School Organisation, 20/10/00, Agenda

SCHOOL ORGANISATION COMMITTEE

There will be a meeting of the School Organisation Committee on Friday 20 October 2000 at 9.30am at County Hall, . A G E N D A THIS MEETING IS OPEN TO THE PRESS AND PUBLIC Please address any enquiries on this Agenda to Julian Hehir, Oxford 815673. Press enquiries should be addressed to the Media & Communications Manager, Oxford 815266.

1. Election of Chair

2. Election of Vice-Chair

3. Apologies for Absence and Appointments of Alternate Members

4. Declarations of Pecuniary and Non-Pecuniary Interests

5. Minutes

Minutes of the meeting held on 4 July 2000 (and reconvened on 20/21 September 2000) (SOC5).

6. Matters Arising from the Minutes

7. Petitions and Public Address

8. Published Proposals in Respect of WANTAGE (CHURCH OF ENGLAND CONTROLLED) INFANTS' AND JUNIOR Schools

The Secretary to the Committee reports as follows:

The Committee are asked to consider the published proposals in connection with the unification of the Wantage Nursery, Infants and Junior Schools as a primary school and (in accordance with Schedule 6 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 and Section 3 of the Committee's Constitution and Terms of Reference) decide whether to:

(a) reject the proposals;

(b) approve the proposals without modification;

(c) approve the proposals with such modifications as the Committee think desirable after consulting such persons or bodies as may be prescribed;

(d) give a conditional approval. (A conditional approval is appropriate, for example, where implementation depends on the proposers' obtaining planning permission or acquiring a site.)

Page 1 Within two months from the date on which they received the objections and the LEA's comments on them, or within two months from the end of the objection period for proposals published by school governing bodies or other promoters, the Committee are required to vote on the proposals. If the Committee have not voted on the proposals, or the promoters request the Committee to refer proposals to the adjudicator, or they have voted on the proposals which require a unanimous decision but have failed to reach such a decision, then the proposals may be referred to the Independent Adjudicator appointed by the Secretary of State for Education & Employment.

(Unanimity is required from each of the groups on the Committee voting on any individual proposal and casting a single vote. An abstention does not count as a vote against a proposal.)

The public notice and previous Committee reports are attached, together with the objections received to the published proposals, "Prescribed Information" and other information (SOC8).

9. DRAFT SCHOOL ORGANISATION PLAN

The Secretary to the Committee reports as follows:-

The Local Education Authority is required by the Education (School Organisation Plans) (England) Regulations 1999 to prepare draft School Organisation Plans each year following the first draft plan published by 1 June 1999.

The LEA must publish notice of the draft plan and any person may make objections to this within two months of the date of publication of the notice. The Authority must then submit the draft plan to the School Organisation Committee together with copies of all objections made (and not withdrawn in writing) and the authority's observations on the objections.

The Committee may

(a) approve the draft plan with or without modifications; or

(b) themselves prepare a plan for publication by the authority as their approved plan.

The members within each group of the members of the Committee are collectively to have a single vote. Any decision taken by the Committee shall be a unanimous decision of those voting. If the Committee have not voted on (a) or (b) or fail to reach a unanimous decision as required, then within two weeks of the date on which the Committee vote, the draft plan shall be referred to the adjudicator.

The report to the Education Committee on 10 October 2000 and comments on the objections received to the draft plan are attached. Members are reminded to bring with them to the meeting, the draft SOP published and circulated during the Summer (soc9).

C. J. GRAY Acting Chief Executive

October 2000

Page 2 School Organisation, 20/10/00, SOC05

SCHOOL ORGANISATION COMMITTEE – 20 OCTOBER 2000 AGENDA ITEM SOC5

SCHOOL ORGANISATION COMMITTEE – 4 JULY 2000 MINUTES of the meeting commencing at 9.00 am on 4 July 2000 and finishing at 4.15 pm on 22 September 2000

Present:

Voting Members:

Local Education Authority

Councillors A.D. Crabbe, John Dennis, Dr. Marjorie Evans (in place of Councillor D.L.B. Spencer), Brian Hodgson, Terry Joslin (in place of Councillor Shereen Karmali) and Janet Morgan.

