cabinet paper no. meeting date: 17 october 2006 from ...councilportal.cumbria.gov.uk/data/county...

AGENDA ITEM NO 4

of 22

E:\Member Services\COMMITTEE\Carlisle Local Committee\2006\011106 special\reports\4 School Organisation - A Strategic Approach.doc

CABINET

Meeting date: 17 October 2006

From: Cabinet Member for Children’s Services and Corporate Director – Children’s Services

Paper No.

7

SCHOOL ORGANISATION – A STRATEGIC APPROACH: PLANNING 11-19 EDUCATION FOR THE CARLISLE AREA SECTION A: RECOMMENDATION OF CABINET MEMBER

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.1 This paper is about shaping the future of secondary education provision in and around Carlisle for years to come. Decisions emanating from it are therefore vitally important ones.

1.2 More specifically, the report informs Members of the nature and outcome of the public consultation exercise concerning 11-19 education in the Carlisle area. It then goes on to provide some analysis designed to help Members reach conclusions on a way forward for the future.

1.3 Towards the end it draws attention to the fact that the decisions taken at this point represent only the beginning of the change process. An indication of the next steps required is then provided.

1.4 The length of the paper reflects the importance, complexity and multi-faceted nature of the issues involved, the focus that will be on it and the range of ‘audiences’ it will have.

2.0 POLICY POSITION, BUDGETARY AND EQUALITY IMPLICATIONS AND LINKS TO CORPORATE STRATEGY

2.1 The policy position on school organisation matters was set out in the 7 September 2005 Cabinet paper ‘School Organisation – A Strategic Approach’.

of 22


2.2 The document ‘Enhancing Lives Through Learning – A Vision for Schools in Cumbria,’ which was approved by Cabinet on 28 February 2006, underpins and guides the Authority’s school organisation process.

Budgetary Implications

2.3 There are no significant implications for the absolute levels of revenue budgets. School organisation change can, however, free-up existing resources to be put to alternative use in or for other school. However, some initial outlay on transitional arrangements will be necessary in the case of change to secondary education provision in the Carlisle area.

2.4 As far as capital expenditure is concerned, the potential school organisation change identified in the report would require funding to secure its implementation.

Links to the Council Plan

2.5 The basic thrust of the strategic approach to school organisation is to safeguard and improve the education and other services to children and their families provided through schools in the County.

2.6 This is supportive of the Plan’s themes, ‘Improving Council Services’ and ‘Children and Young People’.

3.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

Cabinet is asked to consider:-

3.1 Adopting, supporting and pursuing the implementation of the potential way forward as set out in para 4.56.

and more explicitly

3.2 Taking all necessary action to discontinue (ie close) Lochinvar School, Longtown with effect from the end of the summer term 2008 with its catchment area being added to that of William Howard School, Brampton.

3.3 Supporting all of the steps necessary to establish an Academy operating in line with County Council protocols and based on the St. Aidan’s site, publishing formal proposals, if and when appropriate, to secure the closure of St. Aidan’s County High School and North Cumbria Technology College.

3.4 Should the establishment of an Academy not come to fruition, taking all necessary action to secure the closure of North Cumbria Technology College with its catchment area being added to that of St. Aidan’s County High School.

of 22


3.5 Supporting the governors of Trinity C of E Voluntary Aided School to bring about a reduction in the published number for admission to the school from 300 (10 form entry) to 240 (8 form entry) with effect from September 2008.

3.6 Supporting and contributing to the collective work to develop a 14-19 centre in the middle of the city to serve all young people in that age group in the Carlisle area.

Philip Chappelhow Cabinet Member for Children’s Services

SECTION B:

ADVICE OF CORPORATE DIRECTOR – CHILDREN’S SERVICES

4.0 BACKGROUND

General Background

4.1 On 7 September 2005, Cabinet adopted a more strategic approach to the supply of school places, school organisation and related issues. The aim was to review the whole of the school network in the County during 2006 and 2007.

