| 425 | APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE |
| | | Apologies of absence were received from Councillors Baker, Clarke, Maisey and Maple and from Jim Grogan (Roman Catholic Diocese representative), Lauraine McManus (Teacher representative), Richard Odle (Medway Youth Parliament representative), Canon John Smith (Church of England Diocese representative) and Sam Tutt (Medway Youth Parliament representative). |
|
| 426 | DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST |
| | | Councillor Smith declared a personal and prejudicial interest in the report regarding Barnsole Infant and Junior Schools as she was Chair of Governors at Barnsole Junior School.
|
| Patricia Wozencroft declared a personal interest in the report regarding All Faiths Children Community School and St Nicholas' Infant School as she was a Governor at All Faiths Children Community School.
|
| Councillor Hubbard declared a personal interest in the report regarding All Faiths Children Community School and St Nicholas Infant School. He explained that he was a Governor at Gordon Infant School and his son attended Gordon Junior School and both St Nicholas and Gordon Infant Schools were 'feeder' schools to Gordon Junior School and the proposed amalgamation would therefore affect both Gordon Schools.
|
| Councillor Tony Goulden declared a personal and prejudicial interest in the report regarding Luton Infant and Junior Schools as he was Chair of Governors at Luton Junior School. |
|
| 427 | OUTCOME OF THE CONSULTATION ON THE FUTURE OF BARNSOLE INFANT AND JUNIOR SCHOOLS |
| | Discussion: |
| | | Councillor Smith spoke as Chair of Governors at Barnsole Junior School and explained that the schools were concerned about how the project would be taken forward in light of the site at Brasenose Field not being available due to a restricted covenant, which could not be lifted. She also asked that serious consideration was given to the timescales of the build to minimise disruption for both schools.
|
| Councillor Smith left the meeting for the remaining discussion on this item.
|
| The schools' Executive Headteacher, Alison Pullen, then addressed the Committee, raising the following points:
|
| | • | there had been confusion amongst the Governing Bodies about the consultation process, which she felt had not been clear;
|
| | • | she was in support of an all-through primary school but had concerns about how this would be achieved;
|
| | • | the Junior School building was very old and in urgent need of modernisation;
|
| | • | concerns about reducing the form of entry from three to two over a period of four years, which would be a stress and worry for staff as staffing levels would also have to be reduced throughout that period;
|
| | • | if the school had to continue to operate from both the infant and junior school sites then transition would still be part of the pupils education and operationally, this would be difficult for an amalgamated school;
|
| | • | the Governing Bodies felt strongly that the timescales for the amalgamation should be reduced with the new school opening in 2012;
|
| | • | the busy road between the two sites was a concern. An idea had been to house the building on the infant site and use the junior site as a play area. This would mean crossing the road, which would be a health and safety concern;
|
| | • | the school was keen to provide a suitable learning environment which was fit for purpose and if the timescales were considered and care was taken in locating the new school, then the Governing Bodies would agree to amalgamation.
|
Members then raised a number of points and asked officers questions, which included issues relating to possible alternative sites, of the need for strong project management support and the possibility of re-routing traffic in the area.
