Item No B3 By: Director - Operations To: School Organisation Advisory Board – 18 September 2006 Subject DETLING CHURCH OF ENGLAND (VOLUNTARY CONTROLLED) PRIMARY SCHOOL, MAIDSTONE: PROPOSED CLOSURE - OUTCOME OF PUBLIC CONSULTATION. Classification: Unrestricted File Ref: _______________________________________________________________________________ Summary: This report sets out the results of the public consultation. It seeks the views of the School Organisation Advisory Board on the proposed closure of Detling Church of England (Voluntary Controlled) Primary School by the issuing of a public notice for the closure of the school. ______________________________________________________________________________ Introduction 1. (1) The School Organisation Advisory Board at its meeting on 8 June 2006 supported the undertaking of a public consultation on the proposal to close Detling Church of England (Voluntary Controlled) Primary School. (2) Detling CEP School serves the immediate community of the village as well as a number of families from the Stockbury area. The school has a PAN of 15, with a net capacity of 83. It had 44 pupils on roll in January 2006. The school operates a three class structure, although on projected pupil numbers this is unsustainable. Its roll fell from 44 in January 2006 to just 31 by 8 June 2006. A map is attached in Appendix 1, which shows the location of the school and the current pupil distribution. Background Information 2. (1) In Maidstone Borough there are 53 primary schools with a combined net capacity of 13,337. There are currently 11,662 pupils attending these schools giving a surplus capacity of 12.6%. (2) The Primary Strategy (Recommendation 27) states that "wherever surplus primary capacity is projected to rise above 7% in any cluster area, proposals should be brought forward to reduce it to 5%. The retention of a 5% surplus in any area (rather than zero) is considered to be 'good practice' to assist parental preferences being met, and to build in a contingency to deal with any unforeseen short-tem increase in pupil numbers. The DfES require all local authorities to report annually on all schools with an excess of 25% surplus capacity, giving justifications why such schools are not being closed or having their net capacity reduced. ed&libreports/2006/180906b B3:1 The Proposal 3. (1) The proposal is to close Detling CEP school with effect from September 2007. Pupils at the school requiring an alternative primary school place for the academic year 2007-08 would need to transfer to another primary school at that time. (2) Kent County Council would provide information, advice and support to parents to help secure alternative school places and ensure an orderly transition. Parents would be able to express a preference for any alternative school. Wherever possible, parental preference would be accommodated. Schools would apply their normal admissions criteria. If parents are unable to secure a place at their preferred school, an alternative place would be offered. (3) Every child is guaranteed a place in alternative appropriate provision. Available places have already been identified at St Paul’s Infant and Northborough Junior schools. These would be sufficient to accommodate all Detling pupils who wished to remain together. Public Consultation Process 4. (1) A consultation document, a copy of which is attached as Appendix 2, was circulated according to the County Procedures for Review. This included Local Members, District Council, Parish Councils, local libraries, schools within the two Maidstone Clusters, Member of Parliament and other interested parties. (2) Approximately 500 copies of the document were circulated. (3) The document included a separate form on which respondents could express their views. (4) A public meeting was held at Detling CEP School on 29 June 2006. The meeting was chaired by Mr R Burgess, KCC Member for Margate West. Mr L Ridings, KCC Member for Sandwich (and Vice Chairman of the Council), Mr Chris Jones (Area Education Officer), Mrs Hilary Macdonald (Local Education Officer) and Mr Matthew Nye (School Organisation Officer) were in attendance. (5) There were 37 members of the public in attendance. Responses to the Public Consultation Written Responses 5. (1) In total 19 written responses (letters, emails and consultation forms) were received from members of the public, of which 7 were in favour of the proposal, and 12 were against. A Petition was also received, which was signed by 238 people, stating ‘we the undersigned oppose the closure of Detling CE Primary School’ (2) A summary of written responses is attached as Appendix 3. Responses to the main points are included in the Area Education Officer’s Comments in Section 13. ed&libreports/2006/180906b B3:2 Public Meeting Responses (3) A summary of comments, views and responses is attached as Appendix 4. Views from the Canterbury Diocese 6. Mr Rupert Bristow, Director of Education, has made the following comments on behalf of the Diocesan Board of Education: “In the light of