be used in an appeal, as they have the facility to state extenuating circumstances.

3.8 It was also pointed out that the Council has started the process of informing parents and liasing with primary schools earlier and that there will be a common application form and booklet. Headteacher witnesses had criticised the quality of the admissions transition system with particular concern for less well-informed families.

3.9 The Commission also commented that the City Technology College has indicated they will cooperate with the new system, as will Foundation Schools and the County.

3.10 The Commission also explored views on the current catchment areas in Derby. Officers judge that the catchment area scenario should be retained, as it is helpful for clarity though demographics will need to be scrutinised. The feeling is that having a feeder school system could put a strain on to individual primary schools with parents wanting to get children into particular ones.

3.11 Overall the LEA sees the new co-ordinated admissions system, which comes into effect from 2005, as reducing bureaucracy for both parents and for schools. The new system is efficient with a single set of “ admission gates “, and only one offer, which will go to everyone at the same time. It will be better in terms of equality if everyone knows their offer simultaneously.

21 3.12 In response to the Commission’s questions re the need for extra staff it was accepted that the system requires intensive activity at certain times of year leading to some extra costs.

3.13 The Commission raised several issues about the subject of normal areas and about a possible review of catchment areas. They also enquired how many children are going to their normal area school, and how many are not.

3.14 Regarding the last point, information is available within the education service for the last two years, showing initial applications and acceptances per secondary school.

3.15 There was considerable support for a catchment area review but one that takes into account a wide range of factors and pressures including social groups, educational attainment and faith issues. School improvement and pupil attainment is such a major factor considered by parents in making a preference for the schools they want their children to attend and so needs to be seriously considered in a school-planning context.

3.16 It was recognised that a review needs to takes into account demographic changes and respond to population growth and change in areas. Equally the point was made that parents may be more willing to consider a non-local school in the secondary sector with travel distance to school being less of an issue for secondary aged pupils.

3.17 The Commission asked about the concept of “social engineering” in respect of a catchment area review. They also discussed the effect of potentially “slicing” normal areas from outer areas into the city centre and the potential effects on different parts of the city re multicultural and other social issues.

3.18 The secondary school Heads have been asked what they would like to see under the vision for Building Schools for the Future and they have said, without undue social engineering, that they would like to see the creation of as comprehensive normal areas as possible.

3.19 Education officers indicated that any review should be around the margins of current catchment areas rather than a radical one, with the aim of ensuring that schools serve a social and economic mix of communities - a view that also attracted significant Headteacher support.

3.20 Headteacher evidence demonstrates concern about purely numerical bases to planning, emphasising the importance of high quality education and the fact that planning decisions need to be rooted in the educational interests of young people. The quality of buildings was also stressed making PFI and Building Schools for the Future vital for the city.

22 3.21 The Commission mentioned that on their visit to Liverpool for the Topic Review in discussing the education private finance initiative (PFI), they learnt how schools must remain open through the duration of the PFI, given the Council’s contractual financial commitment to the scheme.

3.22 The Commission also mentioned how parents move home in order to influence their children’s catchment area.

3.23 The Commission sought reactions to the legal requirement that schools should fill places up to the planned admissions limit even if that meant accepting children from out of area so taking no account of in year growth. The Headteacher response was that they would prefer to leave a few places open to accommodate in year growth. (Note: There is a further reference to this point in Section 9)

3.24 Commission members agreed but commented that it is unlawful to leave any places vacant even though that meant no provision could be made for in- year transfers and the system led to more appeals

3.25 The Commission also noted Audit Commission managers view that school place planning should be related to Councils’ whole overall planning systems and regeneration initiatives with connections into local social inclusion aims. In essence, the Audit Commission emphasise this ‘whole council approach’ i.e. understanding the effect of school place planning on other issues and vice versa.

3.26 The kind of issues identified by the Audit Commission covered school performance, value for money, alternative uses of school accommodation. Also they pointed out that there is a range of responses to school place planning pressures including expanding certain schools and changing the nature of provision and that a combination of creative approaches to school place planning may be appropriate.

3.27 DfES officers told the Commission of possibilities regarding school building programmes that involve a “fresh start” with rebuilding on a new different site following school closure.

