(Microsoft Word - 090430 Final Whitcliffe First Schools Revised

Cabinet: 8th May 2009 Report on the revised proposal/s for the Whitcliffe Mount pyramid first schools as part of the Schools for the Future programme in North Kirklees, in light of the key messages from the consultation Is it likely to result in spending or saving £250k or more, or to have a significant effect on two or more electoral wards? Is it in the Council’s Forward Plan? Yes, this report will have an impact on more than two wards and will result in an investment of over £20m in the first schools when the decisions on the pattern of schools are implemented Yes Is it eligible for “call in” by Scrutiny? Cabinet member Portfolio Yes Children and Young People Electoral wards affected and ward councillors to be consulted: Birkenshaw, Birstall, Cleckheaton, Liversedge and Gomersal. Public or private: Public 1. a). PURPOSE OF REPORT: To present revised proposals for the Whitcliffe Mount pyramid first schools in North Kirklees in the light of the key messages from the consultation which took place between 16 September 2008 and 14 November 2008 To seek Cabinet approval of the proposed next steps and timescales to make changes to the Whitcliffe Mount Pyramid First Schools through the primary schools for the Future Programme. b). CONTENTS Section 1: Section 2: Section 3: Section 4: Purpose of report Background & Statutory Consultation Key messages from the Consultation Revised proposals for schools in the Whitcliffe Mount Pyramid Options for Primary provision in 4.3. Birkenshaw – East Bierley 4.4 Cleckheaton 4.5 Hightown Section 5: Section 6: Section 7: Section 8: Section 9: Implications for the Council Consultees and their opinions Next Steps and Indicative Timescale Officer recommendations Portfolio holder recommendations page 1 page 3 page 3 page 4 page 6 page 8 page 10 page 11 page 12 page 13 page 14 page 15 page 17 List of supporting documents Appendix A: Background and principles underpinning Schools for the Future Appendix B: Key Messages from Consultation September - November 2008 Appendix C: Summary of responses for the Whitcliffe First Schools from the consultation held between September and November 2008 2. BACKGROUND 2.1 In November 2007 the Council launched the Kirklees Schools for the Future Vision for Learning which can be found on the Council’s website at: http://www.kirklees.gov.uk/community/education-learning/brighter/vision.shtml The Building Schools for the Future programme in North Kirklees is an opportunity to achieve our vision for: an inspirational “step change” improvement in learner aspirations and achievements through a new flexible pattern of centres for learning, fit for the 21st century, that provide inviting, inclusive, state-of-the-art learning environments with excellent facilities and high quality resources for all learners to benefit from. 2.2 Consultations on proposals prepared by the previous Administration took place in 2007 and 2008. Subsequent alternative proposals led to a change of Administration and were therefore not pursued. 2.3 On 12th March 2009 Cabinet received 2 reports, the first report presented the outcomes from the consultation which took place between 16th September and 14th November 2008, and the second report detailed revised proposals for secondary schools in North Kirklees in light of the key messages. However, at the same meeting Cabinet determined they needed more time to consider all the information and options on the way forward for developing the Whitcliffe Mount Pyramid Primary proposals. This report sets out the thinking, possible options and recommendations for the next steps in relation to the First Schools. 2.4 In the 12th March Cabinet report contextual information on standards, community cohesion and the ambition for Building Schools for the Future were summarised. Many aspects of this has relevance for the primary programme and is attached at Appendix A for reference. 3. KEY MESSAGES FROM CONSULTATION SEPTEMBER - NOVEMBER 2008 Key Messages - Re-organisation of the Whitcliffe pyramid from 3-tier to 2-tier (Section 5.1.4 Report on Outcomes of Consultation 12th March 2009) • Most responses welcomed the change although there was some regret at the passing of the middle schools. Staff and governors positively sought to implement change. Responses in the Birkenshaw and Gomersal area linked their support with their enthusiasm for the proposed secondary provision in Birkenshaw • Most of the concerns were about transitional arrangements and the possible impact on particular age cohorts with a desire to reduce the number of moves between schools • The proposed size for Primary schools was supported except where this led to the proposed closure of St Luke’s CE(VC) First School. The proposed linked enlargement of Moorend CE(C) First School and the transitional arrangements also attracted strong opposition • There were some negative responses about the quality of provision at Whitcliffe Mount Specialist Business and Enterprise College (VC), which in some cases was linked to the wider debate about secondary provision in north Kirklees. Consultation Conclusions and Direction for the Future (Section 3.1.4.Report on Revised Proposals 12thMarch 2009) Proceed with the re-organisation programme with further careful development of transitional plans that have the confidence of schools and parents • Review the proposal for provision serving the St Luke’s area • A summary of the key messages under each of the objectives that underpinned the consultation proposals are set out in Appendix B. In addition, attached at Appendix C is a copy of the summary of responses received for the Whitcliffe Mount Pyramid First Schools, extracted from the consultation outcome report to Cabinet on 12th March, 2009. 4. 4.1 REVISED PROPOSALS FOR FIRST SCHOOLS IN THE WHITCLIFFE MOUNT PYRAMID Given the responses received and analysed together with the key messages highlighted above it is suggested that the proposals for the development of primary schools in the Whitcliffe Mount area which were contained in the Brighter Futures consultation are revised and consideration is given to the following: (i) Maintain and progress the proposals on which the consultation was based for all the changes to Gomersal First, Gomersal St Mary’s CE(A), Howard Park and Scholes First Schools. Review proposals for the Birkenshaw area in the context of the availability of the Birkenshaw Middle School site Review the proposals for Heaton Avenue, Moorend CE(C) and St Luke’s CE(VC) First Schools and the most appropriate use of the West End and Whitechapel Middle School sites. Bring forward proposals for the Hightown area currently served by High Bank First & Nursery and Hightown Schools. [Both schools have already changed to 5-11 primary schools following the closure of Grylls Community Middle School.] (ii) (iii) (iv) 4.2 The following table (Table 1) shows details of the revised primary schools proposals with the reasons for them. Table 1 : Revised Primary Proposals School 2008 Consultation Proposal Birkenshaw Primary Centre for Learning for CE(C) First and 420, 5 to 11 year olds with Nursery School nursery provision. East Bierley CE Primary Centre for Learning for (VC) First School 210, 5 to 11 year olds. Gomersal St Primary Centre for Learning for Mary’s CE(A) 210, 5 to 11 year olds with First & Nursery nursery provision. School Gomersal First Primary Centre for Learning for School 420, 5 to 11 year olds on Gomersal Middle School site High Bank First & No proposals were made for the Nursery School 2008 consultation. Both High Bank and Hightown have already Hightown School changed to 5-11 primaries, with nursery provision, following the closure of Grylls Middle School. Further development required Howard Park Primary Centre for Learning for First & Nursery 210, 5 to 11 year olds with School nursery provision. Moorend CE(C) Primary Centre for Learning for First School 420, 5 to 11 year olds on Whitechapel Middle School site. Heaton Avenue Primary Centre for Learning for First and Nursery 210, 5 to 11 year olds with School nursery provision on West End Middle School site. St Luke’s CE(VC) Close. Pupils transfer to First School Moorend CE(C) Scholes First and Primary Centre for Learning for Nursery School 210, 5 to 11 year olds with nursery provision. Revised Proposal Review proposals and consult on further options No change Reasons for change Birkenshaw Middle School site would be available as the site for a new primary school building No change Options to be developed for consultation To bring long term certainty to the provision No change Review Concerns about proposals and • distance between consult on further Moorend CE(C) and options St Luke’s CE(VC) • transition plans • governance of proposed primary schools • revised PAAs No change 4.3. Options for Primary provision in Birkenshaw – East Bierley The revised proposal decision to use the Howden Clough site rather than the Birkenshaw Middle School site for a new secondary school means that the Birkenshaw Middle School site is available for other educational use. The middle school sites at Gomersal, West End and Whitechapel are all proposed for use as primary school sites as they are good sites which would give enhanced provision. 