To: Dr Sonia Sharp, Executive Director CYPS, c/o Joel Hardwick, Floor 6, Derwent House, 150 Arundel Gate, S1 2JY. From: Professor John Coldron, Chair of Governors, Abbeydale Grange School Date: 22nd January 2010 Dear Sonia Herewith are the objections of the Governors of Abbeydale Grange to the proposal to discontinue the school. As you will see we believe that this is the wrong decision. We have responded in the spirit with which we have engaged with the LA throughout, that is on the assumption that all concerned are conscientiously attempting to determine the way forward that is in the best interests of the young people currently at the school and for all students and their parents in Sheffield. Neither the governors nor the council can demonstrate beyond doubt whether future students will be better off as a result of their differing recommendations. In the end that is a judgement call and rightly the responsibility of the elected members following advice from their officers. We believe that the evidence and arguments show that the cabinet's judgement is ultimately speculative and the promised results highly questionable, while what is certain is the harm that is being done, and will be done, to the welfare and education of the current students despite the efforts to mitigate this. This is a cost the cabinet judge to be worth paying for the benefit of future students. Our argument is that the council do not have to ask students and parents to pay this cost, nor gamble on uncertain gains. They need the places and the alternative of supporting the evident improvements in attainment and guiding the school to transform is the better bet. The cabinet still have an opportunity to reverse this decision. It would be honourable and responsible to do so. If they do they can rely on the staff and governors of Abbeydale Grange to work wholeheartedly with them in the interests of all.

Yours sincerely

Professor John Coldron Chair of Governors and Parent Governor Abbeydale Grange School

1

Objection to the Statutory otice published on 14 th December 2010 to discontinue Abbeydale Grange Foundation School

From the Governors of Abbeydale Grange School 21 st January 2010

The governors object to the proposal to discontinue Abbeydale Grange School. This submission is in three parts. The first summarises the main points of our objections. The second provides detailed and evidenced commentary referenced to the sections of the Statutory Proposal. The final section has appended documents referred to in the text. They are: 1. ote on caution needed on statistics from John Coldron to Advisory Group 2. Social statistician's report. 3. Scatter diagram showing AGS as an outlier in terms of Stability and EAL 4. Extract re Co-operative Trust from Governors response to consultation 5. Primary School Places: Leaflet to primary schools in the South West of Sheffield warning of increased pressure on school places 6. Health Authority's live birth data Summary:

Point One: The arguments that standards will improve by transferring the students to other schools are highly speculative but the harm to the education and welfare of current students is certain. Only if no other course of action was available and there was no sign of improvement at Abbeydale Grange should closure have been proposed.

• Despite the considerable steps taken by the LA to mitigate the potential harm to current AGS students, the chances that the welfare of a significant proportion of the young people will suffer both educationally and in other ways is very high. Consequently the claim that the attainment of current students will be enhanced is highly questionable.

• The LA’s claim that future students who would have come to AGS will attain better at other schools is based on incomplete and poorly interpreted data and in the view of an independent statistical expert extremely untrustworthy.(see appended report from Sean Demack).

• Despite the difficult circumstances, the evidence shows clearly that the standards in the school are improving rapidly such that the National Challenge floor target

2

will be reached and might even be exceeded by July 2010. In addition recent OFSTED monitoring reports judge that the school is making satisfactory progress.

• If closure is unlikely to benefit either current or future students and do little to enhance overall attainment across Sheffield and is in the face of evidence that the school can reach acceptable attainment standards, then only if no other course of action is available should closure have been proposed. Other options, specifically the governors’ proposal for a Co-operative Trust and the option of a National Challenge Trust, are available but have been improperly rejected. Point Two: The LA has illegitimately privileged some parents’ preferences over others and, in addition, the proposal to close will reduce choice.

• The guidance for decision makers is clear that whatever the LA does should help to create a ‘system shaped by parents’. It is the case that a significant proportion of parents at Abbeydale (38% of the intake ) make Abbeydale Grange their first choice each year and those (often new arrivals) that are later directed there are very happy and the majority have stated unequivocally that they choose to stay.

• In the setting of their original objectives, in the conduct of the consultation and in the response to that consultation the LA have demonstrated that preferences expressed by parents from the designated catchment area are more important than those expressed by parents outside that area. The governors consider this to be an illegitimate condition imposed by the LA. Catchment areas should only be considered in cases of over-subscription. They only become operative (have legal status as part of a school's admission arrangements) when the school is oversubscribed. It is not the LA’s job to decide which parents should shape the system.

• Closing the school would reduce choice considerably by denying these parents the choice they currently have and tha,t in the consultation, they demonstrated they wanted to retain. In the Statutory Proposal the LA explicitly state that the children from outside the catchment (designated area as an over-subscription criterion) who take up places at AGS are from some of the more deprived areas of Sheffield. Aspiring parents from these areas are opting away from their local school. Closure would mean this option was removed from poorer parents in direct opposition to the stated aims of the School Admissions Code and in contravention of the duty not to discriminate either directly or indirectly. Schools do not exist only to serve the community living immediately near the school.

• The decision to close removes one of only two Foundation secondary schools in Sheffield and thereby reduces diversity of providers in contravention of the statutory requirement to increase choice and diversity in the area.

Point Three: The likely increased segregation and negative effect on standards of attainment in Sheffield schools add strength to the argument that closure should be a last resort.

3

• The effective restriction of parents’ choice to those schools within their residential areas together with the fact that Sheffield is residentially highly socially differentiated (see the Two Cities Report from Sheffield University and the measure of segregation in Sheffield and other cities by Rebecca Allen and Anna Vignoles) will increase the segregation of the schools in Sheffield. There is considerable evidence from the OECD (PISA; Brooks 2008) and academic reports within the UK that such segregation contributes significantly to lower attainment. The increased segregation is likely therefore negatively to affect standards in Sheffield schools. We also believe that it may contravene the duty to promote equity.

Point Four: The LA have not adequately considered or consulted on all alternatives to closure.

• Given the potential harm of closure to young people, the questionable grounds for closure, the evidence of sustainable improvement, the effective reductions in choice and diversity, and the evident willingness of the governors to find transformative ways forward the LA should have seriously considered all alternatives. They demonstrably did not do so. They were the ones in the driving seat once closure was proposed and the school was put into special measures. But at no point did they offer for discussion a National Challenge Trust which chimes with the governors’ proposal of a transformative Co-operative Trust. The time that they gave for consideration by potential partners for a hard federation was not adequate and the timing of the invitation to consider it (close to the end of the summer term) was such as to be bound to lead to hasty and unconsidered decisions.