Oxford Diocesan Board of Education

Revd. Dr. J. D. Gay, Mr. Danny Sullivan (in place of Mrs Linda Blair) and Canon Tony Williamson.

Archdiocese of Birmingham

Mr. Arthur Graham, Dr. Andrew B. Morris and Fr. Marcus Stock.

Oxfordshire Governors Association

Mrs. Hilja Bassett, Mr. Bernard Clarke, Mrs. Chris Kyle, Dr. Robin McCleery, Mrs. Carol Thomson, Mrs. Lynn Werrell and Mr. Malcolm Wright.

Further Education Funding Council

Mr Jim Douglas

Officers:

Whole of meeting: J. T. Hehir (Chief Executive's Office); R. Capstick and R. Smith (Education Department). Part of meeting: C.J. Impey and A. R. Cox (Chief Executive's Office); Chief Education Officer and K. Borien; Ms S. Billington.(Bevan & Ashford Solicitors)

The Committee considered the matters, reports and recommendations contained or referred to in the

Page 3 agenda for the meeting, copies of which agenda and reports are attached to the signed Minutes, and in relation thereto determined as follows:

7/00 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND SUBSTITUTIONS

Apologies for absence and substitutions were reported as follows:-

Apology from Substitute

Councillor Spencer Councillor Dr Evans Councillor Karmali Councillor Joslin Mrs. Linda Blair Mr. Danny Sullivan

8/00 DECLARATIONS OF PECUNIARY AND NON-PECUNIARY INTERESTS

Mrs. Bassett declared non-pecuniary interests as a parent and as a governor of schools affected by the proposals before the Committee. Dr McCleery declared a non pecuniary interest as a governor at a school affected.

9/00 MINUTES

The Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 3 February 2000 were approved and signed.

10/00 PETITIONS AND PUBLIC ADDRESS

The Chair explained to the Committee that a range of factors and prescribed information were needed before any decisions could be taken on the proposals published to reorganise school provision in Oxford City. She referred to the lack of time available to assess the required financial information and the fact that St. Augustine's and Cardinal Newman schools were not included among the proposals before the Committee.

The Chair advised prospective speakers that she would ask the Committee to debate whether or not to adjourn the meeting until all the relevant information had been received and studied by the Committee members. She explained that speakers could address the meeting before the debate or wait until a decision over adjournment had been reached and opt to speak at the meeting on 4 July or at a reconvened meeting.

The following requests to address the meeting had been agreed:

Request from Agenda Item Terry O'Brien ) 6 – Published Proposals in respect of Governor of St. Edmund's RC School, ) Oxford City Schools Abingdon ) ) Chris Bevan ) St. Edmund's RC School, Abingdon ) ) Annie Skinner ) Save our Schools Campaign )

Page 4 ) Martin Thomas ) Chair of Oxford Middle Schools Head ) Teachers Association ) ) Paul Reast ) Vice Chair of Wesley Green Governors ) ) Nigel Cowell ) Parent Governor of Frideswide School ) ) David Long ) Chair of Governors of Frideswide School ) ) Janet Todd ) ) Jed Lambert ) Governor of Windmill School ) )

Request from Agenda Item Teresa Munby ) 6 – Published Proposals in respect of Save Our Schools Spokesperson ) Oxford City Schools ) Cllr Maureen Hastings ) Chair of Governors of St. Augustine's ) ) Jeff Alderson ) Governor of St. Augustine's ) ) Joan Townsend ) Chair of 2003 Committee ) (Sub-Committee of St. Augustine's ) School) ) ) Martin Roberts ) Head Teacher of ) ) Ian Johnson ) Head Teacher of Oxford School, Cowley ) ) John Batey ) Chair of Governors - Milham Ford School ) ) Professor Pring ) )

Page 5 Pat Bolton ) ) Chris Shepherd ) ) Chris Dark ) Head Teacher of Peers Upper School ) ) Mrs. Remedios ) ) Mr Hussain ) ) Hester Lotte ) ) Mrs. Anne Mogridge/Ms I. Ball ) Speedwell First School ) ) Cllr Tom Richardson )

Mrs. Munby addressed the Committee. She emphasised the lack of financial information available and that the Committee should have been convinced of the viability of the plan before giving any approvals. In addition, she stated that the Committee should not make a decision on the proposals in advance of the decision on the Catholic and mixed denominational schools' proposals. She questioned the legality of an adjournment in terms of whether it constituted a decision reached within two months of the end of the objection period. She also raised concerns over the issue of not copying all of the objections to each member of the Committee. Finally, Mrs. Munby questioned the impartiality of the Chair and requested that she should resign.