4.2 Good progress is being made generally on the implementation of the new approach. For a range of reasons, which included the strong prospect of very significant capital resources being made available to the Council to regenerate education provision in the city, secondary education in Carlisle was the first area to be reviewed.

4.3 The strategic approach to school organisation involves a high degree of partnership working. Its implementation is overseen by a countywide School Organisation Forum (SOF). Local Partnership Groups (LPGs) are tasked with developing ideas for improving provision through school organisation change.

4.4 The Carlisle LPG considered a wide range of information on schools, communities and County Council policies, including transport and rural issues. A series of options were produced and refined during the spring of 2006, and the LPG agreed to ask partners and stakeholders for their views on six options. The feedback received helped the LPG to identify a list of four options to take forward. These were endorsed by SOF. Cabinet agreed on 2 May to there being wide public consultation on those four options.

4.5 The membership of SOF and the Carlisle LPG is set out in Appendices A and B respectively.

The Consultative Process

4.6 A consultation document was prepared and issued on 15 June 2006. It argued the case for change, outlined the agreed options and their

of 22


implications, provided much contextual information and began to point to ways in which conclusions might be drawn. A questionnaire was included to capture preferences, comments and encouraged amendments to and/or additional options to be given. In all, 15,000 copies were distributed/made available to parents of primary and secondary aged pupils (via direct mailing), young people, school staff, school governors, early years/nursery groups, many other partner organisations and the general public. A copy of the document is attached as Appendix C. The four options for change are set out in the table on page 7 of the document.

4.7 As an important part of the consultative process, 11 special Neighbourhood Forum meetings were held across the Carlisle area. These were intended for parents and the general public and most were well attended. There were also meetings for school staff and for governing bodies. There was a concerted effort to engage young people in the consultation process. In total around 40 meetings and drop-in events were held as part of the consultation exercise.

4.8 There was full and positive press and media coverage throughout the consultations. A week or so prior to the deadline for responses, parents were mailed a reminder to return the questionnaire contained in the consultation document if they wished their views to be known. Given the comprehensiveness of the consultation process, it is probable that all those who would have wanted to contribute had the opportunity to do so.

4.9 A range of different ways of responding to the consultation document were offered. The consultation period ended on 15 September.

Feedback from the Consultation

4.10 An independent company, CN Research (CNR), was commissioned to analyse the responses received. Its report on the feedback is attached as appendix D. (A ‘verbatim’ account of the responses received, which runs to 228 pages, is available on request and there will be copies for reference provided at the meeting.)

4.11 Around 1,000 responses were received. These were in the form of questionnaires from the consultative document, questionnaires completed online, emails, letters and notes of the Neighbourhood Forum meetings and meetings of school staff and governing bodies.

4.12 The standard practice for Cabinet reports concerning school organisation consultation is to make particular documentation emanating from them available to Members as they consider taking decisions. In line with this, the notes of the meetings of school staff and governing bodies are provided as Appendix E, the notes of the Neighbourhood Forum meetings are attached as Appendix F and copies of the written responses from organisations/groups appear as Appendix G.

4.13 Whilst the response rate might have been better, the size of the sample is believed to be more than large enough to justify decisions being taken on the basis of the feedback received on the options. Moreover, the respondents represent a good spread in terms of the spheres of interest with 53% being

of 22


parents of children and young people presently attending primary or secondary schools,12% parents of pre-school children, 12% students, 9% teaching staff, 7% school support staff and 5% governors. Unsurprisingly, there tended to be a relationship between the sizes of secondary schools in terms of pupil rolls and the proportion of responses from those connected to specific schools. Naturally enough, there was also a strong tendency for respondents to indicate a preference for a solution which they seemed to perceive would be in line with the best interests of the school with which they were involved. As was to be expected with the closure of Lochinvar appearing in all of the options, a proportionately high level of responses was received from the Longtown area.

4.14 There were four options in the consultative document, each with six or seven elements within them. As can be seen from CNR’s report, there was a very wide spectrum of points made and issues raised. Because of this, and in order to begin to arrive at a way forward, it is necessary to look for some key, overarching messages from the feedback received.