• The LA should have initiated a proper consultation on the National Challenge Trust option in a 'top down' move. At a later stage they should have responded to the Governors proposal with a fresh consultation in line with para 1.3 in the Closure Guidance where it states Where, in the course of consultation, a new option emerges which the proposers wish to consider, it will probably be appropriate to consult afresh on this option before proceeding to publish proposals. Instead the LA officers in their report to Cabinet dismissed the proposal because it was not 'top down', and would improve things but too slowly.

• Given the arguments and evidence above, it is in the best interests of the students that the LA withdraw its proposal to close and begin serious discussions to take forward the work of the Governors to establish a National Challenge Trust using the Co-operative model. Point Five: In the event of a final decision to close the school the timetable for closure is too fast.

4

• The proposed speed of closure is exacerbating the difficulties for parents, students and receiving schools. A more measured timetable would be in everyone’s interests.

• It is also the case that the proposal not to admit pupils in September 2010 means effectively that there will be few or no applicants in the admission round that is currently under way. Thus, the fall in demand becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy and even if closure is averted the damage to the interests of the school and young people would be substantial. It is the governors’ view that this amounts to an effective fetter of discretion by the LA.

Detailed commentary With reference to Implementation Sect 2: The local authority consultation document proposes that in the event of closure, current Y7, 8, and 9 students will move to other schools by September 2010, leaving Y10 students to complete KS4 as Y11s at Abbeydale Grange in Y11. The governors accept that a quick closure might theoretically be in the interests of students in as far as this would reduce the uncertainty and would restrict other adverse effects of closure in terms of such matters as fragile staffing. But the practical difficulties now arising demonstrate clearly that the LA’s current one-year timescale for closure is much too fast. It threatens to compromise the ability of parents conscientiously to express their preferences and damages the well-being of students, both those Key Stage 3 students who would transfer to other schools, and those Key Stage 4 students who would remain in the school until it finally shuts. Although the LA have put in place an extra admissions round that technically matches the criteria of the normal end of Key Stage 2 admission process in practice parents have not been able to visit schools or to make up their mind. As a result, in a report to the Admissions Forum, the percentage of parents who had not expressed any preference by 20th Jan (just two days before the deadline of 22nd January) was 51%. This compares with the usual percentage in a normal admissions round of approx 3%. These parents risk being allocated schools that in no way have they chosen.

The challenge of meeting students’ needs is even more concerning. The LA have asked the school to develop a model for 2010-11 which envisages just one year group remaining at Abbeydale Grange (Year 11). Consequently, the school is faced with three options for organising and staffing the curriculum:

1. Maintain the curriculum model and staffing which students currently experience in Year 10. This would be extremely expensive, with large numbers of staff teaching small numbers of lessons. 2. Reduce the number of staff by requiring each teacher to teach a number of subjects. This would frequently result in teachers working outside their areas

5

of expertise. 3. Re-organise teaching groups in core subjects to reduce the number of core specialist teachers required. This would result in many students losing continuity of experience by being taught by staff who have not taught them in Year 10. It would also result in at least 28% of students being displaced from teaching groups which the school has judged to be appropriate for them.

The LA have made it clear that the first option is unacceptably expensive. In trying to plan within the second and third options, the school is acutely aware that the quality of education for next year’s Year 11students will inevitably deteriorate in what is arguably the most important year of their secondary education. As a result, they will be unfairly discriminated against because their educational experience will be unequal to that of Year 11students in other schools.

We are aware of the extra resources that the LA have put into this but even that extra resource cannot mitigate the problems caused by a rushed move. This is particularly important for Y9s moving to Y10, because they have to choose which optional subjects they will study for the next two years. Normally, the programme to support students in making option choices would last about seven months, and would offer a range of information and guidance. Current Y9 students would have needed to be allocated a school before the end of the autumn term 2009 in order to participate fully in an effective KS4 options process at their receiving school, and to have an equal chance with other students to pick the options they want. The timescale for allocating students to new schools will last until February 2010 with the allocation date being 5th February, and this will consequently make a lengthy options programme of this sort impossible. Over-hastiness of the LA is giving insufficient consideration to the well-being of students.

If the school were to close, a more viable approach would be to move current Y9s to new schools in one year, keeping the next year’s Y8s, Y9s, and Y11s at Abbeydale Grange, and moving these Y8s and Y9s to new schools at the end of the following year. This would provide a more manageable placement procedure which could be tested on a smaller number of (Y9) students in one year, and refined with Y8s and Y9s in the second year. It would also allow the school to retain a more stable staff able to offer specialist teaching across all subjects. The governors formally presented a proposal for a two-year closure programme to the LA but this was rejected. Instead, their hasty and untested transition programme has already commenced, causing upset and confusion for the families affected.

A longer timescale for closing the school would also take pressure off other local schools to receive significant numbers of additional students at a time when they are already substantially above their standard number. The LA has made it clear that it can require other schools to accept Abbeydale Grange students, and has proposed that schools should take up to ten extra students in each year group. This disregard by the

6

LA of the consequences of seriously inflated student numbers in some schools risks the creation of a situation where facilities in other schools are over-stretched, teachers face unmanageably large classes, and health and safety considerations are compromised. It may also temper the welcome that the displaced students receive from peers and their parents. The Appeals Panel have recently highlighted these issues in a letter to parents following their rejection of a recent appeal for a child to be admitted to a neighbouring school which has subsequently become a potential destination for Abbeydale Grange students. In this statement, the parents have been informed that:

The panel reached the decision that to admit additional pupils would prejudice efficient education and the efficient use of resources. They were particularly concerned about: • Health and safety • The size of classes and the need for smaller groups for lower sets and some specialist subjects • The fact that, even though it is a relatively modern building, it was still not designed for the number of pupils it currently holds • Excessive numbers may cause the school to alter its established organisation particularly to deliver practical subjects which require smaller classes. This places pressure on the timetable, resources, curriculum and general administration. • The admission of additional children will lead to an increase in class sizes and therefore has implications for children already offered places there and the quality of the information they receive • It is clear that the Local Authority is required by law to comply with the wishes of parents. The Local Authority and the school also have a duty to children already allocated places at the school. The Authority must take steps to ensure that children receive their education in an environment that is not overcrowded.

If these principles apply to the case of a single child seeking admission to an already overcrowded school, they also apply to the many Abbeydale Grange students who have chosen this and similar schools in the event of Abbeydale Grange closing. There is a serious question as to the rationality of a decision that necessarily involves over- crowding in other schools. The Closure Guidance provides no model timetables but section 2.6 implies that the closure should be over a more extended time than the LA is attempting to implement.

With reference to Consultation Sect 4 The Governors acknowledge that the LA undoubtedly put a great deal of time into the process of consultation and this was welcomed. Moreover the summary of the consultation in Appendix 3 is generally acceptable. We do not however think that the non-statutory discussion process prior to the statutory consultation period was

7 adequate. Not enough preparation or leadership was shown by the LA, who in the circumstances of special measures were required to take leadership, and the‘findings’ from that process are highly contested by the governors. Despite the technical correctness of the consultation process it has become clear to the governors that the views of local parents within catchment have been privileged over and above any other groups of parents. This followed from the second of the original objectives which states that “more local parents should prefer the catchment school”.