RECOMMENDATION

5. The Commission recommends that a review of normal areas is conducted together with a review of the location of schools sites in the context of the Building Schools for the Future initiative.

23 REASON FOR RECOMMENDATION

6. The Commission recommends that regular systemic cross- border consultation covering education and planning remains firmly embedded in the overall approach to the provision of school places.

REASON FOR RECOMMENDATION

RECOMMENDATION

7. The Commission recommends that it maintains regular monitoring of overall developments with respect to the provision of school places.

REASON FOR RECOMMENDATION

SECTION 4 POST 16 ISSUES

4.1 Issues of post 16 provision and developments in Derby formed a distinct part of both the Commission’s questionnaire and several of the witness interviews.

4.2 The Commission received an overview of how Derby College related to the secondary sector in Derby from the College’s perspective. a major review and re-organisation of the tertiary sector by Derbyshire County Council in the 1980s, led to the removal of sixth form provision from secondary schools in 1989 with two tertiary colleges set up in Wilmorton and Mackworth. With the advent of grant maintained status some sixth forms were re-established in schools in the 1990s.

4.3 the early 1990s there was competition between schools and the two colleges, which was not good for either sector though by the late 1990s a good relationship was re-established.

24 4.4 In 2002 Broomfield College, Derby Tertiary College Wilmorton, and Mackworth College Derby, came together to form Derby College. The College is now exploring new ways of operating, with a planned new build sixth form centre, and young people transferring from other campuses.

4.5 The College vision is for a mixed economy of provision in the city linked to parental/ student choice. The choice should be about school sixth forms or college. Trust and good relationships are being built up with schools.

4.6 The Commission asked whether these relationships were being built up in a formal way, for example through forums, or in an ad hoc way and were informed of effective planning mechanisms and several initiatives progressively linked to 14-19 strategies.

4.7 Overall, links between the College and Derby 11- 18 schools were described as increasingly good and with the College now providing vocational courses for post 14 year olds in the city leading to closer institutional relationships.

4.8 The Commission also received details of a new college site being developed near to Radio Derby on Cathedral Road, which is expected to be ready by June 2005. It will be a sixth form centre for 16- 18 year olds with a primary focus on Level 3 academic and vocational subjects courses. The College intends that the new centre will work in partnership with schools, including some jointly taught courses and shared students.

4.9 The Commission asked about the loss of Derby resident students to Ilkeston College and whether Derby College can help with this issue. It was suggested that the new city centre location should prove attractive and the key is to offer a wide range of choice at post 16 that meets learners’ needs.

4.10 The Commission asked about how parents and pupils get information on all options and heard of the key role of the Connexions service and the close work between the College and schools in offering appropriate provide progression routes for young people.

4.11 The Commission asked as to whether the College developments could lead to the collapse of sixth forms in some schools and were again told of the intention for a full range of provision in the City.

4. 12 The Commission then mentioned that some schools have limited places for sixth form pupils and asked if it be the norm in the future that everyone carries on with their education until they are 19 years old. In response the importance of structured training programmes, work- based routes and different types of learning was emphasised.

4.13 The response to the Commission asking whether the college concentrates on vocational courses, academic courses, or both indicated that there are 600

25 young people currently taking A levels at the college with A Level courses offered alongside a wide range of vocational programmes allowing for individual flexible approaches.

4.14 The Commission enquired about the effect of a different environment in a College on students and was told that some enjoyed the greater freedom of a College and for some 16 years old students a practical course like bricklaying and modern apprenticeships had a positive effect on basic skills and self-esteem.

4.15 The Commission met with a Learning and Skills Council officer and enquired which key issues need to be considered in developing a strategic approach to school place planning in Derby and in the formation of an overall strategic plan.

4.16 It was explained that the Learning and Skills Council (LSC) has certain guiding principles and view education in a holistic way. It is responsible for funding post 16 learning, and has a key aim of raising participation levels. The LSC works with other organisations such as the Connexions service, work-based providers, colleges and Local Education Authorities aiming at ensuring that there is both a good mixture of provision and appropriate opportunities in Derby.