4.15 The questionnaire was aimed at finding out whether those responding agreed with the Carlisle Local Partnership Group that the status quo is not a viable option. There was also a wish to ascertain which of the identified options in consultative document were supported and preferred.

4.16 As can be seen from CNR’s report, 66% of respondents felt that the status quo was not acceptable for the future. Responses citing this view outnumbered those happy with the continuation of the current situation by around three to one. There were 11% ‘don’t knows’.

4.17 The balance of those in favour and those against the four options is indicated in the table below:

In Favour (%) Against (%)

Option 1 17 79

Option 2 14 82

Option 3 50 44

Option 4 68 25

4.18 There were 825 respondents who expressed a preference for a particular option:

Preferred Option (%)

Option 1 12

Option 2 7

Option 3 26

Option 4 53

of 22


4.19 Though the overall picture is one of support for Options 3 and 4, and more particularly Option 4, there were some significant concerns expressed about their impact. As can be seen from CNR’s report (Appendix D) the main ones included:-

• The two largest city centre schools would be too big (Option 3).

• The loss of community-based schools ie Lochinvar (Options 3 and 4), NCTC (Options 3 and 4) and Morton (Option 3). Of particular concern were Issues around transport and delivery of services to more rural communities.

4.20 There were differing views on the possibility of having an Academy. Of the 153 people who commented on the issue, 37 were in favour and 49 were against. Around 90% of respondents though did not express a view either way.

4.21 When undertaking the preparatory work prior to writing the consultative document, those involved picked up a degree of concern regarding the effect of the centralised options (Options 3 and 4) on traffic congestion, access and the environment. Such concerns were felt by a considerable number of respondents to be as, if not more, applicable to the most dispersed model, Option 1. As the consultation document pointed out, of the four options, only Option 3 would be likely to worsen traffic congestion in the city.

Lochinvar School, Longtown – Alternative Options

General

4.22 On page 33 of CNR’s report it is indicated that 78 ‘standard’ letters were received which stressed the importance of retaining post 11 education in the town and asked the County Council to consider the possibility of establishing an all-through school as an alternative to the closure of Lochinvar School. This idea was introduced at the Neighbourhood Forum meeting in Longtown when officers gave a commitment to consider it alongside the four options set out in the consultation document.

4.23 Towards the end of the consultation period, a brief paper containing four alternative options to the closure of Lochinvar was submitted. This was put together by a working party of local people. A copy of the paper is provided as Appendix H.

4.24 On 25 September, members of the School Organisation Project Team met representatives of the working party at their request to discuss the alternative options identified. During that meeting the importance of Lochinvar School and locally provided secondary education to the regeneration of the Longtown area was emphasised by working party members. The Project Team made it clear at the meeting that all of the alternative options would be assessed and considered by Cabinet when dealing with the results of the consultative exercise.

4.25 There is clearly much strong local opinion that Longtown should not lose its secondary education provision, at least not entirely. Some respondents feel

of 22


that Lochinvar School should remain open and continue to operate much as it has done. There were, however, very few ideas or indications offered by those people as to how it could possibly survive and flourish, given its present financial position and the anticipated and significant further fall in pupils, without the general arrangements for funding schools in the county being considerably adjusted. The current funding regime does, of course, provide significant extra support for small schools like Lochinvar. Many of those contributing to the consultative process seemed to accept that the school could not survive just as an 11-16 school with fewer than 100 pupils. That group of people appeared to believe that a move to a different kind of provision was the only way to secure the retention of secondary education in the area.

4.26 It is important to stress at this point that the absence of the retention of Lochinvar School in the four options in the consultation document was a direct response to the needs of current and future pupils who deserve the best educational opportunities available. A cogent and well-planned early transitional arrangement, to be implemented if necessary, lay behind the proposed partnership with William Howard School outlined in the consultation document.