With reference to Objectives Sect 5 The governors agree with the third objective. They also wholeheartedly agree that parents should have access to a school which enables young people to attain to their highest possible level. We also accept that the standards of attainment in Abbeydale in the past could have been higher and therefore welcome the evidence of continued and sustainable improvement as a result of the National Challenge extra resourcing and focus and the enhancement of leadership within the school. However, with reference to the second objective, while governors see some strength in the argument that parents should all want to go to their nearest school parents often feel differently. Parental preference – parents shaping the system (4.17 Closure Guide) – over-rides the LA's aspiration to make every parent choose their local school. Local preference was a non-negotiable criterion of sustainability and was not up for discussion or consultation. This objective has led to the assumption underlying the officers’ advice to cabinet and the cabinet decision that for first preferences to ‘count’ they must come only from local parents while the preferences of the 38% of others who opt for Abbeydale Grange are to be considered less important in shaping the system of education in Sheffield. It is the governors’ view that this non-negotiable insistence on making local parents go to their local schools is an illegitimate imposition on the consultation and not in line with the statutory guidance for decision makers. Catchments are over-subscription criteria; they only become operative (have legal status as part of a schools admission arrangements) when the school is oversubscribed. It is not the LA’s job to decide which parents should shape the system.

With reference to Standards and Diversity Sect 6 The governors will not bury their heads in the sand and claim that there is nothing to improve in the school’s attainment record and we very much welcome the evidence of significant improvement and the likelihood of exceeding the 30% floor target in summer 2010. But neither can we accept the way in which the characteristics of the school, which show that it is comparable with only two other schools in England (see appended scatter diagram) and therefore very different from the other schools in Sheffield, have been ignored. The differences mean that making valid comparisons between schools is extremely difficult to do well and largely inappropriate when they are used, as in the case of Abbeydale Grange, to justify a fateful decision for many young people and their parents. An expert and independent interpretation of the data (see appended Social Statistician’s Report) has shown that no firm conclusions can be

8 drawn either way about the relative quality of education offered at Abbeydale Grange from the statistics as presented. These points were made to the LA prior to the required consultation pointing out that the LA’s and OFSTED’s own statisticians identified flaws in the data and counselled caution in drawing strong conclusions. (see appended ote on caution needed on statistics from Prof John Coldron to Advisory Group). As Sean Demack the independent expert statistician who examined these statistics states: ‘othing that I have seen could lead to any trustworthy conclusion that pupils from Abbeydale Grange would be better off (academically) at other Sheffield Schools’ Despite this, in the information provided to parents and others during the consultation and in the advice to Cabinet from officers, inadequate statistical data has been presented and crudely used to draw unwarranted damning conclusions. The limited acknowledgements in the Statutory proposal of the strength of the criticisms of their use of statistics and the need for caution while still making the claim that the comparative data used to justify their closure ‘must be taken as strong evidence’ is inexcusable and possibly negligent. An example of the continued bad and misleading use of statistics in the Statutory Notice is the following quotation: The largest ethnic group within Abbeydale Grange is Pakistani. Of these pupils, 8.3% gained 5 A*-C including English and maths in 2009. This compares to a Sheffield average of 35.3% for this group and a range of between 28.6% and 60% at the other four local schools named in the table above. As their own statisticians, the governors’ analysis and the independent report point out, the most important factor explaining attainment is socio-economic group (usually measured by FSM) and to make a valid comparison one needs to be sure that like is being compared to like. This means that more than just ethnicity needs to be considered. But, in the quotation above this basic requirement is not fulfilled but still used to imply a damning comparison.

The Closure Guidance states that: 4.23 …..When considering the closure of any school causing concern and, where relevant, the expansion of other schools, the Decision Maker should take into account the popularity with parents of alternative schools. The Statutory Proposal states that there are ‘215 pupils across the three year groups that would be displaced. 134 of these live in the South West area, the remaining pupils travel from elsewhere in the city….There are 162 places being made available across the popular and successful South West schools… and the popular and successful Catholic secondary schools (All Saints and otre Dame). For families in other areas of the city there would be a choice of their local school or an alternative nearby school should they prefer. The proposal would… allow for a high level of

9

parental choice and offers sufficient places at popular and successful schools across the city’. The governors believe that this aspect of the proposal contravenes the closure guidance because, while it offers those who live in the South West (i.e. those who are relatively local) the option of a popular and successful school this is not the case for the 38% of parents who live in other areas. Moreover, the parents that will have less access to the popular and successful schools will be those living in the most deprived areas of Sheffield thus reinforcing the already socially segregated nature of school intakes in the City.

The Statutory Proposal would reduce the diversity of provision within the city by removing the only Foundation school and a Specialist Media Arts School. The LA has chosen to ignore the transformative impact a decision to retain and rebuild the school would have. This would provide parents with an option for a school that not only enabled its young people to achieve highly but also in an ethos that is valued greatly by those parents who have positively chosen it and those who would chose it if the schools were supported into the future. We are not saying that other schools do not have admirable characteristics, only that the particular offer of Abbeydale Grange is unique within Sheffield and the reason why a significant proportion of parents put it as their first choice. As the Closure Guidance states:

4.28 The Government’s aim is to transform our school system so that every child receives an excellent education – whatever their background and wherever they live. A vital part of the Government’s vision is to create a more diverse school system offering excellence and choice, where each school develops its own ethos, sense of mission and a centre of excellence or specialist provision.

The advice of the independent National Challenge adviser and the independent monitoring report for the LA is that the school is likely to reach or exceed the 30% threshold in summer 2010. This is despite the ‘ current context and turbulence’. If there should be some impact on standards because of the proposal to close this should not be part of the ‘evidence’ of the capacity of the schools to achieve high standards of attainment. Otherwise the LA s open to the charge of fettering discretion.

With BSF, support from the LA and steadily improving attainment the size of the school would increase and parental first preferences would increase. The plan for a co-operative trust is in effect the governor’s version of a National Challenge Trust proposal that should have been fully considered by the LA but was not. The transfer to a Trust is a credible and convincing alternative to ‘ significantly improve standards and turn around parental preference for Abbeydale Grange ’ and would mark a significant difference from the previous structures. But the LA have consistently ignored this alternative, instead opting for a ‘hard federation’ on a timescale that

10 ensured that partners could not commit themselves. Given the harmful disruption inevitably caused in any closure, the unfairness toward a significant proportion of parents, the unprofessional and inadequate use of data to judge the school’s relative quality, and the increase in the restriction of parental choice because of where they live the LA has not conducted itself correctly by not considering this option. It should have worked with the governors to try to establish a National Challenge Trust but failed to do so.