4.3.1 Site Appraisal for primary provision in the Birkenshaw area There are 3 existing educational sites that should be considered • Birkenshaw CE(C) First and Nursery School • Birkenshaw Middle school • East Bierley CE(VC) First School Birkenshaw CE(C) First and Nursery School • There are 2 buildings on site that can be remodelled and updated to provide a good quality primary school • The existing buildings could be adapted to provide either a 2-class entry or a 1-class entry all through primary school Birkenshaw Middle School • This site would provide a very good space for a primary school • The existing buildings are assessed as being unfit for future use and need to be demolished. • A new build, state of the art school would be a good investment for the future. (The new Howard Park school is an example of such a brand new building) East Bierley CE(VC) First School • This is a very constrained site surrounded by common land but there may be a possibility of acquiring additional contiguous land. • The internal spaces are constrained for the existing 150-place school. They can be remodelled but would be less than satisfactory for a 210 place school 4.3.2 Possible Options Table 2 : Options for Primary provision in Birkenshaw – East Bierley OPTION Schools / sites / sizes advantages • • Based on the existing pattern of provision Retains school in East Bierley disadvantages • East Bierley is a small site and with an enlarged building would be even more constrained. Not good value for money and provision poor 1 Birkenshaw CE(C)F&N 2-class entry PAN=60 NOR=420 East Bierley CE(VC) F : 1-class entry PAN=30 NOR=210 2 Birkenshaw CE(C)F&N 2-class entry PAN=60 NOR=420 Birkenshaw Middle site 1-class entry PAN=30 NOR=210 • • Capital cost effective and good investment for future New school on the former middle school site would be closer to homes in the southern part of PAA Capital cost effective and good investment for future New school on the former middle school site would be closer to homes in the southern part of the PAA Lowest continuing revenue costs Lowest capital cost and good investment for future New school on the former middle school site • No school in East Bierley 3 Birkenshaw CE(C)F&N 1-class entry PAN=30 NOR=210 Birkenshaw Middle site 2-class entry PAN=60 NOR=420 • • • • No school in East Bierley Larger school in the southern part of the area does not match the distribution of homes in the area 4 Birkenshaw Middle site 3-class entry PAN=90 NOR=630 • • • • • • Early feedback not supportive of large primary schools Large primary schools are not suited to more dispersed housing The former middle school site is not well placed to serve homes in the northern part of the PAA 4.3.3 Recommendation for further consultation • A range of proposals based on the above options should be put forward for further consultation with the local community to establish the preferred option for statutory proposals. Option 4 has already received negative feedback from the community. Whilst a 3class entry primary school would be a cost-effective capital investment and give efficient future use of revenue funding it can only be regarded as appropriate provision for densely populated urban areas rather than this more dispersed semirural area. Options 1,2 and 3 should be the basis of further non-statutory consultation to determine the best provision to serve the local communities. Maps showing possible changes to the PAAs should help to clarify the options. • • 4.4 Options for Primary Provision for Cleckheaton 4.4.1.Current Provision There are 4 First Schools serving central Cleckheaton • • • • Heaton Avenue, PAN=40, 1.3 class entry, Community School Moorend CE(C), PAN=30, 1 class entry, CofE Controlled St. Luke’s CE(VC), PAN=18, 0.6 class entry, CofE Controlled Howard Park, PAN=36, 1.2 class entry, Community School 4.4.2 Proposals published for Statutory Consultation in Autumn 2008 It was proposed that there should be 3 Primary schools using the Whitechapel and West End Middle School sites as well as the new Howard Park site. • • 1-class entry, (210 pupils aged 5-11, PAN=30), Community Primary School at Howard Park 1-class entry, (210 pupils aged 5-11, PAN=30), Heaton Avenue Community Primary School on West End Middle School site 2-class entry, (420 pupils aged 5-11, PAN= 60), Moorend CofE(VC) Primary School on Whitechapel Middle School site Close St Luke’s CE(VC) • • By agreement with the Diocese of Wakefield, we would seek to maintain the number of Church of England denominational places in the future pattern of provision. (NB Early Years Unit provision was not part of the statutory process.) 4.4.3 Outcomes of the Consultation in Autumn 2008 o There were no concerns or issues about the proposal for Howard Park, but significant objections were elicited to the proposals for St Luke’s CE(VC) which were linked to the proposals for Heaton Avenue and Moorend CE(C) First Schools. o The new building at Howard Park has only been in use since January 2009. It was designed to be easily adapted into a 5-11 primary school with 210 places. Minor adjustments to the PAA would be required as part of the overall redrawing of PAAs for Cleckheaton. Proposals for Howard Park should proceed to statutory proposal stage. o Re-consultation is required for Heaton Avenue, Moorend CE(C) and St Luke’s CE(VC) to obtain feedback regarding the governance arrangements for the two schools. It is necessary to obtain views that may inform a possible application for exemption from competition if a new CofE(VC) school is to be established. 4.4.4 Proposal that can proceed to Statutory Notice The following proposal does not require further consultation 1-class entry (210 pupil places, PAN=30), community primary school at Howard Park 4.4.5 Proposals for 4-week non-statutory consultation a) Develop a 1-class entry (210 pupils, PAN=30) school on the West End Middle School site which is EITHER a community primary school OR a CofE(VC) primary school as shown in table 3 below b) Redraw the PAAs for the proposed primary schools in central Cleckheaton to match the number of potential pupils to the number of places at the schools including the proposed 2-class entry Primary School on Whitechapel Middle School site created by moving and enlarging Moorend CE(C) F&N. . Table 3 : Options for a 1-class entry (210 pupils, PAN=30) primary school on the former West End Middle site in Cleckheaton Option Governance 1 Church of England Voluntary Controlled School Statutory Processes Heaton Avenue – close St Luke’s - move to former West End Middle site • Change upper age limit from 9 to 11 (Governing Body proposal) • Enlarge school from 90 places to 210 places • Increase PAN from 18 to 30 Heaton Avenue – Move to former West End Middle site • Change upper age limit from 9 to 11 • Enlarge school from 200 places to 210 places • Reduce PAN from 40 to 30 St Luke’s CE(VC) - close Transition Plan • Most Heaton Avenue pupils transfer to enlarged Moorend CE(C) Primary on former Whitechapel Middle School site. • Some Heaton Avenue pupils transfer to enlarged St Luke’s CE(VC) on former West End Middle site • St Lukes’ CE(VC) pupils transfer 2 Community School to EITHER temporarily enlarged Heaton Avenue OR Moorend CE(C) These options have been prepared in consultation with the Church Of England Diocese of Wakefield. 4.4.5 Recommendations for consultation • Proposals based on the 2 options in Table 3 above should be put forward for further consultation with the local community to establish the preferred option for the next stage of the statutory process. • Parental and community views should be ascertained regarding the proposed redrawn Priority Admission Areas for the proposed primary schools in central Cleckheaton. 4.5 Options for Primary Provision in the Hightown Area 4.5.1 Current Provision High Bank First & Nursery School o Now a primary school for pupils aged 3-11following the closure of Grylls Community Middle School o Currently 68 pupils on roll (Reception – Year 6) + 13 Nursery o Co-located with children’s centre o Located on the Windy Bank Estate Hightown School o Now a primary school for pupils aged 3-11 following the closure of Grylls Community Middle School o Currently 147 pupils on roll (Reception – Year 6) + 37 Nursery o Located close to the Windy Bank Estate Other site available – former Grylls Community Middle School site o The other four middle school sites in the Whitcliffe Mount pyramid are being considered for future primary school location because of their potential for enhanced provision o The empty middle school building needs to be demolished urgently o The site is currently not ideally placed to serve the wider catchment area and would require access from Windy Bank Lane. 4.5.2 Possible Options Proposal for the future primary school provision for the Hightown area : -a 1-class entry, 5-11 Primary School (PAN=30, NOR 210) with a Nursery on 1 of 3 sites Table 4 : Options for Primary Provision for the Hightown area Sites 1. Grylls Middle site Currently less popular with parents Not best location – site at western end of estate • Site very small 3. • Off estate • Marginally more popular school Hightown • Currently the larger school • Site centrally placed within PAA School • Limited external play space – requires additional sports provision 200m from school on other side of Miry Lane The poor location, limited size and relative unpopularity with parents of the High Bank location suggests that this is not a realistic option. • • 4.5.3 Recommendation for consultation • Proposals based on options 1 and 3 above should be put forward for further consultation with the local community to establish the preferred option for the next stage of the statutory process. 2. High Bank F&N Benefits • New build, “fresh start” • Regeneration benefits • Would allow extension if numbers required it • Best site with most potential • On estate • Co-location with Childrens Centre • Extended services on estate Risks • Possibly not popular with parents • Reputation of middle school may persist • Site south of estate • New access off Windy Bank Lane required 4.6 Equalities and Community Impact Assessment o An initial Equalities and Community Cohesion Impact Assessment was carried out on the proposals that were consulted on in Autumn 2008. The following is a short initial analysis of the likely changes to the impact assessment arising from the revised proposals. The full EIA will continue to be revised in the light of any decision taken by Cabinet re the preferred option, the development of that option and then again following consultation. o There are no significant changes to the EIAs for the following schools: Gomersal First, Gomersal St. Mary’s CE (A) F & N, Scholes F & N, Howard Park F & N. However, further revisions may be needed for the remaining first schools in the pyramid, depending on the preferred way forward selected in the options for consultation. o Whitcliffe Mount: The revised proposal to increase the number of 11-16 pupil places and to retain Gomersal within the PAA is seen as a positive impact for most stakeholders. A small number of consultees were concerned about existing traffic congestion however the overall change in total pupil places should not impact on traffic congestion. Indeed there will be a reduction of pupils travelling to the school from the furthest away areas i.e. from Birkenshaw, therefore reducing congestion on the area surrounding the school. 