4.17 The Commission asked a range of further questions relating to sixth form provision:

- Does the LSC have a detailed vision for how it wants to encourage schools’ contribution to post 16 learning? - Should schools mainly deal with academic subjects whilst colleges deal mainly with vocational subjects? - What is the LSC view on sixth forms either attached to schools or in separate centres?

4.18 The response given was that with regard to post 16 provision, including sixth form provision there should be a breadth of curriculum and learning opportunities available that involve collaboration between schools, colleges and work-based providers. The different relationship with schools was highlighted with the LSC not having the power to provide capital funding for schools.

4.19 The Commission asked for a view on whether the College’s new sixth form centre would pose any risk to the viability of current sixth forms in Derby schools and how the funding for the centre would be approved.

4.20 Regarding viability issues, the LSC believe that census figures show that the 17 and 18 age bracket population in Derby is expected to increase by 4.5% over the next four years. There are also a large number of 16 – 18 year olds who do not currently take part in post 16 education, and the LSC strategy is to increase the level of participation to 80% in 2004. All of these factors will

26 increase the cohort of learners in this age range and will also increase the demand for learning. Therefore there will be increasing numbers of 16 – 18 year olds who will wish to take part in learning opportunities, and any gaps in provision would restrict this. The LSC therefore welcomes growth in all sectors. 4.21 With respect to the approval mechanisms the Derbyshire Learning and Skills Council Board will meet on 29 July (NB. This was July 2003 and approval was given)) to decide whether to recommend Derby College’s plan to the LSC’s national body for funding.

4.22 In answer to questions from the Commission, it was recognised that the planning information reflects a degree of inherent risk and it was acknowledged that a number of each cohort attend independent schools.

4.23 In answering questions about whether the new college should provide academic or vocational courses, the element of choice and variety in provision is in different settings for all courses were stressed.

4.24 The Commission asked about the level of involvement LSC have in the type of courses provided for 16 – 18 year olds and were told that the LSC do not plan down to course level, but works with providers to achieve targets set out in their development plans.

4.25 The Commission also explored other planning questions with the LSC officer.

- To what extent should or could we include detailed information on individual schools, including forecasts? - How accurate/reliable is the information we currently collect? - How accurate do we consider our future predictions/ where are the gaps/variables in this? - How could the figures be improved?

4.26 The LSC use census data in their planning, which they regard as being very reliable. Colleges complete returns at the end of the year that provides details of the number of people and the number of courses available. As yet they do not receive anything from sixth forms in schools directly. However the LSC is able to use a national pupil database direct from the DfES but this does not include independent schools.

4.27 In terms of improvements it was pointed out that through a strategic area review the LSC, working with LEAs and other stakeholders, is tasked with establishing how well provision meets the needs of individuals, communities and employers and will be looking to involve Headteachers directly in the process.

4.28 The Commission then asked the LSC officer how developments will impact on school place planning such as

- Derby College developments generally - Other issues around the Learning and Skills Council strategy and developments in 14 – 19 Education - Whether a city centre location for the new sixth form centre would draw pupils from sixth forms in Derby schools.

4.29 The reply reinforced the expectations for future provision requires a mixed economy, in which Derby College would provide a full scope of education, vocational as well as academic courses and that the LSC see the need for expanded provision due to the expected rise in numbers for post 16 education and the need to increase participation.

4.30 In seeking views on the location and sizes of sixth forms in schools, the Commission heard that with respect to location the issue is one of meeting the needs of the learner and re size the LSC does not have a fixed opinion regarding the minimum size for sixth forms - the breadth of the curriculum on offer is key.

4.31 The Commission sought the views of the Cabinet Education spokesperson on post 16 education in Derby and again heard of concerns about low participation and retention. The desirability of complementary provision was again stressed and the need for collaboration with and between all providers and with the LSC reinforced.

4.32 The Commission asked whether for post 16 students, it is viable and economic for academic sixth forms to deliver vocational routes for pupils and received the response that it depends on the numbers of pupils requiring such provision not only in each sixth form but also across the city. For example there could be one base for pupils to be registered, with the ability to also access other centres through collaborative arrangements. Practical issues, such as transport, timetabling clashes and administrative and logistical matters, all need to be taken into account.

4.33 The Commission debated the contribution of a sixth form to a school and issues arising out of collaborative arrangements against straightforward College provision. Changes in the nature of post 16 education were noted along with the increased use of collaborative models elsewhere.