With reference to eeds for Places Sect 8 The LA (or anybody’s) forecast for the demand for places over a period of eight to ten years can only be an estimate. Nevertheless the Health Authority's live birth data (appended) show that if Abbeydale Grange is closed there will be a significant shortfall of places in the South West on current capacity. There are 1069 places available each year between King Ecgbert, High Storrs, Silverdale, King Edwards and Tapton. In the following years the shortage will potentially be: as follows:

2010/11- 146 places short 2011/12- 68 places short 2012/13- 83 places short 2013/14- 58 places short 2014/15- 117 places short 2015/16- 132 places short 2016/17- 183 places short 2017/18- 136 places short 2018/19- 238 places short. The governors therefore believe that the LA forecasts should not be taken as gospel and that they have probably under estimated the need for places in the South West. If all of these children are to be accommodated in South West schools then there will be far less access for parents who live outside the immediate geographical area especially as increased rolls come through in 5 to 7 years time. The authority have acknowledged that they will soon need to build a new school if they close Abbeydale Grange. As a consequence the council are about to start a consultation with primary school parents initially about this city wide shortage of places which will hit primary schools in 2011 and secondary school 7 years on (see appended Primary Places Leaflet which has gone into south west primary schools). This raises the following issues: a) Closing AG whilst consulting about future shortages of places seems contradictory. b) It is likely that, as part of this accommodation, catchment boundaries in the south west will need to be altered. This will impact disproportionally on families in AGS catchment as they live furthest away from these schools and once again ratchet social segregation in the city and by default discriminate against particular social groups.

11

c)This problem was never brought to the attention of parents during consultation meetings. Instead parents at local infant schools (many of whom will have preschool age children) have been led to believe that their children will be able to access for the foreseeable future the popular South West schools such as High Storrs, King Ecgberts etc. But this option seems likely to be denied them in the near future. With reference to Displaced Pupils Sect 11 Governors agree (see above) that the reallocation process is technically correct i.e. fair and transparent, but disagree for the reasons stated above that it ‘takes place in time to give parents reassurance’. The governors agree that new resources are in place to support individual pupils through the transition but that this will not be enough to mitigate the harm to young people’s welfare and education caused by the closure.

With reference to Impact on the Community Sect 13. This has been commented on in earlier sections but it is important to note that the impact particularly on the Sharrow community will be significantly negative. Parents at the Sharrow consultation meetings at the local primary school and at the mosque made it very clear that they did not want the school to close because children will be dispersed around a number of schools all of which are further away. This will effectively break up this age group within the community. The problem of increased travel time and congestion has been minimised by the LA. As was said at the mosque meeting, 'they are taking everything out of this community and making it a 'corridor' for those travelling to the more affluent parts of the South West'.

The closure of AGS will not affect all in its surrounding community (the affluent of the area have and will always end up with the choices they require), but the people it will affect are those far less well off.

12

Appended papers

Paper One: Note on caution needed on statistics from John Coldron to Advisory Group

Notes on the interpretation of data for the Advisory Group meeting Wednesday 11 th March 2009

We will not bury our heads in the sand and claim that there is nothing to improve in the school’s attainment record. Nevertheless there has been in the advisory group meetings and in the OFSTED report some crude use of data and unwarranted conclusions drawn. This paper attempts to instil some caution in interpreting the data.

1. The OFSTED judgement was heavily dependent on the RAISEonline data. The data needs to be interpreted with considerable care for two reasons. Firstly the accuracy of the data cannot always be relied on. For example in the data used by the OFTED team there were two errors: a) the Y11 cohort for CVA in 2008 is reported as 144 when it was actually 129. The error was reported but it had not resulted in the error being corrected by the time of the inspection. b) The VA data was acknowledged to be wrong by the School Statistics team at OFSTED who said in reply to the school,

‘..since your original email we have become aware of a problem with the non- contextual value added in RAISEonline. We are investigating this and my advice at the moment would be to disregard this measure. ’ Ben Pledger 9 th January 2009. This error has now been corrected following the school's challenge.

The second reason why the data should be used and interpreted cautiously is the endemic problem of statistics to capture enough of the dimensions of a school’s context to make robust comparison with others. This is particularly true of statistical outliers such as Abbeydale which has an almost unique profile with only two similar schools in the whole of England (see scatter `diagram attached). In the case of Abbeydale Grange this results in a very small percentage of coverage (66% from KS2 to KS4) in the CVA and VA calculations leaving the progress of a very large group of students (34%) unaccounted for in the RAISEonline report as used by the OFSTED team. The problem was acknowledged by the OFSTED School Statistics team:

‘The circumstances you describe are quite rare and inevitably lead to problems with fully measuring the effectiveness of your schoolClearly you have a large percentage of students for whom progress measures are redundant and in that circumstance I think it is a balance between using KS4 attainment measures, estimating progress using your own assessments of these students and engaging inspection teams in the conversation about the origins of these students and the provision you have made for them. As a statistician I would not want to set a level of coverage below which to ignore CVA, but clearly where it is as low as 62% inspectors need to know that it only tells some of the picture of your school's effectiveness. I will speak to our inspection division to see if there is official guidance to inspectors about CVA coverage and will happily pass the information to you.’ Ben Pledger 9 th January 2009

2. The OFSTED statistics team stated:

13

‘For the purposes of CVA we have introduced a 3year average measure in to the Full Report, which is intended to give a more robust picture for schools with regularly low cohorts.’ Ben Pledger 8 th Jan 2009 This, together with the fact that when the correct cohort figure is included the CVA and VA figures for 2008 will ‘improve’ suggest that our CVA and VA figures are in fact very satisfactory and do not warrant the judgement that our students do not make adequate progress. CVA 3year average results in English and Maths for all groups except Pakistani are in line with national averages. CVA 3year average results for all subjects for all groups except Pakistani and White British are mostly above average and these two groups are not getting markedly worse. The growing national emphasis on the non-contextualised FFT'A' for target setting suggests that non-contextualised value added data are to be taken as the most meaningful indicators of progress for schools. In the case of Abbeydale Grange, non- contextualised value added has been consistently above average over the last three years, suggesting (with high coverage of 86%), that teaching and learning are good. Even without the improvement that will come from the changed cohort number the noncontextualised VA KS2 to KS3 is good putting us into the 35 th percentile and well above national averages. Note also that coverage from KS3 to KS4 is 86%

2006 2007 2008 3yr average 1010.2 1005.6 1004.0 1006.6 p32 RAISEonline

3. The attainment figures show a widening of the gap between Abbeydale and average national attainment. The trend coincides and is likely to be correlated with other changes that would be expected to have a negative impact on attainment relative to the national average: • A greater reduction than the national average (1.4% fewer compared to no change nationally) in the % of girls • A greater increase than the national average (2.2% more compared to 1.1% more nationally) in % of FSM • A greater increase than the national average (0.05% points compared to no change in the national average) in the deprivation indicator • A significantly greater increase than the national average (6.8%points compared to 1% point) in the % of pupils with English not their first language • A significantly greater increase than the national average (9.8% points increase compared to a 0.4% point decrease nationally) in the instability of the intake They are only partly offset by the following that would be expected to have a positive impact on attainment: • Abbeydale’s number of pupils with SEN has reduced by 3.2% while there has been an increase of 2.3% in the national average These factors are likely to have a cumulatively negative impact on attainment and explain in part the widening difference between school and national figures.