Members asked if the Committee could seek further financial information and about the legal implications of adjourning to do so. Mr Impey advised the Committee that:-

- they needed to be satisfied about the financial viability of the proposals;

- it would be reasonable to ask the LEA to provide updated financial information in view of the changes that had occurred since the original information had been submitted;

- that it was not unreasonable, or unlawful to adjourn to allow the LEA time to provide such updated information and the Committee's constitution made provision for such adjournments.

In response to the Committee's questions Mr. Smith stated that the financial position should be clearer by the end of July, but that the matter was under consideration by officers at the DfEE.

The Chair commented that, as a Political Group Spokesperson on the Education Committee, (which had taken the decision to proceed with proposals to re-organise the City's Schools from three tier to two tier), her impartiality as Chair of the School Organisation Committee had been questioned by interested parties. She offered to resign as Chair for the meeting but members expressed their confidence in her ability to chair the meeting objectively and impartially, and the question was not put to the meeting for a decision.

Mr Impey reminded the Committee that each member should decide, individually, their position on the proposals before them and that they should not be persuaded to vote in a particular way by any other individual or group.

Mrs. Bolton expressed concern over the security of the position of Head Teacher at St. Augustine's school if a solely Catholic school were to be set up. She felt the questionnaire sent to parents had been misleading and expressed concerns over future pastoral care for the pupils. She expressed

Page 6 support for the continuation of the school as joint ecumenical school.

Mrs. Remedios spoke in support of maintaining St. Augustine's as a joint ecumenical school. She said that it met the needs of Catholic children in the community and the co-operation between the faiths worked successfully. She was concerned that there were insufficient numbers of Catholic children to fill a Catholic secondary school. Moreover, she felt that consultations with parents had not been carried out correctly and asked the Committee to support the decision of the Education Committee to maintain St. Augustine's school with its current status.

Professor Pring spoke in support of retaining the joint Catholic/Anglican St Augustine's Upper school. He said he addressed the Committee as a Roman Catholic with a belief in the Church's views of education for Catholic children. He said that the school met all the needs of Catholic children and there were insufficient numbers of Catholic pupils to support the provision of a Catholic Upper School.

Mr O'Brien urged the Committee to support the provision of a separate Catholic Secondary School in Oxford City.

Mrs Skinner said that the statutory proposals should not have been referred to the Education Committee, as there was insufficient information available. She felt that children's' education would suffer as a consequence of the current proposals and during the period of consultation and determination.

Mr. Thomas said that new evidence would be needed at the next meeting because the NfER evidence concerning raising educational achievement which had been used in the current review was unsupported and out of date.

Mr. Cowell said that the reorganisation proposals were not supported by adequate financial and planning provisions.

Mr. Long said that the financial provision to support the review would be overspent and asked the Committee to reconsider their intention to adjourn.

Mrs. Todd said that the Chief Education Officer should have been present at the meeting as the issues before them were of great educational significance. She said that the CEO had not mentioned the NfER report, which indicated that standards would not be improved by reorganisation. She said smaller reception classes were needed and more trained special needs' teachers were required.

Mr. Lambert (Chair of Governors of Windmill School) spoke in place of Jude Stratton. He stated that he supported the proposed change to a two-tier system with the caveat that the reorganisation was properly resourced and funded.

Mrs. Townsend said that it was important to retain some secondary Anglican provision within Oxford and noted that statutory notices had been published to extend the age range of St Augustine's from 13-18 to 11-18.

Mr Batey expressed concern over the composition of the School Organisation Committee in that many of the members were among those who made the original decision on the Education Committee. He questioned why financial information was not available to support the decision of the Education Committee to close Milham Ford School.