|
| In response, Officers confirmed that once agreement on the principle of amalgamating the two schools was in place they would then commission a detailed feasibility study, which would identify alternative options and incorporate advice from the Council's highways department. In addition, it was stated that when possible options were available officers would report these to the Committee for their views. They added that the published admission number for the schools would be reduced regardless of amalgamation as it was a reflection of the lower number of children entering the schools. |
|
| | > Outcome of the consultation on the future of Barnsole Infant and Junior School (pdf file 13.2Mb) |
| | Decision: |
| | | The Committee agreed to forward the following comments to Cabinet:
|
| | (1) | The principle of amalgamating Barnsole Infant and Junior Schools is supported but officers should be requested to bring forward the timescales of the new school building to be completed as soon as possible;
|
| | (2) | Officers should be requested to ensure detailed views of the Council's highways section are included in the feasibility study for this school regarding re-routing traffic in the area and that officers submit the outcomes of the feasibility study to this Committee for consideration and comment. |
|
| 428 | OUTCOME OF THE CONSULTATION ON THE FUTURE OF LORDSWOOD INFANT AND JUNIOR SCHOOLS |
| | Discussion: |
| | | The Chairman confirmed that no-one wished to speak on behalf of these schools. |
|
| | > Outcome of the consultation on the future of Lordswood Infant and Junior School (pdf file 10.8Mb) |
| | Decision: |
| | | The Committee noted the outcome of the consultation and agreed to recommend to the Cabinet the amalgamation of Lordswood Infant and Junior School. |
|
| 429 | OUTCOME OF THE CONSULTATION ON THE FUTURE OF OAKLANDS INFANT AND JUNIOR SCHOOLS |
| | Discussion: |
| | | The Chairman confirmed that no-one wished to speak on behalf of these schools. |
|
| | > Outcome of the consultation on the future of Oaklands Infant and Junior School (pdf file 10.4Mb) |
| | Decision: |
| | | The Committee noted the outcome of the consultation and agreed to recommend to the Cabinet the amalgamation of Oaklands Infant and Junior Schools. |
|
| 430 | OUTCOME OF THE CONSULTATION ON THE FUTURE OF THAMES VIEW INFANT AND JUNIOR SCHOOLS |
| | Discussion: |
| | | The Chairman confirmed that no-one wished to speak on behalf of these schools. |
|
| | > Outcome of the consultation on the future of Thames View Infant and Junior School (pdf file 11.0Mb) |
| | Decision: |
| | | The Committee noted the outcome of the consultation and agreed to recommend to the Cabinet the amalgamation of Thames View Infant and Junior Schools. |
|
| 431 | OUTCOME OF THE CONSULTATION ON THE FUTURE OF ALL FAITHS' COMMUNITY SCHOOL AND ST NICHOLAS' CHURCH OF ENGLAND VOLUNTARY CONTROLLED INFANT SCHOOL |
| | Discussion: |
| | | The Chair of Governors of All Faiths Children's Community School, Derek Morrison, addressed the Committee, making the following points:
|
| | • | there was concern that not enough consideration had been given to current and future housing developments in the area;
|
| | • | standards at All Faiths were improving and results had fallen as a whole across Medway in 2009, not just at All Faiths;
|
| | • | the school provided support for a high percentage of pupils with special educational needs (SEN);
|
| | • | performance at foundation stage was above the Medway and national average;
|
| | • | the Governing Body's preference was to keep both schools as they were but if amalgamation went ahead then they felt it should be a community school, not a Church of England school.
|
| The Vice-Chair of Governors of St Nicholas Church of England Voluntary Controlled Infant School, Moira McAllister, then addressed the Committee, confirming that the Governing Body was against amalgamation and made the following points:
|
| | • | the school was successful and popular and achieved consistently high standards, above the local and national average;
|
| | • | there was concern that Medway had been weak in managing previous amalgamations;
|
| | • | transition was not considered a strong argument for amalgamation;
|
| | • | there was concern that the amalgamation would bring practical and emotional problems;
|
| | • | the Governing Body felt that if amalgamation went ahead the original date for completion should be adhered to.
|
| Members of the Committee then asked for confirmation on the view of the Rochester Diocesan Board of Education. In response, officers referred the Committee to a tabled extract from minutes of the Board's meeting where the proposal was discussed and it confirmed that the Board agreed to support a new two form of entry Church of England Primary School in Strood and once secured would support the closure of St Nicholas Infant School.
|
| Councillor Hubbard was then invited to speak as Ward Member and raised concerns about surplus places across Strood and the effect the proposal would have on Gordon Infant and Gordon Junior Schools. He suggested that the consultation should be deferred as the situation with primary education in Strood had changed from the start of the consultation to when it finished. The two Gordon Schools had now appointed an Executive Headteacher and a consultation involving all four of the schools was advisable.
|
| Councillor Etheridge was then invited to speak as Ward Member and suggested that amalgamation should not go ahead and the two schools involved should continue as they were. She said St Nicholas Infants was a very successful school and transition was managed well and All Faiths had improved and was now judged by Ofsted as a 'good school with outstanding features'. She referred to the impact that current and forthcoming developments would have on pupil numbers and felt that when transition was well managed it could be beneficial for pupils.