5. 5.1 IMPLICATIONS FOR THE COUNCIL The proposed investment in primary schools will make a direct and positive contribution to the new council priorities, specifically: • Closing gaps in health, attainment, skills, employment, housing and wages • Improved community relations • Support to families and the well-being of older people • A secure future for all our towns • Carbon reductions • Efficiencies, innovation and value for money It will also contribute towards the priorities of the Children and Young People plan, and achievement of the Every Child Matters outcomes in Kirklees 5.2 Human Resources implications The consultation process and subsequent discussions with groups of staff, and ongoing negotiations with the trade unions has contributed to developing the following approach: • recognition that all parts of the school community should participate in both the staffing implementation exercise plus the change and leadership programmes a database to be developed that holds all the relevant details around staff skills and experience along with each persons career and personal aspirations an HR framework to be used across the borough, recognising individuals at risk, ensuring processes are fair, and supporting individuals in terms of their career ambitions and personal aspirations • • • • these proposals will be put to governing bodies in the Summer term, seeking agreement to fully participate in the HR framework. It is clearly important that the vast majority, if not all, schools participate – so enabling all employment opportunities to be utilised following agreement by schools a memorandum of understanding will be drawn up between the Council and the schools community. The terms of the memorandum will provide mechanisms which will facilitate the support to individuals and schools with regard to the very practical implications of the changes. It is recognised that the size and complexity of the change will bring a range of tensions and stress to individuals. Discussions with other neighbouring Councils have shown the pros and cons of various approaches to the implementation of changes in schools. The approach set out above takes lessons from others experience and draws upon the very best of existing arrangements. 5.3 Financial Implications The major part of the capital funding for the Secondary BSF programme comes from Central Government in the form of so-called ‘PFI credits’ and direct capital grants. The capital funding for Whitcliffe Mount First Schools comes from direct capital grants. Initial capital feasibility studies have been undertaken on all the options for the Whitcliffe Mount Pyramid Primaries. Current estimates suggest that all the options are affordable and deliverable within the agreed capital allocation for the first four years of the Primary Capital Programme. 6. CONSULTEES AND THEIR OPINIONS The issues raised during the main consultation period, and in the alternative proposals received, have led to considerable further discussion over appropriate amendments to the pattern of school provision which should now be taken forward as a basis for further consultation and then fuller development as a set of firm proposals. The discussions have involved Cabinet and the Diocese, together with some inputs from the wider education community. 7. NEXT STEPS AND INDICATIVE TIMESCALE If Cabinet Members determine they wish to proceed with amendments to primary proposals, Table 5 below highlights the next stages of the consultation and statutory processes for each of the proposals: Table 5: Next Steps - Consultation & Statutory Processes For Primary Changes Proposed Primary Centre for Learning Develop 2 Primary CofE(C) Centres for Learning to serve the Birkenshaw/East Bierley area • one for 420, 5 to 11 year olds • the other for 210, 5 to 11 year olds • with nursery provision on one site • using two of the available sites – Birkenshaw F&N, Birkenshaw Middle, East Bierley F. Develop Gomersal St Mary’s CE (A) First and Nursery School as a Primary Centre for Learning for 210, 5 to 11 year olds with nursery provision. Develop Gomersal First School as a Primary Centre for Learning for 420, 5 to 11 year olds. Develop Howard Park First and Nursery School as a Primary Centre for Learning for 210, 5 to 11 year olds with nursery provision. Develop Scholes First and Nursery School as a Primary Centre for Learning for 210, 5 to 11 year olds with nursery provision. Next Steps – Consultation / Statutory Process Non-statutory consultation over a range of options to confirm the best provision using all available sites in the Birkenshaw area. Collect evidence for a possible application for an exemption form competition if a new school is proposed. Further statutory consultation then required Proceed to Statutory Proposal / Notice linked to the Governing Body’s Statutory Proposal to raise the upper age limit from 9 to 11 years Proceed to Statutory Proposal / Notice Proceed to Statutory Proposal / Notice Proceed to Statutory Proposal / Notice Non-statutory consultation on the range of Develop Moorend CE(C) First School as a Primary Centre for Learning for 420, 5 to 11 year options to determine the preferred option for the olds on the former Whitechapel Middle School site next stage of statutory processes. with redefined PAA. Further statutory consultation then required Develop a 1-class entry Primary Centre for Learning on the West End Middle School site for 210, 5 to 11 year olds with nursery provision, with a new PAA, which would be either a Community School or a Church of England Voluntary Controlled School Develop 1 Primary Centre for Learning to serve the Hightown area, for 210, 5 to 11 year olds + nursery using 1 of the available sites – the former Grylls Middle School site, High Bank F&N, Hightown Non-statutory consultation on the range of options to determine the preferred option for the next stage of statutory processes. Further statutory consultation then required Subject to decisions made by Cabinet, the indicative timeline for the next stages of the statutory processes are set out in Table 6 below: Table 6: Indicative Timeline For Consultation & Statutory Processes* Date* May 2009 June 2009 July/August 2009 Activity • • • • • • • • Seek Cabinet approval to re-consult and / or issue relevant statutory notices. 4 weeks informal consultation on revised options and the publication of Statutory Notices, where relevant. Seek exemption from competition for relevant schools, through DCSF. Representation period for any statutory proposals ends - Cabinet have to decide proposals within 2 months of this date. Report outcomes of the consultation on revised options to Cabinet. 6 week consultation on revised proposals agreed by Cabinet Report outcomes of the consultation on the revised proposals and seek decision on the next steps for the statutory process Publish statutory notices for schools where prescribed alterations are proposed that Members have determined can proceed for 4 or 6 week representation period. Representation period for statutory proposals ends - Cabinet have to decide proposals within 2 months of this date. September 2009 October 2009 December 2009 January 2010 February 2010 • *These dates are subject to change and will be revisited after the Cabinet decision is made. 8. OFFICER RECOMMENDATIONS Cabinet is recommended to: 8.1 Agree and proceed with the proposals set out below for the Whitcliffe Mount Pyramid First Schools. a) Carry out a 4-week, non-statutory consultation over a range of options to confirm the best primary provision in the Birkenshaw area, considering all available sites and collecting evidence for a possible application for an exemption from competition if a new school is proposed Proceed to Statutory Proposal & Notice at Gomersal St Mary’s CE(A) F&N School linked to the Governing Body’s Statutory Proposal to raise the upper age limit from 9 to 11 years Proceed to Statutory Proposals & Notices at Gomersal First, Howard Park F&N and Scholes F&N Schools Carry out a 4-week, non-statutory consultation over a range of options to confirm the preferred governance arrangements for the 1-class entry school Carry out a 4-week, non-statutory consultation over a range of options to confirm the best location for the proposed primary provision in the Hightown area b) c) d) e) 8.2 Authorise Officers to develop implementation proposals and plans for the proposals approved by Cabinet. Delegate authority to the Cabinet Portfolio leads and the Director for Children and Young People to:- a) Develop further consultation materials on the basis of the revised proposals for the Whitcliffe Mount Pyramid First Schools by Cabinet, where the proposals differ significantly from those set out in the ‘Brighter futures’ materials Organise and carry out statutory consultation and publish statutory notices on the proposals approved following the schedule set out in table 6 on page 14. Report the outcomes of the consultation to Cabinet by September 2009 for further consideration of the next steps. b) c) 9. RECOMMENDATIONS OF CABINET PORTFOLIO HOLDERS, Cllr J Smithson and Cllr K Smith We, the Cabinet Members for Children and Young People, support the recommendations set out by officers in the previous section of this report. We set out below the considerations which have led to our arriving at this position. We will consider any further material matters that are brought to our attention in advance of, and during, the Cabinet meeting on 6 May 2009 and will make our final, oral, recommendations at the end of the discussion of this item at the