Page 7 Councillor Richardson said that a surplus of £0.75m projected as a consequence of the re-organisation proposals had become a deficit of £10m and that the Council did not have the funds to prepare a study, draw up plans or implement them properly. He said that there would be an immediate effect; for example, parents were being advised to apply for Milham Ford for their sons as well as their daughters in view of the fact that it was to lose its single-sex status.

Ms Lotte said that the only ethical move was to submit the matter to the independent adjudicator appointed by the Secretary of State or to reject it, as there could be no assurance that the financial or denominational issues would be resolved by a reconvened meeting in September. She also said that information on planning issues such as, for example, school playing fields would be necessary.

11/00 PUBLISHED PROPOSALS IN RESPECT OF CITY SCHOOLS (Agenda Item 6)

The Committee had before them the published proposals in connection with the reorganisation of Oxford City Schools from a three tier to a two tier system and (in accordance with Schedule 6 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 and Section 3 of the Committee's Constitution and Terms of Reference) were asked to decide whether to:

(a) reject the proposals;

(b) approve the proposals without modification;

(c) approve the proposals with such modifications as the Committee thought desirable after consulting such persons or bodies as might be prescribed;

(d) give a conditional approval.

RESOLVED: (unanimously, each group having cast their single vote) to defer consideration of the proposals before the Committee and to adjourn the meeting until 20/21 September to give the LEA time to submit updated financial information about the proposals.

AT 11.50 AM ON TUESDAY 4 JULY 2000 THE MEETING ADJOURNED IN ACCORDANCE WITH MINUTE 11/00 ABOVE. THE MEETING RECONVENED AT 10.00 AM ON WEDNESDAY 20 SEPTEMBER 2000.

On reconvening, the Chair explained that having considered items 1-4 on the agenda on 4 July, the Committee would hear further public addresses concerning the published proposals in respect of Oxford City Schools. It was reported that some of the speakers had waived their right to speak until the Committee met to consider proposals for St Augustine's and Cardinal Newman Schools.

She introduced Ms S. Billington who would be advising the Committee on the law which applied to the consideration of re-organisation proposals before the Committee. She also referred to a letter which she had received from Mr Smith, the Deputy Chief Education Officer which confirmed that the County Council was able to fund the reorganisation at the right level at the right time in accordance with the requirements in the Statutory Guidance on Proposals for Changes to Schools and in accordance with Schedule 6, paragraph 3(4) of the School Standards & Framework Act 1998.

Ms Munby then addressed the Committee and said that an inadequate financial plan had been presented in July and that there was a lack of public confidence in the financial information now presented.

Mr Lambert stated that the Windmill School's governing body supported a change to a two tier

Page 8 system provided that the reorganisation was properly funded, he was concerned that the site and facilities at Headington Middle School were not adequate to meet the needs of primary age children.

Mrs Todd said that the meeting of the Committee and the proposals before them presented a test case for other LEAs and School Organisation Committees and that any decisions taken to close Oxford Schools would condemn schools in other LEAs to closure.

Mr Bevan said that, a proportion of Catholic parents and parishioners money contributed towards the cost of maintaining Catholic Schools. The Archdiocese of Birmingham had been consistent in urging the establishment of a separate Catholic secondary school. The Roman Catholic Community regretted the diminution of a Catholic ethos at St Augustine's School and would not accept the replacement of Cardinal Newman Middle School by St Augustine's as a joint ecumenical school with an extended age range.

Mrs Skinner commented that the campaign mounted against the proposed reorganisation had highlighted several concerns. The SOS group had predicted that there would be problems in financing the scheme. Any decisions which might be taken by the Committee on the proposals would be inextricably linked with a later series of published proposals concerning St Augustine's and Cardinal Newman Schools. The general public had not been consulted with the full range of information available to officers of the authority. Pupils were having their education disrupted due to teachers attending job interviews and the prospect of changing schools three times in three years. The LEA had planned the reorganisation on the basis that it would be self financing, but a shortfall had been identified, and she considered that the LEA was uncertain as to whether further funding might be needed. OfSTED reports showed that many of the middle schools were good schools.