John Coldron March 9 th 2009

14

Paper 2. Social Statistician's report

Report from Sean Demack - Senior Lecturer in Social Statistics at Sheffield Hallam University

I was asked by Abbeydale Grange governors to make an independent statistical report on data provided to me (attached as appendices). The data included excel sheets together with commentary on those data from the LA and from Abbeydale Grange Governors.

Specifically I was asked, on the basis of all of the data available here, to answer the following questions: 1. Is it possible to claim that the data on the attainment of pupils (overall and as belonging to particular groups i.e. BME, EAL, FSM) can be taken as evidence that standards of teaching and learning at Abbeydale Grange are below the levels in comparable schools in Sheffield? 2. Is it possible to claim that the current Abbeydale Grange students would achieve higher attainment if they were moved to other schools? 3. What claims can be made about attainment of pupils at AG and in comparable schools (if possible please indicate the strength with which these claims can be made). 4. Are there any other conclusions you think are relevant. I have provided below a summary report of my conclusions.

Overview I understand that statistical analyses that enable comparison of attainment between different schools are to play a pivotal role in determining whether AG remains open or closed. They need therefore to be constructed (as best we can) so that an accurate and fair comparison can be made between AG and other Sheffield secondary schools. Even when this has been done it needs to be acknowledged that such statistical analysis can only provide a (useful) context given the amount of variation and complexity involved. Other, qualitative, details are a crucial addition to the statistical context. Together, they help to provide a fair and holistic assessment of Abbeydale Grange's academic and social performance (in relation to its pupil intake) and a valuable aid to decisions regarding the future of this school.

All I have been provided with is the statistical context. From what I have seen there is NO basis to draw a conclusion that pupils would attain better at another school. Further, a claim that students at Abbeydale Grange would achieve 2 grades higher per GCSE at most other schools in the City, a claim I understand has been made by the Local Authority, is unwarranted if it is based on the limited statistical evidence I have seen.

Comparing attainment across schools Philip Andrew, in his email dated 30 th June 2009, reflected on the complexity of comparing pupil attainment across schools and identified some important

15 factors that need taking into account: FSM (free school meals) as a proxy for deprivation / affluence amongst the pupil population, SEN (special educational needs), BME (Black and Minority Ethnic) for a proxy for ethnic composition of pupil intake and EAL (English as an additional language).

It should be stressed that these influences (on attainment at the school level) do not act in isolation and so bivariate analyses are really inappropriate. I understand that such analyses may be presented to aid the communicability of findings but do think that the problems that this brings also need to be clearly stated. So, this leads me to reject much of the statistical analyses provided (as incomplete). The Contextual Value Added (CVA) score and (perhaps) the Fischer Family Trust Estimate are the only figures that begin to address this problem and even then I envisage problems – but would need more detail on the models used to make a proper assessment.

Taking each of the four indicators in turn :

Socio-economic mix of pupil population - FSM This is (over simply) identified using the proportion claiming Free School Meals (%FSM). AG has the highest proportion of pupils claiming this in Sheffield (40% using the 2008 data provided, 41% using 2009 census). Fir Vale (39% in 2008, 2009 not available); Parkwood High (38% in 2008, 2009 not available), (35% in 2008, 2009 not available) and Hinde House (25% in 2008, 18% in 2009). Other schools include (22% in 2009).

Being in receipt of school meals statistically identifies a proportion of pupils within a school who come from backgrounds of notable deprivation. However, this assumes that all who qualify will claim and is completely blind to subtle variations in poverty and wealth within school pupil populations.

Given what we know about the link between social status and educational success / attainment, it is rather odd that such a simple (and flawed) measure continues to be the way in which the socio-economic mix of a school is captured / operationalised. This however is not restricted to the Local Authority's analyses but shared by many professionals and academics nationally.

I accept that it can help identify the relative wealth or poverty of a schools intakes (in terms of financial capital), however, it would be concerning if policy was being drawn on the basis of such over simple measures. For example, schools such as High Storrs or King Edwards II have a proportion of FSM pupils, but amongst pupils not in receipt of FSM there is a range from those just not qualifying (or qualifying and not claiming) up to pupils who come from households where both parents are in high status occupations and wealthy in terms of social, cultural and financial capital.

I accept that its use is pragmatic but do feel it necessary to highlight the

16

problems here. I would prefer to collect details of parental occupation and income but acknowledge the practical and political problems that this would bring. Other approaches such as using deprivation indices based on pupil post-code areas would provide richer detail (but are open to ecological problems).

Ethnicity mix – BME Problems with measurement As with socio-economic status, the simplicity of measure here is concerning – in fact I would regard this as even more problematic. In my teaching, if one of my students submitted an assessment which operationalised ethnicity in such a simple way without detailed and highly critical reflection they would be likely to fail. Whilst the use of FSM is poor, it is understandable as parental employment details (as far as I am aware) are not routinely collected – but for ethnicity, more finely grained ethnicity details are available.

In terms of the over-simple BME measures provided, it seems that Firvale (91%) and AG (73%) are somewhat distinct to the other 6 comparator schools (highest of which is Park Academy with 34%). Using the 2009 census we can look more closely at the comparator schools in terms of ethnicity:

Abbeydale Firth Hinde King High King Ed G Park House Ecg Storrs II

69. 62. 67. 62. 67. White British 26.1 9 0 5 3 9 White Irish 0.3 0.5 Traveller of Irish heritage Any other white background 6.8 0.6 2.9 1.1 1.8 1.3 Gypsy/Roma Mixed (White and black Caribbean) 1.6 3.1 4.5 2.5 3.2 3.9 Mixed (white and black African) 0.5 0.4 0.3 1.1 0.4 Mixed (White and Asian) 0.8 1.2 1.1 1.9 1.2 Any other mixed background 1.6 0.8 0.4 1.4 1.5 1.6 Indian 0.5 1.1 0.6 13. 15. Pakistani 20.3 9.9 8.7 4 6 6.9 Bangladeshi 4.0 1.3 4.0 0.9 1.3 Any other Asian 6.8 1.5 2.8 0.4 1.0 1.6 Caribbean 2.4 1.6 2.1 1.6 1.5 1.5 African 15.1 5.6 7.8 3.1 4.3 3.7

17

Any other black background 0.9 0.2 0.5 0.6 0.8 0.7 Chinese 1.3 0.3 0.6 1.2 1.3 Any other ethnic group 12.2 4.0 4.7 0.9 0.9 4.7 Unclassified 0.0 0.5 0.0 1.3 1.3 99. 99. 99. 10 99. Total 99.1 5 6 6 0.2 8

Unfortunately, details on Fir Vale, Parkwood and Park Academy are lacking.