meeting. We have carefully considered the responses to both of the consultations carried out in the Whitcliffe Mount area and accept that there is the need for further consultation about the preferred options for future primary provision in some parts of the area. Options have changed in the Birkenshaw-East Bierley area following the cabinet decision to propose that a new secondary school is established on the Howden Clough site and not on the Birkenshaw Middle site. We believe that there is a need for two primary schools in this area, one of them being at Birkenshaw F&N. This leaves two potential sites for the other primary school – East Bierley or Birkenshaw Middle School site. We believe that the Birkenshaw Middle School site would be excellent for a brand new primary school and would enable extension in the future should that ever become necessary. However we do recognise the desire of East Bierley parents and residents to keep their school despite the size of the site, and the building being less satisfactory. The possibility of additional land adjacent to the site is being pursued. We are therefore putting forward options which in effect ask parents to chose between continuing with East Bierley School or having a brand new primary school on the Birkenshaw Middle School site. In Cleckheaton we have considered the available sites and their suitability for future provision. It is clear to us that West End Middle School site is less than adequate for a two-class (60 pupil) entry with an overall size of 420 pupils. We are therefore proposing a two-class entry school on the former Whitechapel Middle School site and a one-class entry school on the former West End Middle School site. Other sites are deemed less suitable due to a combination of location, size and configuration of the buildings. The consultation is therefore about the status of the schools and the transition arrangements. There is an agreement with the Church of England Diocese to maintain the current number of CofE places in the area, which is 48. This suggests that the 2-class entry (60 place) school proposed for the Whitechapel site should be CofE. The one-class entry school proposed for West End Middle School site could therefore be a Community School (through the transfer of Heaton Avenue School) or a Church of England Voluntary Controlled School (through the transfer of St Luke’s CE(VC) School). The next steps for other parts of the area are more clear cut and so we can proceed to the publication of statutory proposals and notices for the two first schools in Gomersal and the first schools at Howard Park and Scholes. The two schools serving the Hightown area have already changed into all-through primary schools following the closure of Grylls Community Middle School. We are now consulting on the possible options for the location of the future primary provision in this area as well. Given the numbers of pupils in the two schools, we feel that a single one-form entry school would be adequate for that area. The High Bank site is not big enough but we are concerned to ensure that the children’s centre remains on the site. The site of the former Grylls Community Middle School would in our view be educationally the best site as it is easily large enough and would allow future extension should that become necessary. However, the reputation is not good and the access would need improving. The continuing presence of the old Grylls school building, which is now unsafe, is not helpful and we are arranging for this to be demolished as soon as possible. Hightown School site is adequate but in our view does suffer from being small and it would require a separate playing field 200m from the school on the other side of Miry Lane to fulfil its requirements. It is more central in the catchment area but despite being larger, is not much more popular than High Bank. Nevertheless, as the site is deemed adequate we are including it in the consultation which is therefore about which of the two sites, Hightown or Grylls should be the location of the primary school in this area. For these reasons we recommend that the officers’ recommendations are supported with the additional recommendation that the childrens centre at High Bank is retained on the existing site and that consideration should be given to the provision of other community services in the area. CONTACT OFFICERS Margaret Parker, Programme Director Tel: 01484 225236 Email: Margaret.parker@kirklees.gov.uk Warwick Firmin, Head of Planning/School Funding Manager Tel: 01484 223021 Email: warwick.firmin@kirklees.gov.uk SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS 1. Schools for the Future Vision for Learning 2. Cabinet 28/11/07: Detailed Report on the outcome of the first stage formal consultation on issues and school organisation strategies related to the future pattern of secondary schools in Batley and Dewsbury 3. Cabinet 16/1/08: Detailed Report on the outcome of the first stage formal consultation on a review of schools in the Whitcliffe Mount Pyramid. 4. Cabinet Report, September 16th 2008 - “Schools for the Future consultation: ‘Brighter futures – for our children and young people’ – proposals for secondary centres for learning in north Kirklees and primary centres for learning in the Whitcliffe Mount pyramid 5. Brighter Futures Consultation Documents: • Overview document: “Brighter futures for our children and young people” • Brighter futures - Batley and Birkenshaw, Birstall & Gomersal. A consultation document on the future of secondary education. • Brighter futures - Birkenshaw, Birstall & Gomersal. A consultation document on the future of primary and secondary education • Brighter futures - Cleckheaton. A consultation document on the future of primary and secondary education • Brighter futures - Dewsbury. A consultation document on the future of secondary education. • Brighter futures - Heckmondwike, Liversedge, Mirfield and Ravensthorpe. A consultation document on the future of secondary education. 6. Cabinet Report, 12th March, 2009, detailed report on the outcomes of the Schools for the Future Statutory Consultation: Brighter Futures – for our children and Young People. 7. Cabinet Report, 12th March, 2009, report on the revised proposals for Building Schools for the Future for secondary schools in North Kirklees, in light of the key messages from the consultation. APPENDIX A Standards The current levels of attainment reached by children and young people are far from acceptable. This is having a serious effect on the lives and opportunities of far too many people. We need to significantly improve them with a step change in the educational provision. Our aim is to create schools which offer very high standards, offer a broad curriculum, have financial stability and are welcoming and comfortable for all. Our ambition is to ensure that in due course Kirklees will be in the top performance quartile for pupils’ attainment and progress. The connections between the opportunities offered by the Building Schools for the Future programme and the ambition to raise educational attainment are set out more fully in the attached Annex. Community cohesion The intensity of parental, and community, interest in the development of children is universal and a powerful unifying force in the context of the complex communities of North Kirklees. The pattern of provision can do much to build on the common commitment and to create stronger, shared, ground between communities. The ‘Building Schools for the Future’ programme and the ‘Every Child Matters’ agenda support the development of the duty on all schools to promote community cohesion. The new learning environments will provide opportunities for all pupils, staff and governors to widen their engagement with the diversity of populations and communities within and beyond Kirklees, to develop a greater awareness and understanding of those communities and consequently to the nurturing of mutual respect. The nature of school organisation, an exciting curriculum and learning opportunities and the development of a sense of belonging will contribute to and complement the skills and attitudes necessary for life in the 21st Century. The manner in which these opportunities are seized is crucial. We must be sensitive to all elements in the community in designing the pattern of provision so that we carry their confidence through a challenging period of change. There are three areas where we can make a difference in what we provide: quality and standards, diversity and choice, viability and flexibility. We want high quality facilities with excellent teaching to raise aspirations and the standards of achievement. We want parents to be confident that every local school is a good school, supporting high levels of attainment and be welcoming and attractive for their children. In addition our ambition is to: • place the five outcomes of Every Child Matters at the heart of learning: to be healthy, stay safe, enjoy and achieve, make a positive contribution to the community and society and achieve economic well-being increase the number of 17 and 18 year olds staying on and achieving in education and training promote collaboration and partnership working between schools, colleges and other providers to ensure that all young people’s entitlements are met ensure each school has a strong ethos and its own sense of purpose, acting as a centre of excellence or specialist provision ensure community and social cohesion is enhanced, with gender, disability and race equality clearly promoted in all our schools • • • • • have schools as hubs for a wide range of extended community learning and other activities meeting the needs of their communities reduce the number of inefficient surplus school places and invest in sustainable, adaptable, cost-effective schools to best meet the changing needs of learners in the 21st century ensure new building and refurbishment works associated with the programme achieve the highest affordable standards of carbon efficiency • • One of the challenges for the Council is to ensure that the investment