Mr Thomas said that when schools were in situations of upheaval, their progress and performance were not good. Research demonstrated this. He questioned whether or not there was real evidence of underachievement in the City's schools and contended that the NFER report did not demonstrate this, or that a three tier system could be blamed for any under performance. He commented that standards and achievements were rising in Oxford City's Schools, that the Middle Schools were playing a key role in this and urged then Committee to reject the proposals before them.

Mr Cowell commented that he was concerned about the adverse effects to children in schools which the reorganisation could bring about. He referred to research evidence which he had circulated to the Committee and said that once social deprivation was taken into account, the City Schools were performing better than those elsewhere in the County. He urged the Committee to reject the proposals.

Mr Long referred to 9 points of objection to the published proposals which were outlined in a formal submission to the Committee by the Governing Body of Frideswide Middle School.

Mr Roberts said that he had discussed the reorganisation proposals with both teaching and non-teaching colleagues in the City's Middle Schools. The majority were of the view that the reorganisation would prove advantageous to them and to pupils in the Middle Schools.

Mr Johnson said that pupil numbers at Oxford School had expanded by 25% during the last two years and that teaching staff numbers had increased substantially. He profiled the new teaching staff at the school and said that they had mainly been attracted to Oxfordshire by the prospect of teaching in an 11-18 years school. All of the staff at the school were committed to reorganisation and he urged the Committee to take a positive decision to move to a two tier system of schooling.

Mr Batey asked the Committee whether they were prepared to close the only state school for girls in Oxford, when the Government was showing a commitment to single sex school by virtue of their

Page 9 performance. He said that the school was among the top 5% in the Country for improvements between KS3 and SATs. The School provided "value for money", it was an environmentally rich centre and was showing continuous improvement.

He contended that there were no valid educational reasons for proposals to close the school.

Mr Dark said that he believed that a 3 tier system prevented young people from attaining the educational standards, social bonding and relationships which they would achieve under a two tier system. Performance data which he referred to failed to indicate that the current system "added value" to his school, Peers Upper or other schools. He urged the Committee to unanimously agree to reorganise the City's Schools from three to two tier.

Mr Ball said that, as a parent governor at Speedwell First School, he was speaking on behalf of Mrs A. Moggeridge who had addressed the Committee on 4 July. He said that there was a depth of opposition to the proposed closure of Speedwell First School and that there were no convincing arguments that a two tier system was better than three tiers. Staff at the school were not guaranteed posts in any future system, he was concerned about the financial implications of the reorganisation and concerning the Anglican Diocese's interest in securing Anglican pupil places in any reorganised system.

Councillor Richardson said that the proposals before the Committee, if approved would disrupt pupils education for three to four years in a reorganised system. He did not consider that the financial information presented was adequate and that central LEA staffing was sufficient to implement the reorganisation. He commented that there had been no clear indication that the reorganisation plan would improve standards or a statement as to what degree the plan was dependent upon the sale of Milham Ford School.

Ms Lotte said that one of the arguments purported to favour the proposed reorganisation was that children ought not to change schools during Key Stage 3 as their performance suffered. She said that there was no evidence to this effect. She commented that the teachers in the City's Middle Schools were dedicated and hardworking and that the Committee were obliged to consider not only the educational but also the ethical aspects of the proposals.

Mrs Remedios expressed concern at the delay caused to the reorganisation scheme by the recent published proposals from the Catholic Archdiocese of Birmingham to create a separate Catholic secondary school.

Mrs Bolton expressed disappointment at the delays which would result from the late publication of the Archdiocese's proposals, particularly, for some parents who would have to take decisions concerning their children's education before the St Augustine's/Cardinal Newman issues were settled.

The Chair then invited the Committee to debate the proposals before them in the context of the Statutory Guidance on the factors to be considered in deciding school reorganisation proposals which had been circulated with the agenda namely:-

(a) Standards of Provision; (b) Need for Places; (c) Views of Interested Parties; and (d) Other issues.

In respect of Standards of Provision, following questions by members concerning specialist provision, teacher supply and LEA information concerning achievement, the Chief Education Officer said that he did not foresee any loss in specialist provision arising from implementation of the

Page 10 reorganisation. On the matter of teacher supply he stated that there was a national crisis in teacher recruitment and the issue was being addressed in Oxfordshire. Teacher supply was marginally better within Oxford City than in the remainder of the County. One of the reasons for the City review, was that a middle school system did not provide the developmental opportunities to teachers which a two tier system would be able to deliver and that there were difficulties in recruiting to a minority sector.