falling primary rolls and the particular circumstances of this school, the Board is supportive of the joint efforts of the governing body of the school and the local authority, in collaboration with the Diocese, to manage the closure of the school in the best interests of current pupils in order to secure their continuing education in other local schools. Despite the great efforts made by the school, staff and governors since the school went into and came out of Special Measures, the falling roll in the school will mitigate against sustainable improvements over the long term. Subject to appropriate placements of pupils and associated transport arrangements, the board will continue to work to ensure a smooth transition for pupils and a responsible and sensitive approach towards current staff.” Views of the Local Member 7. Lord Bruce-Lockhart, Local Member for Maidstone Rural East made the following comments on the proposal (from letter dated 26 July 2006); “After careful consideration, I wish to support the closure of the School. This is also supported by the Headteacher and the Governing Board. I would like to put on record my thanks and appreciation of the enormous effort and progress that the Headteacher and teaching staff have made at Detling in building the standard of education. Nevertheless, at some 40 pupils and with falling rolls the School is unsustainable.” Views of Maidstone Borough Council 8. The Ward Member for Detling and the Member for Bearsted have both declared their total opposition to the proposed closure. The following views also have the support of the Ward Member for Stockbury. Although it is stated that the Governing body, Diocesan Representative and the Parish Council are in favour of closure, the Borough Council believes many local parents are vehemently opposed. “The school is small, below OfSTED requirements in terms of accommodation and costs more per child than elsewhere. Lord Bruce-Lockhart has visited the school and feels that closure is the only appropriate action. Detling Parish Council is keen to have a Community Interest Company (CIC) run the site, it is understood that this has the support of Hugh Robertson MP. ed&libreports/2006/180906b B3:3 Ward Members agree that the site should be transferred to a CIC with the intention of keeping it open for educational use within Detling.” Sadly Detling CE Primary School cannot survive. The proposed Community Interest Company has the Ward Member’s support and provision must be made for acceptable transportation facilities for the present and future children.” Views of Local the Member of Parliament 9. Mr Hugh Robertson MP for Faversham and Mid Kent has declined to make a comment on the proposed closure of Detling CE Primary School. Views of the Governing Body 10. “Early this year the governors took the decision to enter into a co-operative process with the LEA, leading to the closure of Detling School. For over ten years Detling School has had a steadily falling number of pupils. The rate of decline accelerated following the imposition of Special Measures in April 2005. The governors and staff worked very hard to raise standards and the hope was that this would lead to a recovery in pupil numbers. However the reverse happened. The number of pupils coming from Detling village was particularly low. The governors came to the view, a view supported by professional advice, that, while it would be possible to raise standards to a good level in the short term with all the support coming from the LEA as a consequence of Special Measures, it would not be possible to keep this up on a sustainable basis. This was not solely due to the reducing resources that follow reduced pupil numbers, leading to an excessive number of year groups in each class. The very small age groups and class sizes, with the reduced stimulation and peer competition, would also lead to a poor environment for teaching and learning. The governors therefore, with great reluctance, decided to recommend closure in the interests of the children. The recent HMI inspection has resulted in the removal of Special Measures. While this has done marvels to the morale of pupils, parents and staff, and is a tribute to all concerned, it does not alter the long term non-viability of the School.” Views of Maidstone 2 Cluster Board 11. The Maidstone 2 Cluster Board acknowledges the need to remove places in its cluster in order to achieve a surplus of between 5% and 7%. The Board fully supports proposed reductions in surplus capacity where this involves removal of temporary accommodation or the re-designation of space for community use. It accepts that under the Kent Primary Strategy 2006, some small schools may have to be closed or amalgamated. ed&libreports/2006/180906b B3:4 Views of Detling Parish Council 12. Mr. Geoffrey Cosgrove, Chairman of Detling Parish Council has made the following comments on behalf of the Parish Council: “We were very dismayed at the recent decision by the school/LEA that the village school was to close after more than 150 years.