plans developed through Building Schools for the Future and the Primary Capital Programme (PCP) are affordable, deliverable and that the capital grant is targeted cost-effectively. These factors, together with the need for schools to offer a full curriculum and be financially viable in the future, are the main drivers which determine the size and location of the future schools. The full rationale for school size is contained in Appendix D. The numbers of pupils in a school need to be sufficient to ensure breadth of curriculum and viability but not so large as to create too large a catchment area. This leads to high schools with a minimum number of 1200 places and a maximum of 1500 places. A detailed examination of all existing and potential locations, together with comparative costs for new build and refurbishment, show that completely new school buildings on new sites are simply not affordable. This means that the proposed schools will be a well designed mixture of some new buildings with significantly upgraded and refurbished current buildings on existing sites. APPENDIX B Consultation Conclusions and Direction for the Future The key messages from the consultation responses are informing the next stages of the planning and procurement process for Building Schools for the Future. A large proportion of the responses, quite properly, raise the concerns of current stakeholders about the impact of any changes on their children and their communities. This feedback will be taken into account when working with Headteachers, staff and governors to develop the detailed, school specific transition plans to manage the changes in every institution. The intention is not to destabilise or undermine confidence in current provision and the anxieties raised by parents and young people will be addressed by constructive dialogue in the implementation stages of the development process. The consultation feedback is informing the difficult strategic decisions for the best investment of resources in the system that will benefit and continue to improve life chances for current and future generations of young people. This means that the issues raised are being acknowledged and addressed but within the framework provided by the transformational vision for learning in North Kirklees and the strategic overview of provision across all North Kirklees. Significant conclusions from the consultation are set out below 1. Transformational vision • The vision remains sound and should continue to be reiterated and reinforced as a core value in all Building Schools for the Future documentation and subsequent proposals 2. Strategic overview of provision in all North Kirklees • The strategic overview should continue to be reinforced as the essential context for Building Schools for the Future, with investment creating parity of provision across North Kirklees • The overall approach to improve the whole school estate, with value for money investment of the available capital allocation, is right and will form a major part of the evaluation of the “Strategy For Change” submissions to the Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) in order to access the funds 3. Co-education • Co-educational provision should be developed to serve families in the Batley area, but the opportunity for single sex education for boys and girls should also be retained to meet the expressed wishes of part of the community 4. Re-organisation of the Whitcliffe pyramid • Proceed with the re-organisation programme with further careful development of transitional plans that have the confidence of schools and parents • Review the proposal for provision serving the St Luke’s area Note : Revised Proposals and the schedule for statutory processes for Whitcliffe Mount First Schools will be brought forward to cabinet shortly. 5. Size of 11-16 schools for curriculum breadth and sustainable funding • Consider an optimum range of 1200-1500 places for 11-16 year olds to provide curriculum breadth with financial sustainability but not to create schools with 1650 places for 11-16 year olds. • Parents and pupils need to be reassured that secondary schools of 1200-1500 places can meet the pastoral, social and emotional development needs of 1116 year olds • The strong rationale for schools of 1200-1500 places which clearly links raising standards to a broad curriculum and the effective use of sustainable revenue funding needs to be highlighted at the heart of the strategic intent of Kirklees Schools For The Future. 6. Location – schools in the right places, matching projected pupil numbers and reflecting community identity, optimising travel and transport demands • Review proposal for location of Birkenshaw, Birstall and Gomersal school • Travel Impact Assessments are required for the next stages of statutory process. These should highlight areas for further work to mitigate the impact, through road improvements, provision of new school buses etc. Increased use of ICT may also reduce carbon impact 7. Parental choice and surplus places • Review primary and proposed secondary PAAs • Consider alternative models for secondary PAAs 8. Promoting equalities and social and community cohesion • Review and update initial Equalities and Community Cohesion Impact Assessments • Maximise opportunities for bringing communities together and encourage schools to demonstrate a commitment to further work with their communities • Work with schools to support their legal duty to promote community cohesion and develop strategies, such as a federation and collaboration between schools, to minimise some of the family and community perceptions that can reinforce separation and polarisation 9. Targeting capital resources to raise attainment and target deprivation • The prioritisation and targeting of developments to raise attainment, particularly in the most disadvantaged areas, will be in the “Strategy For Change” submissions to the DCSF 10. Change management and transition plans • Work with Headteachers, staff and governors to develop detailed, school specific transition plans to manage the changes in every institution whilst maintaining confidence in the current provision as it evolves and to address the anxieties of parents, young people and staff during the implementation stages of the development process 11. Consolidate 6th form provision to provide curriculum breadth and viability th • Consider developing 6 form provision in Dewsbury • Review proposals for Heckmondwike Grammar School and Mirfield Free Grammar • Continue dialogue with governors of Whitcliffe Mount SBEC and St John Fisher CHS to encourage active engagement with the process of improving 6th form provision in North Kirklees to maximise opportunities and outcomes for young people in North Kirklees • Continue dialogue with Mirfield Free Grammar and Heckmondwike Grammar regarding the development of the proposals for post 16 provision APPENDIX C Whitcliffe Mount Pyramid Primary Proposals 6.18 Birkenshaw CE (C) First & Nursery School - summary of responses Consultation packs distributed to Birkenshaw F& N School parents/Carers: 310 Consultation Events – 20 October 2008 Petitions – none received Deputations On 12 November 2008 Cabinet received a deputation from Birkenshaw Parent. In ‘total support of the proposals to build a high school on the site of the current Birkenshaw Middle School’. The deputation goes on to raise concerns regarding the location of two high schools in Batley causing increased congestion, road safety issues and environmental issues. Governing Body/governor responses The Governing Body has positively supported the proposals ‘We fully support the overarching aims of the Brighter Futures programme, in particular making schools "centres of learning for the whole community" and "ensuring that all children have an excellent local school no matter where they live". As a result: We strongly agree with the proposal to create a secondary centre for learning on the existing Birkenshaw Middle Site. In addition 4 individual governor responses were received supporting the proposals raising concerns regarding, transport and parking, and ‘I do not want the schools to go out to tender and wish for Birkenshaw 1st school to be run as it currently is.’ Parents/Carer responses 319 responses received from parents/carers, 318 supporting the proposals and 1 opposing. The key concerns raised are: • Traffic/Transport e.g. ’Traffic and parking must be taken into consideration, particularly at Birkenshaw First school where there is real problem with traffic/Parking.’, ‘My only concern regarding in particular the expansion of schools in Birkenshaw would be the provision of parking.’ • Size e.g. ‘I don't want my sons to go to a huge school and be lost - a small local school is key!’, ‘420 for the primary is ok but would not want to see it any bigger’ Pupil Responses from school based consultation • 65 pupil responses received; 60 in support of the proposals and 5 don’t know. Comments include ‘I would like to go to school in Birkenshaw. What a terrible shame it would be if the communities of Birkenshaw, Gomersal and East Bierley did not get the high school they have been crying out for. This chance has arrived after at least 30 years; please help us secure quality education within our own community.’ Staff responses: 10 individual staff responses received, all supporting the proposals. Union responses: No specific response re Birkenshaw First & Nursery school Pyramid Primary schools 438 responses received from Whitcliffe Mount pyramid schools, 409 in support of the proposals, 80% of these respondents are parent/carer. 12 oppose and 17 don’t know. Key issues raised include: • 3 to 2 tier e.g. ’I think its STUPID idea what is wrong with it now?’ • Size e.g. ‘Children are too young to be learning in groups of such large numbers.’ Residents/Community Representatives/Community Group responses 494 responses received from Whitcliffe Mount pyramid residents, 480 supporting and 11 opposing the proposals, plus 3 don’t know. Other stakeholders/responses from other areas 30 responses were received from other areas e.g. Batley, Birstall, Holmewood, of these 23 support the proposals, 1 oppose (parent/carer at Brown hill Infants) and 6 don’t know. In addition there are 144 responses where the area was not declared. 