4.34 The Commission asked Headteacher witnesses about the degree to which post 16 provision in Derby is coordinated and heard of the work of the post 16 collaboration group and of the importance of providing diverse opportunities for learners.

4.35 Other Headteacher comments highlighted the need for even greater college/school liaison and expressed concerns about the degree of overall co-

28 ordination in the city in post 16 matters. There were also concerns about the. initial lack of consultation with the schools by the college over future plans.

4.36 Some concerns were expressed that there is a great need is to expand the facilities for vocational training, including school based, necessary to produce skilled trades people rather than further expanding academic provision and that the LSC priority should have been establishing a world-class training academy in Derby City Centre. Existing academic strengths could have been further enhanced instead of introducing extra A-level provision.

4.37 A Commission member pointed out that the country is in desperate need of skilled people and that there are current shortfalls in vocational training opportunities. The Chair said this suggested that education should be more responsive to the employment market and there were several references to skills shortages in the construction industry.

4.38 One Commission member asked about ICT and distance learning and was told of the value of online learning and the need for more facilities though without undermining the importance of direct interaction between student and teacher. A Commission member commented that the social skills developed in a group setting were also important as well. Other Commission members referred to the risk of isolationism and to the common cause and ethos that came from school attendance.

RECOMMENDATION

REASON FOR RECOMMENDATION

The Tomlinson Report on 14 - 19 learning programmes and qualifications to be published in the autumn is likely to made radical proposals for changes to an already complex and vital aspect of education for the city.

SECTION 5 - SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT AND STANDARDS

5.1 Although school improvement and standards were not a highly overt focus of the questionnaire and interviews, key points inevitably arose out of feedback on parental preference and popular schools. The strong link between parental perceptions of “good schools” and their preferred choice of school featured across much of the Commission’s work.

5.2 The connection between school place planning and school improvement and standards was highlighted by a Commission member who said that showed it

29 was not just a number game and that parents will inevitably exercise choice. There was a need to redress the balance, particularly to “pull” more children to schools in the north part of the city.

5.3 The Commission asked the Cabinet Education spokesperson about the impact of specialist school status and were told that while it is a way of getting more funds for the school it should also improve the quality of the specialism in that subject and there should also be outreach work in order to share their expertise with other schools.

5.4 Government policy aligns the expansion of the specialist school programme and the establishment of more Academies as part of the school improvement agenda. It appears that specialist school programme is well accepted in the city though one questionnaire response stated very strong opposition to Academies and all such developments, if pursued, require very sensitive handling.

5.5 Alongside school improvement and standards are curriculum issues and the quality of teaching. Evidence placed great importance on teaching quality and curriculum coverage in being influential on parental preference patterns.

5.6 The Commission visit to the Audit Commission affirmed the importance of linking school place planning to other key planning issues and not working in isolation. Within the list of linkages mentioned by Audit Commission managers the School Improvement agenda and the Education Development Plan were two specific examples.

5.7 Their comments included their view that value added attainment data gives an extra dimension to the school planning processes and the influence of poorly performing schools on school place planning.

RECOMMENDATION

9. The Commission recommends that the School Improvement agenda is regarded as integral to school place planning decisions with a citywide approach to the planning of new developments.

REASON FOR RECOMMENDATION

School improvement goes side by side with popular and unpopular schools. Also Building Schools for the Future uses educational plans as one of the bases on which allocations are made. It is important that there is an overall planned framework for developments across the Authority to retain cohesion and confidence.

30 SECTION 6 SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS (SEN) AND DISAFFECTION:

6.1 The Commission identified a number of funding and organisational issues related to SEN and managing disaffected pupils that arose out of the Topic Review.

6.2 One Headteacher witness explained that Traveller children posed cultural difficulties, as attendance is a major issue for secondary age Traveller children. After the age of 11 the expectation is that they will work in the family firm.

6.2 One of the questionnaire responses argued for better planning of the provision for SEN students particularly mentioning the needs of EBD students. The response made a point that moving SEN and disaffected pupils between schools as reinforcing the escalation of popular and unpopular schools. The argument is based on the main inflow being into the under-subscribed less popular schools.