|
| A Member of the Committee then asked if money would be available for improvements to the schools if amalgamation did not go ahead. In response Officers confirmed that they would not be able to guarantee the additional investment in these schools if they did not amalgamate but investment would always be aligned to the priorities within Medway's Children and Young People's Plan to maximise investment in relation to assessed need across all schools in Medway. |
|
| | > Outcome of the consultation on the future of All Faiths' Community School and St Nicholas' Church of England Voluntary Controlled Infant School (pdf file 17.3Mb) |
| | > Additional appendix (pdf file 73.1kb) |
| | Decision: |
| | | The Committee recommended to Cabinet that no further action is taken with regard to amalgamating All Faiths Children Community School and St Nicholas Church of England Voluntary Controlled Infants School and that they remain as they are. |
|
| 432 | OUTCOME OF THE CONSULTATION ON THE FUTURE OF DELCE INFANT AND JUNIOR SCHOOLS |
| | Discussion: |
| | | The Headteacher of Delce Infant School, Ann Morris, addressed the Committee giving the background to the school's ethos. She stated that:
|
| | • | parents and governors were very supportive and the children were proud of their school;
|
| | • | Delce Infant School had undergone a major refurbishment which had been completed two years ago and the school was now a beautiful modern building with wide corridors, a huge playground, a new ICT suite and library;
|
| | • | the nursery class had a good reputation and the number of staff required for this class was being increased from January 2010;
|
| | • | a Children's Centre was opening in the Spring of 2010;
|
| | • | the school was supported by a very committed and competent team of staff;
|
| | • | the last Ofsted report had judged the school to be 'good with outstanding features';
|
| | • | there would be no financial benefit to amalgamating Delce Infant School with Delce Junior School and the schools would actually be £47,000 worse off;
|
| | • | the argument about reducing transition between the two schools did not apply in this case, as there was already a well-managed system in place between the two schools. Now it had been decided that another local school (St. Peter's Infant School) would remain open, it was proposed that the three schools would work closely together for all the children of the area to benefit in the long term.
|
| The Headteacher of Delce Junior School, Karen White, addressed the Committee and advised that there were two detailed letters from the Governing Body in the report giving reasons why the proposed amalgamation was not appropriate. She thanked officers for listening to the schools' arguments and for their recommendation that the amalgamation should no longer go ahead. She assured the Committee that all the schools would work tirelessly to ensure that the children achieved their best.
|
| The Chair of Governors of Delce Junior School, Richard King, addressed the Committee and expressed the following views:
|
| | • | it would be a positive, long-reaching decision not to amalgamate the two schools;
|
| | • | the school would ensure a continued rising of standards due to the very positive relationship between the two Headteachers;
|
| | • | there would be a positive impact on staff morale which would be better for staff retention;
|
| | • | non-amalgamation would be a better use of capital funds wasted on an unnecessary project;
|
| | • | parent's morale in the schools would remain high and there would continue to be a strong intake for Reception year, and a closer relationship with St. Peter's Infant School was important as it acted as a feeder school to Delce Junior School.
|
| Members thanked the Headteachers and Chair of Governors for their presentations and asked for clarification about St. Peter's Infant School being a feeder school for Delce Junior. The Director of Children and Adults responded that the current pattern of parental preferences was that parents with children at St. Peter's were likely to apply for a place at Delce Junior but in view of parental preference this could change. |
|
| | > Outcome of the consultation on the future of Delce Infant and Junior Schools (pdf file 15.7Mb) |
| | Decision: |
| | | The Committee agreed to recommend to the Cabinet that no further action is taken with regard to amalgamating Delce Infant School and Delce Junior School and that they remain as they are. |
|
| 433 | OUTCOME OF THE CONSULTATION ON THE FUTURE OF LUTON INFANT AND JUNIOR SCHOOLS |
| | Discussion: |
| | | The Chair of Governors of Luton Junior School, Councillor Tony Goulden, addressed the Committee and made the following points:
|
| | • | both schools took a very different view on the proposed amalgamation and the Junior School was very much in favour of a totally new school, with a new Headteacher and new governing body;
|
| | • | it was worth noting that both Headteachers were very well regarded, particularly because of their performance in a very challenging area of Medway and if possible both should be retained in the Medway area;
|
| | • | currently the schools were located in Victorian buildings which were no longer fit for purpose and a lot of money had to be spent on keeping the buildings running, rather than on education;
|
| | • | both schools were sited on a main road and although there was a pelican crossing, barriers and a 'lollipop lady', there were still accidents involving children;
|
| | • | the opportunity to provide new buildings should not be missed;
|
| | • | there were no educational arguments against this amalgamation and it should go ahead as soon as possible.