133 in support, 6 oppose and 5 don’t know. 6.20 East Bierley CE (VC) First School - summary of responses Consultation packs distributed to East Bierley CE (VC) First School parents/Carers: 144 Consultation Events: 131 people attended the drop-in event on 21 October 2008; attendees were parents, grand-parents and residents. Petitions: None received Deputations: One deputation to council on the 15 October 2008 was received supporting the proposed expansion of first schools and for a new high school and opposing any alternative plan for a 2,000 place school at Whitcliffe Mount. Governing Body/governor responses: The Governors of East Bierley First School responded to the consultation and supported the proposals for their school. “We strongly agree with the proposal to change East Bierley CE (VC) First School to a centre of learning for 210 pupils aged 5-11 years” 5 individual governor responses supported the proposals, one has concerns over the transition plans and another felt it is “an excellent proposal”. Parents/Carer responses 244 parents/carers responses were received, 241 supporting the proposals and 3 opposing views. The main comments made were with regards to the importance of East Bierley School to the local community. “We need to keep East Bierley First School open or the community and the village and the children will suffer”, “Keen to keep the village school, as essential part of the community”, “I strongly support the alterations to East Bierley First School” and “ Fully support and agree”. Pupil Responses from school based consultation/individual pupil responses The school based consultation engaged with 10 pupils, all 10 pupils supported the proposals. The children made comments about the size of the school. “A new school will be bigger so this will be better for all of us”, “Bigger Hall”, “The walls are too close and corridors too small and keep bumping into each other” and “Make the playground bigger”. Staff responses: No individual or collective staff responses received. Union responses: No specific response received relating to East Bierley CE (VC) First School. Pyramid Primary schools: 528 responses were received from pyramid schools of which 393 were parents/carers. 499 responses supported the proposals, there were 24 opposed and 5 don’t know. Those in favour spoke of community reasons for supporting the proposals “Keep the children local”, “I am against the closure of any of the first schools. They are what keep our communities together” and “Please do not ruin the community in East Bierley by removing the lifeblood of the schools”. Those against the proposals referred to the size of the school site and traffic issues: “East Bierley School will be smaller and more cramped because of existing site of school” and “There is hardly any outdoor space for the children, local traffic would be chaos, the village would be gridlocked”. Residents/Community Representatives/Community Group responses: 488 responses received from residents, 476 supported the proposals (250 from East Bierley residents), 9 opposed and 3 don’t know. Comments from residents were similar to those of parents. “I agree with the proposals. We need to keep the village alive and this means keeping East Bierley First School within it” Other stakeholders/responses from other areas: 180 responses were received from other areas and nonspecific respondents. 157 supported the proposals, 10 opposed and 13 don’t know. Very few made comments but as with the other responses relating to East Bierley proposals, community reasons were cited for supporting the proposals. 6.21 Gomersal First School - summary of responses Consultation packs distributed to Gomersal First School parents/Carers: 288 Consultation Events – 14 October 2008 Petitions: none received Deputations: Deputation to 12 November Cabinet received from a parent at Gomersal First School ‘horrified’ at the new counter proposals for the new BBG High School. Governing Body/governor responses The Governing Body support the proposals for Gomersal First ‘we are delighted that you intend for Gomersal First School to remain open, changing it into a primary centre for learning for 420 pupils aged 5 to 11 years and relocating it to a redeveloped Gomersal Middle School site’. The response raises concern ‘at the lack of nursery or early year’s provision for children of preschool age in our local area’ and concerns regarding parking at current Gomersal Middle site and volume of traffic to Heckmondwike/Mirfield from Birkenshaw/Birstall/Gomersal. 3 individual governor responses received; 2 in support of the proposals and 1 oppose, due to concerns regarding the early year’s unit. Parents/Carer responses 100 responses received from parents/carers, 81 supporting the proposals, 13 opposing and 6 don’t know. Key issues raised include: • Early Years Provision e.g. ‘I think it is absolutely atrocious that the Early Years Unit will not be providing Under 5 education’ , ‘The only way this can be successful is to keep or extend the current Early Years provision at Gomersal First School’ • Disruption during transition e.g. ‘Struggle to see how during the huge reorganisation that standards won't drop’ • Travel/Transport e.g. ’ Problem with parking at Gomersal Middle’, ‘Concerns about safety of children in terms of road safety’ Pupil Responses from school based consultation There are 25 pupil responses from school based consultation; 15 in support of the proposals and 10 don’t know. Staff responses: 2 individual staff responses received, both opposing the proposals. One with concerns regarding the early years unit and one concerned about traffic, ‘It is too near the Hill top junction and will cause chaos at peak times’ Union responses: No specific response for Gomersal First School Pyramid Primary schools 647 responses received, 611(51% parent/carers) in support of the proposals, 11 opposing and 25 don’t know. Key issues raised include early years provision and travel/transport e.g.’ I am deeply concerned that the expansion of the first schools mentioned will force nursery/early years provision to be scrapped due to space’, ‘I will struggle to travel all this way to Gomersal amount transport’ Residents/Community Representatives/Community Group responses 542 responses received from Whitcliffe Mount pyramid residents; 522 supporting the proposals, 12 opposing and 8 don’t know. Other stakeholders/responses from other areas A further 177 responses received from other areas and non specific respondents. 159 were in support, 5 oppose and 13 don’t know. The key issues raised include early years provision, drop in standards and travel safety e.g. ‘The continuance of early years nursery provision once Gomersal First School transfers to the current Gomersal Middle School site is a paramount issue to parents in Gomersal’ , ‘The main road is so busy that someone could easily get killed if the move is done to the middle school site.’, ‘I am concerned about how staff moral, adaptations to teaching qualifications and the scale of the disruption for the children as I will end up with children at different secondary school’ 6.23 Gomersal St Mary’s CE (A) First & Nursery School - summary of responses Consultation packs distributed to (school name) parents/Carers: 145 Consultation Events: One drop in event for parents/ wider stakeholders. Approximately 15 people attended. Petitions: None received Deputations: None received Governing Body/governor responses: A collective response was received from the governing body in support of the proposals. No individual governor responses to the consultation were received, however an extract from the letter reads: ‘….the governors and staff are delighted to accept the proposal to change our school status to a full primary with nursery provision. We feel this is an excellent opportunity for the parents and children of Gomersal to have a good education in s good school in the heart of the community.’ Parents/Carer responses: 9 responses were received from parent’s carers (included one staff member). 2 supported the proposal and 7 were undecided. The only concern raised by one parent was over the transition arrangements. Pupil Responses from school based consultation: This involved 10 pupils from years 1 to 4. Most of the feedback was positive with pupils liking the idea of a school they could walk to, and acknowledged that the current building was too small. Most also supported the 2 tier system so they could stay with their friends and teachers for longer and liked the idea of learning in new buildings. Staff responses: No individual staff responses were received; however their support was highlighted in the collective governor response (see above section). Union responses: None received Pyramid Primary schools: 708 responses were received from the Whitcliffe Mount pyramid schools. A majority of 652 supported the proposal, 21 opposed and 35 were unsure. Of the 652 in support, 547 were parent/carers, 80 were pupils, 11 were governors and 14 were teachers and staff. Comments included, ‘they are the right solutions to improve education for all children in North Kirklees’ and ‘I am 100% in favour of these proposals’. Concerns raised were ‘I think consideration should be given to use the existing building’ along with concern on changes to nursery provision. Residents/Community Representatives/Community Group responses: 515 responses were received from the Whitcliffe Mount pyramid residents, with 497 in support, 11 in opposition and 7 undecided to the proposals. Very few direct comments were made. Other stakeholders/responses from other areas: 28 responses were received from other areas including village playgroups ad pre schools, of which 23 supported, 1 opposed and 4 were undecided. In addition, 129 responses were received from non specified respondents with the majority (117) agreeing with the proposals. 