6.3 The Commission concluded that a good Pupil Referral provision is needed, plus Learning Support Units dispersed around mainstream school sites and that pupils with special educational should have be co-located with other pupils to encourage maximum integration.

6.4 They also realised the need to consider the effects of initiatives such as Sure Start in the longer run.

6.5 Concerns were raised with the Commission with respect to the desirability of funding following excluded pupils in the case of mid-year transfers to meet SEN. It was recognised the funding is rectified in the following financial year.

6.6 Along with the tie between the school improvement agenda and school place planning the Commission were told by the Audit Commission that they see similar connections with the educational and social inclusion agenda and the delivery of Special Educational Needs.

RECOMMENDATION

10. The Commission recommends the widespread co-location of pupils with special needs on main secondary school sites.

REASON FOR RECOMMENDATION

Co-location of a wide range of provision is a clear signal of the LEA commitment to integration and providing for special educational needs

31 RECOMMENDATION

11. The Commission recommends the development of more Learning Support Units dispersed on main secondary school sites to meet the needs of disaffected pupils.

REASON FOR RECOMMENDATION

Positive steps are necessary to combat the escalation of popular and unpopular schools

RECOMMENDATION

12. The Commission recommends that in the next school budget review consideration is given to funding following excluded pupils.

REASON FOR RECOMMENDATION

Funding following excluded pupils is regarded as a fairer, more transparent method than compensation being made in the following year’s budget.

SECTION 7 – NATIONAL ISSUES

7.1 The Commission understood that there are several national issues that impact on school place planning, especially when broader agendas such as curriculum development and social inclusion, are brought into the considerations.

7.2 At a practical level, Commission members and Headteachers recognised the value of popular schools being allowed to retain a few unallocated places per year for pupils moving into the vicinity of the school. However, it was acknowledged that national pressures, including Ombudsman rulings militate against this being done.

7.3 Also at a practical level the Commission broached issues around faith including the possibility of a Church of England secondary school and was informed that the government is promoting Church of England Schools and that the LEA conducts on-going consultation with the Diocesan Boards of Education and with other faiths about education provision. The consultation about potential developments relate to such issues as possible sites, transport and the likely degrees of exclusiveness of provision.

32 7.4 DfES officers informed the Commission that it is possible for promoters e.g. Churches, parents, developers to sponsor new schools with the LEA funding only the revenue stream with Academies being one prospective development.

7.5 The Questionnaire referred to two specific national issues that are part of the broader agenda referred to in 7.1 - Extended Schools and Federations. With respect to Extended Schools the returns were strongly supportive of potential developments referring to benefits such as creating a learning community giving support to ex-students after they have left school and help with retention as well as maximising the use of facilities. A number of comments saw Extended Schools developments as being best delivered through cluster arrangements. 7.6 Concerns about Extended Schools related to issues of finance and management as well as child protection and health and safety.

7.7 The advantages of Federation were seen as maximising the use of resources and expertise through shared good practice, helping schools address particular weaknesses, financial economies of scale and extending opportunities for pupils.

7.8 The perceived disadvantages of Federation emerged as the potential loss of identity for individual schools and the burden on management.

7.9 Other national developments that the Commission will need to monitor and incorporate into local developments include the Review of 14 – 19 Learning Programmes and Qualifications, which will report in the autumn (“Tomlinson Review”) and the impact of the Children’s Bill.

7.10 The Tomlinson Review is likely to instigate significant curriculum reform with greater vocational provision at Key Stage 4 along with encouraging more cross institution collaboration. The Children’s Bill is far reaching and includes proposals for co-location of a range of services on schools’ sites and multi- agency service delivery. Both these developments are highly significant and need to be part of an overall understanding of school place planning.

RECOMMENDATION

REASON FOR RECOMMENDATION

The concern of a pupil not being able to attend their local school on moving house is a general cause for anxiety.

33 RECOMMENDATION

14. The Commission continues actively to monitor the impact of 14 – 19 curriculum developments and the implementation of the Children’s Bill and consider how they affect school place planning.

REASON FOR RECOMMENDATION

The next few years will be dynamic in terms of change with many pressures on secondary education and it will be vital to retain a coherent overview of provision.