Looking at the Abbeydale Grange ethnicity mix, the information that between 2/3 and 3/4 are BME does not come anywhere near to capturing the nature of ethnic diversity in this school. I accept that statistics will always simplify but this must not be taken too far. In my own research into attainment, if I merged the Indian, Pakistani and Bangladeshi groups to represent an ‘Asian’ group I would end up with a group where resulting statistics would not represent the higher attaining Indian ethnicity or the lower attaining Pakistani/Bangladeshi ones – a mythical Asian group that until recently did appear in much academic research. Moving to a ‘White’ v ‘not-white’ categorisation will inevitably lead to false and misleading statistics – and fails completely to acknowledge ethnic diversity.

Away from Fir Vale (where we have no proper detail), it is difficult to identify a school in Sheffield that remotely compares to AG in terms of ethnicity. Key points that do emerge – the relatively higher proportions of pupils from Pakistani / Bangladeshi background (two ethnic groups known to have particularly high levels of deprivation at the national level ), higher proportions from African and Caribbean backgrounds and a notable proportion(12%) who have ethnicities that are off the current scheme .

Problems with considering ethnic differences without taking socio- economic factors into account. At a group level, considering ethnicity without taking account of variations in socio-economic background is misleading. The association between ethnicity and socio-economic background is well known, ignoring it and using such flawed (attainment) statistics to inform policy is inappropriate. Two things need doing before something like a ‘fair comparison’ can be made – improve the ethnicity detail and include socio-economic status (FSM may have to do here ).

The CVA score that is calculated using a model that accounts for socio- economic background and ethnicity may be the only one that enables a multivariate view.

English as an Additional Language This measure, to some extent, is a subset of ethnicity. It can be used to

18 consider if differences along ethnic lines can be attributed to language issues – and help to target resource into improving English language proficiency. This said, as with ethnicity, on its own it is rather limited / misleading – socio- economic status is needed in addition to enable a fair comparison.

All we can say from the table is that AG has a notably high proportion of pupils with EAL (61% from 2008 figures) and the only comparable school here is Fir Vale (80%) with other schools having this figure lower than 30%.

SEN The schools without additional detail for 2009 have striking proportions of pupils with SEN using the 2008 figures; Park Acad (51%); Parkwood High (49%); Fir Vale (26%) compared with 30% for AG – also worth noting is the 31% at Hinde House with SEN.

There is a need for clarification because it is unclear about exactly how SEN is measured. Is this ‘perceived SEN’; ‘SEN with statement’; ‘SEN at any point in a pupils schooling’ or ‘current SEN with statement’ .

SEN is an important measure – and more details on the nature / profoundness of the needs of pupils are really needed before a fair comparison could be made. For example, blindness and deafness compared with dyslexia compared with being ‘gifted’ compared to cerebral palsy.

Further, SEN for a pupil with English as a second language (although this is sometimes considered a SEN itself) in a specific ethnic group and from a household without employment (and so likely to be low in cultural, economic and social capital) will be very different from SEN for an English speaking pupil with both parents in professional employment - these factors (among others) interplay to form a nexus of advantage and disadvantage.

The CVA scores Given the problems of bivariate analyses discussed above, the only statistics that may take account of socio-economic status, ethnicity, English Language skills and SEN seems to be the CVA (and possibly the Fischer Family Trust estimate). I need more detail to provide a fuller assessment but just focusing on the CVA it seems that AG is found at the lower end (reflecting a relatively low value added score).

The confidence intervals take school size into account and allow us to identify schools that differ from one another in a statistically significant way. Including the confidence intervals, we can see that, in terms of ‘value added’, no significant difference can be seen between AG and Springs Academy, Handsworth Grange, Myers Grove, High Storrs, Ecclesfield, Meadowhead and Westfield. Newfield, Yewlands and Hinde House are seen to (just) have significantly higher CVA scores compared with AG.

If, as I assume (given the bivariate tables provided), the CVA model

19 operationalises socio-economic mix, ethnicity and SEN in the same over- simplistic way, the comparison is still some way from being ‘fair’ or ‘accurate’. The statistics made available to me show that AG is not distinguishable in terms of CVA scores from at least 6 other Sheffield secondary schools.

Conclusion The statistical information provided to draw comparisons between the attainment of pupils at AG and that at other Sheffield schools is inadequate to draw trustworthy conclusions and there is a danger that conclusions drawn will be simplistic and misleading. The problems begin with the over-simple approach to measuring key factors such as socio-economic mix, ethnic mix and SEN amongst school pupil populations. If these poor operationalisations are then used within bivariate analyses the problem is compounded. The CVA presents a better / multivariate picture and doesn’t really highlight AG as clearly different (in terms of value added) than many other schools in Sheffield (6 of them including High Storrs). Even then it seems likely that CVA will also apply similar poor / over simple operationalisation and so must be considered as incomplete – but I cannot be definite here without more detail on the models.

Finally, nothing that I have seen could lead to any trustworthy conclusion that pupils from AG would be better off (academically) at other Sheffield schools; claiming a 2-grade increase is over-stating the validity of the statistics used and I am startled by the strength of the claim.

October 2009 Sean Demack Senior Lecturer in Social Statistics Centre for Education and Inclusion research and Department of Psychology, Sociology and Politics Sheffield Hallam University

20

Paper 5: Extract from Governors response to consultation

5. Proposals for transformative action The local authority has expressed the view that a ‘soft’ federation with another school would be insufficiently strong to ensure Abbeydale Grange’s future viability. Instead, it proposed ‘hard’ federation as a structural response to the challenge of driving up standards and ensuring the school’s future. Other structural solutions are available to provide rigorous support for Abbeydale Grange in order to secure its future as a highly-achieving and popular school. In this section we set out our proposal to become a Co-operative Trust to meet the needs of parents and children and to create a successful and attractive school with a distinctive ethos. It includes an outline of how this has the potential to meet the wider needs of Sheffield students. We also make explicit the principles and values that underpin our actions.