6.24 Heaton Avenue First & Nursery School - summary of responses Consultation packs distributed to (school name) parents/Carers: 196 Consultation Events – 29 September 2008 Petitions – none received Deputations – none received Governing Body/governor responses 1 individual governor response was received opposing. ‘After receiving an 'outstanding' Ofsted report I don’t understand why reducing the intake would be an option for a central popular school and west end site is just too big for the number of pupils.’ Parents/Carer responses 32 responses were received, 15 in support, 14 oppose and 3 don’t know. The key issues raised include: • Disruption during transition e.g. ‘Concerned about transition and ensuring the children’s education is not affected and fares the best.’ • Size e.g. ‘Concerned that we don’t create bigger classes through the reorganisation’ • Support and care e.g. ‘ensure that nothing we propose disrupts the children’s education. This should be foremost in our thinking’ • West end Middle school site e.g. ‘West End isn’t a good enough site to provide a quality environment for Heaton Avenue, particularly the external space. ‘ Pupil Responses from school based consultation The pupil consultation raised the following issues: • Size e.g. want ‘Bigger classroom because sometimes it’s squashy on the carpet’ • Middle Schools some comments supporting 2 tier and some opposing. • Travel e.g. ‘You’d waste petrol in the cars if it was far away’ Staff responses The collective staff response raised concerns about only having 210 pupils on the West End site, which includes reducing the current planned admission number when they already have appeals each year, size of the site and health and safety implications for young pupils. Proposing instead having a school of 420, using the refurbished and new build sections of the West End site. In addition one individual staff response was received supporting the proposals. Union responses – no response received specific to Heaton Avenue. Pyramid Primary schools 117 responses received 41 in supports (75% parent/carer), 46 oppose (86% parent/carer) and 30 don’t know. The key issues raised include: • Reputation e.g. ‘Heaton Avenue flourishes as a first and nursery school. It does not need fixing’ • 3 to 2 tier e.g. ‘we don’t need or want a two tier system - Heaton Avenue is too small to make into primary.’ • Size e.g. ‘210 pupils are far too many for a first school’ • West end Middle school site e.g.’ Grounds are not big enough to promote physical play/education at present time. Will be worse with expansion’ , ‘The site at West End Middle where it will be located, is vast and can easily accommodate 420 children’, ‘there are serious concerns about the suitability of the new site’ Residents/Community Representatives/Community Group responses 15 responses were received from residents, 8 supports, 6 oppose and 1 doesn’t know. The key issues raised include: • Reputation e.g. ‘Why interfere with a highly successful school which has proved its worth serving the needs of the community, just so less successful schools disappear.’ • Site e.g. ‘school already has long standing 'temporary' buildings and little outdoor play area.’ Other stakeholders/responses from other areas There were 2 responses from parent/carers from other areas, one from St Patrick’s RC in support of the proposals and one don’t know from St John Fisher. There is also 17 unspecified responses, 8 supporting, 6 opposing and 3 don’t know. 6.25 High Bank First & Nursery School - summary of responses No proposals were published for High Bank First and Nursery School as part of the ‘Brighter Futures’ consultation 6.26 Hightown First & Nursery School - summary of responses No proposals were published for Hightown First and Nursery School as part of the ‘Brighter Futures’ consultation. The Governing Body of Hightown First and Nursery School submitted a letter outlining issues that they would like cabinet to consider before final proposals are formulated. 6.27 Moorend CE (C) First School - summary of responses Consultation packs distributed to (school name) parents/Carers: 137 Consultation Events: 23 September 2008 Petitions: None received Deputations: None received Governing Body/governor responses: There are 3 individual governor responses, 2 supporting the proposals and 1 opposing, due to size of school ‘Small schools - more effective in education, better transition for children.’ Parents/Carer responses: 43 responses received from parent/carers, 8 in support of the proposals, 20 opposing and 15 don’t know. Key issues raised include: • Disruption during transition e.g. ‘I believe current Y4 pupils are going to suffer the most by having 3 big changes and building work as well’, ‘the kids that are stuck in the middle are going to be messed up - these are their futures that you are messing with and you can't truly know what damage will be done’ • Traffic and transport e.g. ‘Parking and congestion will be an enormous problem how can a 4yr old from Hunsworth walk that distance 2 per day’ • Standards e.g. ‘It is a foregone conclusion that this will happen but please ensure that the children / young people are considered and educated to their full potential.’ Pupil Responses from school based consultation: 9 responses received from school based consultation. The key issues raised are: • Size e.g.’ The playground needs to be bigger’, ‘I’d make the library bigger because it is a little bit small’ • Middle Schools e.g. ‘I’d get to be with my brother longer because he’s in Reception’, ‘We would need more teachers’ • Travel e.g. ‘Sometimes it is good to go to a school not close to you because it’s a better school’, ‘if you walk to school it can stop people getting coughs because of all that smoke from cars’ Staff responses: 2 individual staff responses received, both supporting the proposals. Union responses: No specific response received regarding Moorend First School Pyramid Primary schools 191 responses received from the pyramid schools, 15 in support of the proposals, 161 opposing (141 of these responses are parent/carers from St Luke’s First School) and 15 don’t know. Key issues raised include: • Community Cohesion e.g. ‘The community around St Luke’s needs to have a school that serves the local area’, ‘they will lose the community spirit in the Moorbottom area.’ • Travel/Transport e.g. ’children from this side of Cleckheaton will have to travel to the other side creating more congestion’, ‘Parking and congestion will be an enormous problem’ • Denominational Places e.g. ‘What about a church school. Would the council consider closing other faith schools?’, ‘A C of E school should be local for the community’ • Location e.g. ‘I cannot understand why pupils from St Luke’s have to travel to Moorend when they pass Heaton Avenue Primary’, ‘St Luke’s is geographically closer to Heaton Ave and the parents and pupils would have to pass the newly sited Heaton Ave to get to the new Moor End. Changes to catchments areas may be a way to address this.’ Residents/Community Representatives/Community Group responses 53 responses received from Whitcliffe pyramid residents, 6 supporting the proposals and 47 opposing. Supporting comments include ‘If you look at the bigger picture, the proposals are good for north Kirklees. Key issues raised include: • Location e.g. ‘Making very young children (some of them tots) walk at least half a mile up and down a steep hill every day and either go past a school like Whitcliffe Mount or walk about a mile and have these tots walking on a main road, is incompetent and down right dangerous’, ‘children from St Luke’s will virtually pass Heaton avenue to get to Moorend. Existing Moorend school is 'outstanding' Other stakeholders/responses from other areas: There were 12 responses from parent/carers from other areas (e.g. Batley, Bradford, Lightcliffe, Darlington) 1 in support (from St Patrick’s RC) and 11 opposing In addition there were 54 none specific responses. 5 in support, 45 opposing (37 of these are residents from unspecified areas) and 4 don’t know. C:\DOCUME~1\DEBBIE~1\LOCALS~1\Temp\XPgrpwise\090430 Final Whitcliffe First Schools Revised Proposals Repor.doc page 28 of 31 6.28 St Luke’s CE (VC) First School - summary of responses Consultation packs distributed to St Luke’s parents/Carers: 141 Consultation Events: 2 drop in events for parents/wider stakeholders. Many people chose not to sign in to the second event however approximately 64 people attended in total. The attendees were parents, governors and community representatives. Petitions: None received Deputations: On 15 October 2008 council received two deputations, one from St Luke’s CE(C) First School and the other from Re-think (a group made up of parents, the community and governors of St Luke’s School). On 12 November 2008 council received two deputations, one from St Luke’s CE(C) First School and the other from St Luke’s Parents Action Group. On 12 November 2008 cabinet received a deputation from Re-think. Governing Body/governor responses: A response was received from The Governing Body opposed the proposals. th An extract from the minutes of the governing body meeting on 18 September stated “It was therefore unanimously agreed that an alternative proposal should be submitted to Kirklees which would involve a new school being built on a larger site so that St Luke’s could be relocated.” 