|
| The Vice Chair of Governors at Luton Infant School, Chris Sanford, addressed the Committee explaining why the school was against the amalgamation. He said this was because:
|
| | • | the whole process had started too early and the fundamentals had only just been thought about;
|
| | • | there were very few tangible facts available at this stage. He thought it should have been planned when there were firmer proposals;
|
| | • | the proposed amalgamation would make it the largest primary school in Medway with over 700 children which could have a negative impact on four year old children. Big was not necessarily the best in his view;
|
| | • | the consultation process had been flawed in that it was held during the school holidays; there had been no time to respond; the school was unable to afford legal advice; the public meeting gave few answers to questions and the Local Authority had deduced that if people did not turn up to a meeting it must mean that they agreed with the proposals;
|
| | • | the school believed that the proposal for the large all-through primary school was too large for vulnerable children and money should not rule this matter;
|
| | • | the ethos of the infant school was that it was small and personal, this would be lost and it would become too large.
|
| Some Members commented that having seen and visited the schools it was evident that the buildings were not fit for purpose and that this opportunity to provide a new school and facilities should not be ignored. It was also noted that only four responses had been received to the consultation and suggested that if parents were really against the proposal, they would have taken the opportunity to respond.
|
| The Ward Member for Luton and Wayfield advised that locally it was felt that money was rarely spent in Luton and Wayfield ward and this was now a chance to have a new school with good sporting facilities, as something to be proud of now and in future generations. |
|
| | > Outcome of the consultation on the future of Luton Infant and Junior Schools (pdf file 15.2Mb) |
| | Decision: |
| | | The Committee agreed to recommend to the Cabinet the amalgamation of Luton Infant and Junior Schools. |
|
| 434 | OUTCOME OF THE CONSULTATION ON THE FUTURE OF TWYDALL INFANT AND JUNIOR SCHOOLS |
| | Discussion: |
| | | The Chair of Governors from Twydall Infant School, Peter Lloyd, addressed the Committee, explaining that the Governing Body and Senior Management Team at Twydall Infants supported the amalgamation. However he asked the Committee to take the following points into account:
|
| | • | local concern about completing the project within the timescale provided;
|
| | • | a request that a temporary governing body was put in place as soon as possible and before the suggested date of June 2010, in order to help provide some certainty for staff, pupils and parents and to be involved in the amalgamation project from the beginning;
|
| | • | a request that the possibility of incorporating the provision of additional special educational needs (SEN) provision was considered. He referred to Medway's forthcoming SEN Strategy, which referred to cochlear implant provision and asked if this could be incorporated in the project and provided at the amalgamated Twydall School;
|
| | • | he hoped that building works would be completed by 1 September 2011 in order to give the school the best opportunity to provide the highest quality of education for its pupils.
|
| The Chair of Governors from Twydall Junior School, Andy Pritchard, then addressed the Committee, raising the following concerns:
|
| | • | he felt that the consultation document should also have detailed any disadvantages and risks, which might arise from the amalgamation, instead of only providing positive outcomes;
|
| | • | also in relation to the consultation process he felt there had been much misunderstanding amongst parents about the disruption that would be caused by amalgamation;
|
| | • | performance and standards were good at the school and recent amalgamations in Medway had resulted in a fall in performance at the schools. Research had shown that a fall in performance was expected in the short to medium term when amalgamations took place due to the disruption and there was a concern this would also happen at Twydall;
|
| | • | he requested assurance of the money being guaranteed to complete the project, as this was a concern to the school.
|
Members then made comments and asked questions regarding pupil numbers and officers engagement with the schools and the wider community throughout the process.
|
|
| | > Outcome of the consultation on the future of Twydall Infant and Junior Schools (pdf file 11.7Mb) |
| | Decision: |
| | | The Committee recommended Cabinet to amalgamate Twydall Infant and Twydall Junior Schools but that the temporary governing body be put in place at the earliest opportunity and that a possibility of aligning additional special educational needs (SEN) provision, stated in the forthcoming SEN Strategy, such as cochlear implants, be explored and if possible provided at the amalgamated school. |
|