Assessment of the Alternative Suggestions

An All Through, 3-16 School

4.27 Immediately prior to the consultation period, the Project Team was provided with a paper setting out the possibility of establishing a 3-16 school to replace Lochinvar School and Longtown Primary School. The suggestion was that the new school would be housed in the Lochinvar School premises. The clear aim in introducing the all-through notion was to stave-off the threat of Lochinvar School’s closure.

4.28 When the working party representatives met members of the School Organisation Project Team on 25 September they made it clear that the all-through school was the ‘foundation brick’ in their ideas for alternative options, with one or more of the others supporting the viability of the school.

4.29 The working party’s all through school idea emanated from an initiative taken at Serlby Park School near Doncaster. This is a 3-18 school with 1,100 pupils so direct comparison is difficult.

4.30 With the help of colleagues, the Project Team has looked at whether a 3-16 school in Longtown might be viable. In doing so, a range of issues have been examined.

4.31 The following judgements have been made on the basis of the work undertaken and discussions which have taken place:-

• Much play has been made of the role of the DfES’ Innovations Unit in developing / facilitating thinking on all-through schools. Discussions with the unit have indicated that it would not envisage a proposal for an all-through school arising as a result of the possibility of a school closure.

of 22


• The Innovations Unit believes that the most effective context for the all-through concept is likely to be where partnerships between schools have evolved into very close collaboration. This is not how things happened here. The local primary school was not included at all in the early thinking and discussions.

• Clearly, a change to a completely new kind of establishment involving very different ways of working will only have a reasonable chance of success if supported with enthusiasm by all involved parties. The contributions of those associated with the primary school to the consultative exercise and in subsequent discussions demonstrate with certainty that this is not the case.

• The specific proposal in the documentation provided locally pays scant regard to the distinct needs of younger children, not least by proposing that the all-through school is located in the Lochinvar buildings which are obviously not suitable for their needs. Adjusting the buildings to remedy this would be expensive and follow heavy investment in the primary school’s accommodation when it came into being only a few years ago.

• Although this concept is a possible way for the provision in an area to organised, it is dependent on a sufficient number of pupils to make it viable. The projections of such numbers in the Longtown area clearly indicate the roll would not be sufficient to sustain such a facility. Establishing an all-through school in Longtown would not guarantee an increase in pupil numbers and indeed would constitute a major risk, if it was to be pursued. In terms of resourcing and developing a provision this would not create the optimum condition for all children to achieve at the highest level.

• The avoidance of a change of school at age 11 may provide social and pastoral continuity for children, but only within an extremely limited social context. There is ample evidence to show that children benefit both socially and educationally when they have the opportunity to forge new relationships in a different context. Indeed social development is often an issue in very small schools.

• Secondary-age pupils would still have only one class in each age group by 2009, precluding the possibility of pupils accessing, as they should, a range of option choices at 14. In this scenario, specialist teachers are hard to appoint. Ability grouping to ensure personalised learning would be impossible, and access to the 14 specialist Vocational Diplomas as defined in the Education and Skills 14 to 19 white paper, which is soon to become a statutory requirement, would be difficult.

• The assumption that staff can deliver high quality provision across both the primary and secondary phases is considered to be too high a risk. The level of expertise required to meet all aspects of curriculum entitlement across all phases is considerable, expensive and extremely challenging. It is simply not a case of assimilating the notional number of people required to match the budget available, it is more about ensuring that teaching and support expertise and experience is of high quality and sufficiency to meet the needs of all children and their

of 22


different pathways of learning. The resources available through an amalgamation and the formulation of an all-through school would not achieve this. The net effect could be that children would be put in a position where, through no fault of their own, they fail to achieve their full potential based on their prior attainment; standards of attainment could fall to an unacceptable level and life chances could be compromised.

• There is no evidence to support the notion contained in the paper from the Longtown community that it is educationally advantageous to introduce secondary subjects earlier.