With regard to achievement he reported this year's results within the City as compared to the County at KS1, KS2, KS3 in reading, writing and maths and at GCSE. These confirmed that at KS2 and KS3 standards were falling further behind those in the rest of the County and furthermore that from a baseline assessment, children in the City's schools fell further behind those in the County's schools as they progressed through the systems. He concluded that there was convincing and compelling evidence that performance was depressed within the three tier system in the City's schools.

The Chief Education Officer responded to further questions from the Committee concerning comparisons between GCSE results in the City and targets in the Education Development Plan, on 2 of the schools among the proposals which had been under special measures, job security for staff affected, the reasons for depressed performance and a greater emphasis on specialist rather than holistic teaching in the primary schools.

Following comments concerning whether potential achievement in the proposed system was sufficient to justify any disruption or costs involved, the Chief Education Officer commented that the £30.9 million allocated would not have been made available had the reorganisation not been muted. On a question concerning the NFER report on the City' Schools, the Chief Education Officer said that it did not establish any direct causal relationships, but it did highlight that performance in the schools was behind what ought to have been expected and that the three tier system was a contributory factor.

Mr Capstick reported that the Education Committee had set a target that all schools teaching staff should be assured of their future employment in any reorganised system, and that this had been achieved. A similar exercise for non-teaching staff was being undertaken during the current term.

Following questions from the Committee on the provision of playing fields and specialist sports and music facilities, officers reported that there were no plans to dispose of school playing fields under the reorganisation proposals; hard play areas in primary schools would be extended and there were plans to address deficits in school buildings.

The Committee commented on the degree of disruption to pupils' education, disturbance to schools and the effects of reorganisation on morale, balanced against the benefits of change.

The Committee were reminded that they needed to be assured on special educational needs provision in the affected schools, as this was "prescribed information". A report had been circulated, (and is attached to the signed minutes) concerning SEN provision.

With respect to the need for places the Committee addressed the effects of reorganisation on pupils from the Marston area and admission to Cheney and Cherwell Upper Schools. It was acknowledged that year on year there had been a failure among Marston pupils to gain admission to these 2 schools. It was reported that if the reorganisation proceeded, the LEA would increase the number of spaces available at Cherwell and Cheney schools to accommodate these pupils.

On the question of places available within a reorganised system at secondary level, Mr Capstick reported that irrespective of current proposals to expand Cardinal Newman and St Augustine's schools, the LEA and both the Anglican and Roman Catholic (Arch) Dioceses agreed that there

Page 11 should be 5 secondary schools, and furthermore that there was capacity for expansion at Peers, Cheney and Cherwell Schools. The five proposed secondary schools would have similar admission numbers, whilst he acknowledged that there was no exact fit between parental choice and geographical demand.

With regard to financing the proposals, Ms Billington said that the role of the School Organisation Committee was not clearly defined either by guidelines, or statute, regarding their financial responsibilities. Updated statutory guidance from the Department for Education & Employment and Schedule 6 to the School Standards & Framework Act 1998 confirmed that the Committee should be satisfied that the proposals could be implemented, that capital would be available and that this should be in the form of written confirmation from the source of funding. The Committee had before them a statement which confirmed that the necessary funding was available, and at the right time, pursuant to a resolution of the Council's Strategy & Resources Urgency Sub-Committee.