The aims of the proposal are to: • Establish excellent standards of teaching and learning. • Re-establish the confidence of the local parental community in Abbeydale Grange School, and ensure the school’s future viability as a school of 700+. • Provide an alternative to other local secondary schools which is equal in excellence but distinctive in its ethos. • Strengthen community cohesion.

The governors fully acknowledge the need for a proposal that is structural and transformative because: • Being in special measures requires a transformative response • More parents will choose the school when they are sure that a radical change has taken place that promises enhanced exam performance, a distinctive and stimulating ethos, substantial investment in the school building and a secure environment. • The Local Authority needs to have confidence in the sustained high quality of the provision the school offers to children and its attractiveness to parents. Our proposals meet these needs.

Abbeydale Grange intends to affiliate to the Co-operative Trust , for the following reasons:

• Affiliation to a trust is one of the structural and transformative solutions given as an option in DCSF guidance

21

• The Co-operative Trust has a commitment to raising expectations and achievement. This will support Abbeydale Grange in driving up standards, and will enable it to benefit from a relationship with other more successful Trust schools. • The Co-operative Trust has a globally shared set of values which complement the international perspective of Abbeydale Grange, and is a gateway to the worldwide co-operative movement. • The Co-operative Trust has extensive experience of democratic engagement in governance, drawing in parents, students, staff, the local community, business, sporting and other partners.

We have begun the process of discussions with the Co-operative College and with potential members of the trust. A Co-operative Trust will enable Abbeydale Grange to formally engage a range of bodies from the local community, Further and Higher Education, businesses and successful schools to build a set of partnerships that can ensure a transformation of Abbeydale School aimed at delivering the highest possible attainment for all and offering a distinctive ethos for parents. It will extend diversity and choice, raise standards and contribute to community cohesion. The various partners will form the Trust which will renew and strengthen the governance of the school and provide robust challenge, quality assurance and support for the new leadership. It is possible that the best model might be one where the Trust appoints a majority of governors; however the precise form will depend on DCSF plans following the White Paper’s proposals. The co-operative model will be able to inform and enhance the inclusive and cohesive ethos acknowledged by OFSTED to be a strength of the school.

Delivering enhanced attainment at the school The Trust’s partnerships with successful schools: Through direction from the trust, we will establish a strong partnership with one or more successful schools: • to offer opportunities to enhance leadership skills • to provide mentoring to work collaboratively to help raise standards • to work on curriculum development • to allow teacher exchanges to improve teaching and learning • to share best practice in our specialist area. The local authority has set out its intention to create a ‘ local learning partnership’ for all secondary schools in the south-west. Our proposal is compatible with and complements this plan. The local learning partnership will provide a firm organisational relationship between Abbeydale Grange and its neighbouring schools. Abbeydale Grange will thereby be firmly locked into a rigorous structure which places high expectations on each institution.

22

Trust partnerships with FE and HE: The Trust will build a network of formal partnerships with , Longley Park College and Sheffield Hallam University. We have established relations with Longley Park and the two local universities and will seek their involvement. In addition to being a key partner in enhancing the progression of students into further and higher education, they will offer expertise in leadership, continuing teacher education and educational research. They are also major employers and a vital part of the city and regional economy.

Greater community involvement: Through involvement at trustee level there will be input from a range of community and parental bodies including Activity Sheffield, the English Cricket Board, the Football Foundation, the Community Development Exchange, the Madina Masjid and FLAGS (Forging Links with Abbeydale Grange). This will facilitate parental involvement which has been shown to be a crucial part of raising standards.

Greater involvement of local business leaders and employers: Becoming a Trust will transform the vocational element of the curriculum and create strong links between the school and the world of work. We already have the support of a local FE college and a local commercial digital company and will seek the involvement of more employers in the Trust.

In addition, our proposal has the potential to contribute greatly to improved standards for a wider group of young people in Sheffield through enhanced arrangements for vocational education. Britain is set to reposition its economy by means of a renewed emphasis on manufacturing. To achieve this outcome nationally, the country will need to rebuild a skilled workforce from effective programmes of vocational training at a local level. Abbeydale Grange can, through its proposed local learning partnership, play a key role in the development of vocational education in Sheffield. By 2013, all students nationally will have an entitlement to follow a 14-19 Diploma. In the south-west of the city, where post-16 provision in 6 th forms is based largely on A-levels, the Diploma route continues to have a low profile. Yet even in the south-west, there are many students for whom an academic pathway does not match their needs, and for whom the vocational emphasis of a Diploma would be more attractive. Initial discussions with neighbouring schools suggest that there are issues of capacity, both organisational and physical, in developing 14 -19 vocational provision on their individual sites. They have given broad initial indications that they would support the development of Abbeydale Grange as a vocational hub through which the provision of 14-19 entitlements at Levels 1, 2 and 3 across the south-west of the city could be met. In contrast to neighbouring schools, Abbeydale Grange strongly supports the Diploma, both as a qualification and as a learning style. It is a pilot school for the Creative & Media Diploma and has a good

23 understanding of this qualification. Whether the 14-19 Diploma survives in its present form or not, there will be a continuing need for the city to maintain a programme of vocational education, in line with national aspirations.

Delivering enhanced social cohesion Abbeydale Grange is already a shining example of a cohesive school community and the school has contributed strongly to wider community cohesion. The Co-operative Trust with its model of involvement from a range of community partners provides the means to make an even greater contribution. We will develop the school as a centre of excellence in addressing the needs of migrant students and their families. Sheffield presents itself as a ‘city of sanctuary’. Over time, Abbeydale Grange has played its full part in providing sanctuary to displaced people. In doing so, it has acquired considerable expertise in support of migrant students and their families, particularly with regard to its EAL work. It has also achieved notable success in terms of the social cohesion within its school community, (and this has been commented on favourably by Ofsted). This cohesion, in the context of a small, diverse school with an emphasis on personalised learning, has been an essential factor in Abbeydale Grange’s success in settling newly- arrived young people in education. The school wishes to develop and disseminate its expertise across other Sheffield schools in terms of:

• Continuing professional development • Outreach teaching • The temporary placement of students with low levels of English at Abbeydale Grange.

Working with its Co-operative partners, the school will be well-placed to act as a conduit to wider educational opportunities for migrant families, liaising for example with post-16 providers to guide adult family members of migrant families into education and training . Additionally, the school wishes to work with Sheffield CYPD to develop, in the medium to long term, residential accommodation on the Abbeydale Grange site for unaccompanied refugees/asylum seekers, to ensure that support for the well-being and education of these vulnerable young people is completely co-ordinated. The school already admits unaccompanied refugees/asylum seekers on a regular basis, and has considerable experience of issues around their support and care.