• Very importantly, and of relevance here, is the Authority’s School Improvement Team’s view that no secondary provision with less than 30 children in a year group can offer:

- a broad curriculum choice,

- options within an ‘academic/vocational’ balanced curriculum,

- setting by ability, and

- a stimulating social context

• An all-through school would be likely to move into a budget deficit situation within two years. This statement is based on a staffing structure submitted by the Head of Lochinvar School. It was recognised by those connected with Lochinvar that the original financial data contained within the paper they provided was flawed. Such a school seems to be unsustainable on financial grounds alone in the Longtown context.

A 14-19 Vocational Centre

4.32 The suggestion of the establishment of a construction (14-19 Centre) or other vocational facility at Longtown does not appear to be a workable or sustainable option for a number of reasons:-

• Any vocational centre would have to provide a realistic work environment which is costly to build and maintain. There is already high quality work based learning provision in Carlisle that should offer the sort of learning opportunities that are described. An additional resource would only result in unnecessary duplication and undermine existing provision in the area at a time when the 14-19 age group is actually in decline. Hence the 11-19 education review.

• Such a centre would also need to be used collaboratively across the entire Carlisle 14-19 partnership. A Longtown location could not offer ease of access to all learners in the Carlisle area.

• There is a proposal for a 14-19 Centre close to Carlisle College as part of its Phase 2 Capital Programme. This would provide a wide range of vocational opportunities and be designed to deliver programmes for all

of 22


14 to 19 students in the area. Of course, the College already has the capacity to deliver many of these courses.

• The 14-19 centre steering group is taking forward the development of a 14-19 centre and the possibility of a satellite centre does not really fit the model of a centralised facility; indeed the dispersed model of delivery did not receive widespread support from the Carlisle community as a whole.

Re-Draw School Catchment Areas

4.33 This option is partly about extending Lochinvar’s catchment area to include the northern end of Carlisle and some additional rural areas on the periphery of the catchment area. Other elements relate to a situation in which Trinity School would be relocated to the north of the river Eden.

4.34 The first thing to say is that residence in a catchment area does not affect the freedom to choose an alternative school. Given the ability to exercise parental choice, there is a need to consider whether parents from the areas in question would wish to choose to send their children to Lochinvar School when:-

• it has no sixth form,

• there is limited subject choice at GCSE,

• in the case of families living in north Carlisle, for most it is against the direction of home to work routes,

• its long-term viability would not be secure,

• in the last three years no child has gone to Lochinvar from north Carlisle despite the school, as a small, non-faith school, being unique in the area, and

• the general wish within the city boundary, as evidenced by the feedback from the consultation, is for children to attend city centre schools.

4.35 It is anticipated that to seek to re-define catchment areas in line with this alternative option would be deeply unpopular. It is also important to remember that almost half of the families in Lochinvar’s existing catchment area fail to support the school in terms of sending their children there.

Lochinvar School as a Satellite School Working in Partnership with William Howard School

4.36 It is felt that this idea is fundamentally flawed and has been presented without regard to the impact on outcomes for pupils. The reasons for this view and thoughts more generally include:-

• This suggestion does not recognise that Lochinvar pupil numbers are likely to be under 100 in three year’s time and to stay there. Meeting the statutory curriculum entitlement would be impossible on the predicted numbers because of associated staffing and resource costs. The school, even now, is having difficulty meeting its statutory obligations in

of 22


relation to pupil entitlement. The net impact of this possibility would be likely to be a significant fall in the standards achieved by pupils.

• The reference to pupils at William Howard School preferring small classes is a perception; it is not based on fact nor on any understanding of resource / funding delegation implications. Funding for schools is via the framework of a funding formula devised by the local authority with its schools and agreed by Government. This funding is mainly per pupil so average class sizes are similar in all schools. Whilst small schools attract extra resources, this is not sufficient for Lochinvar to provide the curriculum opportunities available in large schools.

• The possibility of extending provision to include land based and skill based courses does fit with the DfES agenda for choice and diversity for pupils 14 to 19. However, the infrastructure and resources to support such an initiative are not in place and the cost to introduce them would be prohibitive. There is no reason why this curriculum enhancement could not be made available in another more accessible setting.