1 individual governor response was received from the chair of governors detailing an alternative option for the school (to remain on the same site). Parents/Carer responses: 114 responses were received from parents/carers, all opposing the proposals. Some of the key issues raised were: • Community Cohesion e.g. “St. Luke’s school is the basis of a community at Moorbottom and has strong links with church. Close the school - close the community” • Denominational Places e.g. “St Luke’s is a church school. The school and church are a community” • Travel/Location e.g. “The distance the children would have to travel to Whitechapel is unrealistic” • Size e.g. “Moorend 1st would be too large” th • 4 Primary e.g. “We need a 4th primary for this area”, “A new school or another site would be wonderful. The new Moorend school would be far too big!” and “Why can’t this school remain open and move to a new site like all the other 3 primary schools” Pupil Responses from school based consultation: The school based consultation engaged with a group of 10 pupils, the responses received were a mixture of positive and negatives on a variety of issues. Positive comments made about the proposals were mainly made in connection with space and resources: “We need more space”, “We need a playing field and a friendship stop” and “A big library and lockers”. Concerns were raised around travel: “You will pollute the air if you drive there”, “You could cause an accident on the roads”, “It gives you good exercise” and “Because it is easier to walk to school”. Staff responses: No individual or staff responses received Union responses: No specific response received regarding St Luke’s CE(C) First School. Pyramid schools: 111 responses received from Whitcliffe Mount pyramid schools, 24 in support of the proposals, 15 don’t know and 72 opposed (of which 75% are parents/carers). One of the supportive respondents said “I think this is a really exciting opportunity to change education in Kirklees for the better”. The key issues raised by those opposed to the proposals were broadly similar to those concerns of the St Luke’s parents/carers. “Small schools are better for the children and teachers”, “This is a local school within the community linked to the church” and “Parking and congestion will be an enormous problem” Residents/Community Representatives/Community Group responses: 53 residents from the Whitcliffe Mount pyramid responded. 6 were in support of the proposals and 47 were opposed. From the supportive responses, one respondent felt that “If you look at the bigger picture, the proposals are good for north Kirklees”. Those opposed to the proposals were mostly concerned with the location of the proposed Moorend primary centre for learning. “How will the children in St Luke’s area be transported to Moorend”, “Children from St Luke’s will virtually pass Heaton Avenue to get to Moorend” and “Important school to the area, strong community, would remove current community cohesion and cause traffic carnage at Whitechapel site”. A group response was received from the Diocese of Leeds supporting the proposals and a commitment was made to support the local community affected by the proposed closure of St Luke’s. Other stakeholders/responses from other areas: 64 responses received from other areas/non-specific respondents. 16 were parents/carers from other areas or unknown areas, 37 were residents from an undisclosed area. Overall 4 responses were in support of the proposals, 56 opposed and 4 don’t know. C:\DOCUME~1\DEBBIE~1\LOCALS~1\Temp\XPgrpwise\090430 Final Whitcliffe First Schools Revised Proposals Repor.doc page 29 of 31 6.29 Scholes First & Nursery School - summary of responses Consultation packs distributed: 171 Consultation Events: 12 parents/carers attended the drop-in event at the school. Petitions: None received Deputations: None received Governing Body/governor responses A collective response was received from governors stating ‘’We are highly delighted with the proposals for Scholes First and Nursery…..We can now look forward to a positive future…..and one that will provide a fabulous start for our children’ The governors raised a couple of key concerns • Ensuring building works completed in 2010 to ensure current Yr3 pupils can remain at school until they transfer to high school • HR issues around retaining their staff during transition period • Facilities need to be as good/broad as those to be offered at Moorend • Re look at transition plan for current Yr4 (either stay at current school in temp accommodation or stay at Whitechapel for further 2 yrs instead of moving to West End Middle Parents/Carer responses 10 parent/carers submitted responses and all of these supported the proposal. 12 attended the drop-in event. The comments/concerns that were raised largely mirrored those of the governors e.g. ‘Happy with change from 3-2 tier’, ‘I am deeply concerned regarding the disruption to current Yr4 students….My daughter will potentially have to go to 5 schools’, ‘buildings & facilities must be completed for pupils for 2009 start’, ‘….Yr4 dyslexic daughter with statement, very difficult to cope with change, several changes will have hugely negative impact. Therefore transition arrangements have to be well thought through and personalised for children with SEN. The provision at Whitechapel for SEN is excellent and should be kept’ Pupil Responses from school based consultation The responses from the 9 pupils engaged with was a mixture of positive and negative on issues ranging from current building/facilities to travel. E.g. one pupil commented ‘You won’t learn as much if you don’t go to middle school’ whilst another said ‘I think it would be better to stay because we wouldn’t have to move and get more upset’. Other comments include ‘The library is too small’, ‘…I think its good to live near school’ Staff responses: There was no specific reference to Scholes First & Nursery School in the staff responses Union responses: There was no specific reference to Scholes First & Nursery School in the union responses Pyramid Primary schools From Whitcliffe Mount Pyramid primaries 121 responses were received, 51 in support and 26 opposed. Of the 26 against the proposal 42% were St Luke’s parents. Comments from those against included ‘I don’t see why they have to change the 3 tier system’, Scholes F&N will be too big’ and ‘Parents choose not to send their children to this school because it is based on the estate. ….if this school (St Luke’s) closes parents will still choose to send their children to an alternative school’ Residents/Community Representatives/Community Group responses 17 responses, 9 in favour and 6 against were received by Whitcliffe Mount pyramid residents. Those in favour comments included ‘If you look at the bigger picture, the proposals are good for north Kirklees’ …the plans will only add positive benefits to the area’. Comments from those against included ‘This will not in any way affect the achievements of the pupils……Still would not send my child there.’ Other stakeholders/responses from other areas 15 responses received, 5 for, 6 against and 4 don’t know. Those against cited wanting to retain 3 tier system and quality of amenities. C:\DOCUME~1\DEBBIE~1\LOCALS~1\Temp\XPgrpwise\090430 Final Whitcliffe First Schools Revised Proposals Repor.doc page 30 of 31 6.31 Whitcliffe Road First & Nursery School /Howard Park - summary of responses Consultation packs distributed to Whitcliffe Road First & Nursery School/ Howard Park parents/Carers: 127 Consultation Events: Thursday 23 October 2008 Petitions: None received Deputations: None received Governing Body/governor responses The collective governor’s response is that they are all pleased with the forthcoming move into Howard Park th th Community School. They share concerns over the 6 form proposals and would like to see some specialist 6 form provision on a site separated from secondary education. With regards to the proposed Birkenshaw school ‘we would not want to see our children’s education at Whitcliffe Mount being of any lesser quality than offered on a th Birkenshaw site’, and propose for consideration the creation of a 6 form in North Kirklees, or at least in the pyramid ‘linking it to Whitcliffe Mount in name even though we would prefer it on a separate site. With regards to primary provision ‘the proposals as set out in the document are reasonable’ Parents/Carer responses 9 responses were received from parents and carers from Whitcliffe Road First & Nursery School/Howard Park, 7 supporting the proposals and 2 opposing. Key issues raised include: • Disruption during transition e.g. ‘Would have to buy 3 sets of uniform’ • 3 to 2 Tier e.g. ‘don’t like move from 3 to 2 tier’ • Size e.g. ‘Think my child would be too timid being part of big school at young age’ Pupil Responses from school based consultation Three key issues came out of the pupil consultation as follows: • Size e.g. ‘I don’t like it when I’m crowded on the carpet’ • Middle Schools e.g. ‘My mum has planned for me not to stay here, she wants me to go somewhere else. It might be Whitechapel but I want to go to West End’ • Travel e.g. ‘People don’t like to have to drive and some peoples houses are really far away’, ‘it will save money and keep you fit’ Staff responses; The collective staff response made the same points as the governor’s response above. Union responses: No response received specific to Whitcliffe Road F&N School Pyramid Primary schools 123 responses received. 54 in support of the proposals. 23 Oppose and 46 don’t know. Of those who support the proposals 70% were parent/carer. Key issues raised include: • Disruption during transition e.g. ‘Children will be messed around, while the new system comes into action’ • 3 to 2 Tier e.g. ‘We feel the age group is to be too vast and feel smaller schools should continue’ • Resources e.g. ‘Offer free school healthy meals and free before and after school sessions. Employ learning mentors and more classroom assistants to keep kids focused and to aid learning.’ • Size e.g. ’210 pupils are far too many for a first school’ Residents/Community Representatives/Community Group responses 15 responses received from Whitcliffe Mount Pyramid Residents, 11 in support of the proposals, 2 opposing and 2 don’t know. Other stakeholders/responses from other areas There were 17 other non-specific respondents. 8 supports, 4 oppose and 5 don’t know. The only comment made was ‘Will amenities be as good as they are currently? E.g. Science labs, music rooms, art rooms, changing facilities for PE. In addition there were 3 other group responses and there was one response from a parent/carer at St. Patrick’s RC Primary supporting the proposal. C:\DOCUME~1\DEBBIE~1\LOCALS~1\Temp\XPgrpwise\090430 Final Whitcliffe First Schools Revised Proposals Repor.doc page 31 of 31