The Co-operative Trust will continue to develop community sports provision on the school site which will have significant community benefits . Using the school’s strong existing links with various local communities, including Black Minority Ethnic communities, Abbeydale Grange will use its

24 facilities to promote sporting participation by local clubs and teams . The 70-acre Abbeydale Grange site is a significant educational asset for Sheffield. It is in a very accessible location near bus routes. It also has extensive sports fields. However, the fields cannot be used to their full potential without investment in facilities. Working with local and national sporting bodies, Abbeydale Grange has already prepared the way to develop its sports facilities as a community resource. The school is working with Activity Sheffield, the English Cricket Board and Yorkshire Cricket, the Football Foundation and two local junior football clubs to invest in and develop this significant resource. Enhanced pitches, new changing rooms and meeting room/s will be used by local clubs and community groups in partnership with the school. The development of the school’s sporting and community facilities will make them a focal point for local community cohesion. In addition, this development will strengthen the school’s role as a vocational hub, offering vocational qualifications in sports , and drawing adults from the local community into lifelong learning .

Principles and values that underpin our proposal. The proposals above are a more secure means of achieving higher attainment, enhanced social cohesion and a more diverse offer to parents than closure of the school. They will make possible the realisation of the values and principles that drive our ambition. Our aim is that Abbeydale Grange will provide a first class education which equips young people with the necessary learning skills to thrive in a future whose challenges are beyond our current horizons and hard to predict. As a learning community, the school will discover, develop and sustain the gifts and talents of all students in a way that respects and builds on their own experience, diversity and knowledge. Students will be supported in developing curiosity, reflection, initiative, independence, self-respect and the ability to work effectively with others. Through its media specialism, Abbeydale Grange will fully embrace technical opportunities to enrich the educational experience of present and future ‘digital natives’.

Every student will: • be successful and self-confident, both in school and when they leave • develop a positive attitude to learning and accept being challenged intellectually • have a highly personalised curriculum, that offers choice and diversity in education for all • experience a curriculum that is broad, balanced and creative with multiple approaches and opportunities for enrichment • learn according to their individual needs through acceleration or differentiation

25

• develop thinking, study, life and social skills as well as literacy and numeracy • have a confident staff team able to provide the best possible education for them

Abbeydale Grange will be recognised as: • Sheffield’s international school • having a totally comprehensive intake • delivering education through a human-scale, caring, individual education of the whole young person • working in partnership with parents/carers through a range of effective and innovative strategies • ensuring the safety and well-being of each student • contributing an important element in Sheffield’s city-wide provision

Our acclaimed media arts expertise will: • create strong city wide links • extend opportunities for developing the IT skills of both students and staff • innovate across all aspects of our teaching and learning • enhance learning across the curriculum

We will ensure that the school community: • respects and values the different attributes of each student and adult in school • gives students the self-confidence to play a full part in society • gives students the social skills to relate successfully to others • supports a house/family structure with mixed-age tutor groups • fosters enterprise skills and economic awareness at all levels

The school will develop a radical educational model which draws on innovative approaches to personalised learning pioneered in the Swedish education system. Its curriculum will actively prepare its young people to become independent learners in preparation for both vocational and academic pathways at Key Stage 4 and beyond, and for the world of work. It will use the opportunity of BSF funding, combined with the proceeds from selling part of its land, to rebuild the school and meet the challenge to provide an effective 21 st Century education for its learning community .

Timetable The proposal to become a Co-operative Trust is in preparation and the first steps have been taken. We expect the timetable to be as follows. • Agreement with potential partners in November and December 2009

26

• Publish a proposal for consultation on Jan 4 th 2010 • Consultation will end on February 12 th 2010 A full proposal taking account of the responses published on 19 th February 2010 1.

1 Background Documents • Extending Choice, Personalising the Offer (Sheffield CYPD Consultation Document) • Building Schools for the Future - School’s Strategy for Change: Abbeydale Grange

27

28

Planning, Performance & Partnership Children and Young People's Service

Sheffield Health Authority Data at September 2008 Compared to NOR January 2009 Composite - Abbeydale, High Storrs, King Ecgbert, Silverdale

Pre-School Rec Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4 Y5 Y6 Y7 Y8 Y9 Y10 Y11 Y7 to Y11 0's 1's 2's 3's 4's 5's 6's 7's 8's 9's 10's 11's 12's 13's 14's 15's Total Abbeydale 226 280 278 283 232 235 221 223 205 201 233 232 177 202 238 210 1059 High Storrs 102 189 137 152 133 129 121 130 119 127 133 129 129 117 123 123 621 King Ecgberts 122 175 152 169 162 174 171 173 176 167 180 162 177 167 186 175 867 No. of children in King Edward VII 114 175 155 145 156 151 147 126 136 174 169 186 171 150 141 156 804 catchment Silverdale 137 196 199 227 248 225 210 208 238 265 255 254 255 261 284 303 1357 Tapton 214 292 284 276 270 272 257 292 263 281 293 315 253 301 289 290 1448 Total 915 1307 1205 1252 1201 1186 1127 1152 1137 1215 1263 1278 1162 1198 1261 1257 6156 Abbeydale 99 63 104 138 145 549 High Storrs 240 240 240 242 240 1202 King Ecgberts 195 198 196 197 197 983 No. of pupils King Edward VII 231 233 228 241 229 1162 on roll Silverdale 181 181 182 183 188 915 Tapton 236 235 227 240 224 1162 NOR 888 1268 1169 1215 1165 1151 1093 1118 1103 1179 1225 1182 1150 1177 1241 1223 5973 NOR as % of SHA 97% 97% 97% 97% 97% 97% 97% 97% 97% 97% 97% 92% 99% 98% 98% 97% 97%

NOR FORECASTS using 97% Y7 to Y11 Schools Places Total Abbeydale 150 2009/10 1225 1182 1150 1177 1241 5975 High Storrs 240 2010/11 1179 1225 1182 1150 1177 5913 King Ecgberts 193 2011/12 1103 1179 1225 1182 1150 5840 King Edward VII 230 2012/13 1118 1103 1179 1225 1182 5807 Silverdale 180 2013/14 1093 1118 1103 1179 1225 5719 Tapton 226 2014/15 1151 1093 1118 1103 1179 5644 Total 1219 2015/16 1165 1151 1093 1118 1103 5630 2016/17 1215 1165 1151 1093 1118 5742 2017/18 1169 1215 1165 1151 1093 5793 2018/19 1268 1169 1215 1165 1151 5968 2019/20 888 1268 1169 1215 1165 5705

Key : SHA = Pupils within the school's catchment area from Sheffield Health Authority register NOR = Current Numbers on Roll in school (January Core Data) Shaded cells are forecasts

Description: These forecast compare the current number of pupils on roll to the number of children in the catchment, and project how many pupils will come through if the average 'take-up' is applied to the number of pre-school children. This is purely mathematical and needs to be matched with local knowledge of other factors, chiefly the relative popularity of schools with parents.

29