Mr Smith confirmed that the total cost of the reorganisation scheme on a school by school basis was £30.9 million. This took into account costs based on latest tender prices, a 5% allowance for inflation to contract start, a project risk factor of 10% plus fees. A shortfall of £9.9 million had been identified prior to the Committee's adjournment on 4 July. Confirmation from the DfEE of £12.7 million funding took account of the original shortfall, the remaining £2.8 million was in respect of a bid for basic needs funding. He commented that whilst the decision of the Strategy & Resources Committee was in the public domain the detail of funding the reorganisation contained in a report of 4 Chief Officers remained "exempt" within the terms of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972. However, the aggregate total of the options put forward in the report exceeded the previous cash flow shortfall to a significant extent. In response to a question, he confirmed that borrowing from schools' balances was a funding option and that schools would be consulted on the proposal, but that on a previous occasion schools had agreed to deposit their balances in order to avoid making cuts to the revenue budget. It was reported that the City reorganisation would not have knock on implications for the Education capital programme, the capital programme for other services or the revenue budget for Education or other services. The County Treasurer had conferred with the District Auditor on the costings and Members of the LEA had also wanted similar reassurances about the robustness of financing for the reorganisation as the Committee were now seeking. Whilst there could be no absolute guarantees, higher tender prices could, in the LEAs view be covered by the 5% inflation and 10% project risk factors. Property values might have proved to be greater than estimated if property values increased over the next few years. Whilst the DfEE had specified that they wanted a 50% share of any excess receipts, this was a matter for further negotiation.

With respect to the views of interested parties, the Chair referred members to the prescribed information and supporting papers (attached to the signed minutes) which had been circulated with the agenda prior to 4 July. The views of interested parties, copies of objection letters and the commentary of the promoting bodies on the views and objections were contained within the papers. All of the individual objection letters were available at the meeting and the Committee had copies of all "circular" objection letters, with a breakdown of the content and the number of signatories to each letter. The Committee had had the opportunity prior to the meeting and during the adjournment to read all of the representations made.

It was reported that objections had been raised on sex discrimination issues, if Milham Ford Upper School were to close and pupils were transferred to Oxford School. It was re-affirmed that the Governors of Oxford School had indicated their willingness to provide single sex teaching where requested to do so.

On the level of objections, members commented that statutory published proposals informed people how to make objections; a strong campaign objecting to the reorganisation proposals had been mounted but the Committee had also, to consider the views of all interested parties, as well as receiving all of the objections.

Page 12 Mr Smith responded to further questions concerning the funding of the proposals. Some members were concerned that the statement on funding did not provide sufficient financial information to meet the Committee's requirements, it was acknowledged that confidential financial information was contained in the report considered by the Strategy & Resources Urgency Sub-Committee and that an assurance had been given that the financial information received complied with the legal requirements. Ms Billington added that there was an entitlement for the Committee to receive a breakdown on the current financial position. Mr Smith said that this comprised of £11.9 million for primary works, £1.4 million primary fees, £13.4 million on secondary school works, £1.6 million secondary fees, £300,000 transition costs, £2.3 million land acquisition, £18.2 million anticipated capital receipts and £2.8 million ACG/Basic Needs.

The Committee briefly commented on the operation of 2 and 3 tier schools' systems in Oxfordshire and in other LEAs, and the evidence available to support either system. The Committee considered that, before taking any decisions on the published proposals, they would have to consider whether or not schools' were failing in the three tier system in Oxford City, the conflicting evidence on performance taking account of variants such as free school meals uptake and social deprivation; anecdotal evidence and whether a split at Key Stage 3 would resolve poor schools performance.

The Committee commented on paragraph 15 of the DfEE's updated guidance on statutory proposals for changes to schools, concerning linked or interdependent proposals and decision making. The Chair said that it was intended that a vote would be taken on the published proposals for each individual school as it was affected by the proposed reorganisation. Mrs Billington reminded the Committee that according to the DfEE's guidance, decisions on individual proposals should be compatible with other decisions on interdependent proposals.

Mr Douglas and Dr Gay on behalf of their groups, (the Further Education Funding Council and the Oxford Anglican Diocese respectively), stated their group's support for the published proposals, as these would bring about the introduction of 11-18 year secondary schools (FEFC), and the replacement of a three tier by a two tier system of schools in Oxford City (Anglican Diocese).

On the question of evidence concerning performance in the City Schools the Committee acknowledged that it confirmed that social deprivation, alone, could not be considered as the reason for under-performance.

The Chair then invited the Committee to raise questions on and discuss the proposals as they affected specific schools.

The Chief Education Officer reported that Orchard Meadow and Pegasus First Schools, which at the time of the publication of the reorganisation proposals were deemed as schools under "special measures", were no longer so.

The Committee questioned and it was confirmed that there was a demonstrable need, on the basis of demand from the Anglican Community, for an Anglican aided primary school at Littlemore.

It was reported that asbestos construction material at Bayswater Middle School would be removed; at asbestos material had been progressively removed and, in the context of the reorganisation, it was confirmed that there were no hazards arising from the use of asbestos in schools.

The officers also responded to questions concerning site acquisition costs in relation to Frideswide Middle School, the site and status of Donnington Middle School, the school playing fields at Temple Cowley Middle School and the future of the Speedwell First School buildings.

In response to a question concerning the implications of the Human Rights Act and the future of

Page 13 Milham Ford Upper School on the proposals before the Committee, Ms Billington said that the LEA was not obliged to provide a girls' single sex school within Oxford City. Sex discrimination or human rights issues could potentially arise if there was a boys' single sex school with Oxford City. In the current circumstances, and as there was single sex provision for girls elsewhere within Oxfordshire, these issues did not arise. There was also no legal obligation on the LEA to establish schools for religious faiths, for instance, Islam.

AT 12.45 PM THE MEETING ADJOURNED UNTIL 1.30 PM TO ENABLE GROUPS, SEPARATELY TO DISCUSS THEIR VOTING INTENTIONS ON THE INDIVIDUAL PUBLISHED PROPOSALS BEFORE THEM.

AT 1.30 PM, AS GROUPS HAD NOT COMPLETED THEIR DISCUSSIONS THE CHAIR ADJOURNED THE MEETING UNTIL 2.15 PM.

On reconvening, the Chief Education Officer undertook, in response to a request from the Oxfordshire Governors Group to report to the Education Committee on progress concerning the use of the split school sites which would arise, if the reorganisation scheme was approved.

The Chair put the individual school proposals for reorganisation, as set out in the proposals published in accordance with the School Standards & Framework Act 1998 on 10 March and 24 March 2000 to separate votes.

It was RESOLVED:

(a) unanimously (each group casting their single vote) to conditionally approve the published proposals for school reorganisation in respect of:

Cuttleslowe Community First School, Oxford Wolvercote Community First School, Oxford St Barnabus Voluntary Aided First School, Oxford SS Philip and James Voluntary Aided First School, Oxford Barton Village Community First School, Oxford Community First School, Oxford St Nicholas Community First School, Oxford St Michael's Voluntary Controlled First School, Oxford Headington Quarry Voluntary Controlled First School, Oxford St Andrews Voluntary Controlled First School, Oxford Windmill Community First School, Oxford Wood Farm Community First School, Oxford Orchard Meadow Community First School, Oxford Pegasus Community First School, Oxford Littlemore Voluntary Aided Primary School, Oxford Windale Community First School, Oxford Rose Hill Community First School, Oxford Church Cowley St James Voluntary Controlled First School, Oxford St Francis Voluntary Controlled First School, Oxford East Oxford Community First School, Oxford SS Mary & John Voluntary Aided First School, Oxford Larkrise Community First School, Oxford

Page 14 New Hinksey Voluntary Controlled First School, Oxford St Ebbe's Voluntary Aided First School, Oxford

(b) unanimously (each group casting their single vote) to approve, with a modification of the Standard Number to 35 in 2002 and 2003 the published proposals in respect of St Christopher's Voluntary Controlled First School, Oxford;

(c) unanimously (Four groups casting their single vote, one group abstaining) to approve the published proposals for school reorganisation in respect of:

Bayswater Community Middle School, Oxford Frideswide Voluntary Aided Middle School, Oxford Marston Community Middle School, Oxford Headington Community Middle School, Oxford Wesley Green Community Middle School, Oxford Lawn Upton Voluntary Controlled Middle School, Oxford Donnington Community Middle School, Oxford Isis Voluntary Controlled Middle School, Oxford Temple Cowley Community Middle School, Oxford Speedwell Community First School, Oxford Milham Ford Upper School, Oxford

(d) unanimously (Four groups casting their single vote, one group abstaining) to conditionally approve the published proposals for school reorganisation in respect of:

Cherwell Community Upper School, Oxford Cheney Community Upper School, Oxford Oxford Community Upper School, Oxford Peers Community Upper School, Oxford

in the Chair

Date of signing 2000

Page 15