• The transport issues could well be worsened if provision was shared between two sites because children as well as staff would need to be transported to specialist facilities on a regular basis, losing out on dedicated curriculum time. The net impact would be a fall in the standards achieved by pupils.

The Views of the Council’s Key Partners/Stakeholders on the Most Preferred Option

4.37 Towards the end of the consultation period when the consultees’ preferred option was becoming clear, members of the School Organisation Project Team held a series of meetings with key individuals associated with the Council’s main partners in the provision of 11-19 education in the Carlisle area. The purpose of these meetings was to gauge how they felt about Option 4, the emerging most favoured option.

4.38 A joint meeting of representatives (eg headteachers and chairs of governors) from those partner bodies followed on 22 September. At that meeting, the previously expressed indications of the position of partners were checked out and where appropriate, clarified and adjusted.

4.39 The informal indications of the views of partners on Option 4 which came out of those meetings are set out in Appendix I.

4.40 Additionally, discussions with Carlisle City Council’s Chief Executive indicate contentment with Option 4.

Establishing a Way Forward

General Background

4.41 The consultation document pointed up the issue of the impending fall in pupil numbers and the consequential increase in the proportion of unfilled school places leading to the ineffective use of resources if left unaddressed. It also

of 22


indicated that educational standards and achievements in secondary education in the area could and should be better.

4.42 The Carlisle LPG felt that for things to stay as they are was not a tenable proposition. A large majority of those who responded directly to the question regarding the status quo agreed with the LPG. This sends a strong message to Members that change is wanted and justified.

A Broad Consensus

4.43 None of the four options set out in the consultation document can be affected successfully without significant capital resources. There is an earmarked allocation of £30m from Government to ‘regenerate’ secondary education in the area on the back of the January 2005 floods. One of the main conditions to be met for that allocation to be released is the existence of a good measure of consensus on a way forward.

4.44 Arguably such a broad consensus does exist. The options which were mainly about the city centre / learning village solution (Options 3 and 4) were much more strongly supported than the dispersed models (Options 1 and 2). Of those preferring options focussing on centralised provision, over twice as many preferred Option 4 to Option 3. Furthermore, only 25% of respondents were against Option 4. There also appears to be a preparedness to support or accept Option 4 as the way forward on the part of the Council’s partners ie the schools, the college, the LSC and both diocesan authorities.

4.45 For the reasons set out above, as well as the strong commitment made during the consultative process to listen to and heed the views of consultees, Members will want to seriously consider supporting Option 4 as the way forward.

4.46 Within Option 4 there is the closure of Lochinvar School. There is also the development of either an Academy on the St. Aidan’s site with both St. Aidan’s and NCTC closing or the retention of St. Aidan’s with NCTC closing and its catchment area being included in the catchment area of St. Aidan’s School. These issues need to be considered in order to determine a potential way forward based on and in line with Option 4.

Lochinvar School

4.47 Firstly, with regard to Lochinvar School, although the consultation paper indicated that it could be retained, its closure was included in all of the four options because it was perceived that it would not be viable in the near future due to the roll falling below 100 pupils and the current budget deficit. It was felt that its retention was not in the best interests of the young people of Longtown and the surrounding area. These issues are covered on page 16 of the consultation document.

4.48 During the consultative process and at the meeting with representatives of the working party which formulated the four alternative options, the Authority’s pupil projections were questioned. The point being made was that there were likely to be more pupils than the Authority was projecting. Taking an historic look at the projections for the school, they have

of 22


consistently predicted significantly more pupils each year than the school actually ended up with. Although some housing development for the area is planned, there is no reason to believe that the pupil projections understate the likely future pupil roll.

4.49 The consultation document recognised the economic, social and regeneration-related issues which might arise from the closure of Lochinvar School. The alternative options generated locally were a direct attempt to avoid the prospect of that kind of impact.

4.50 The alternative options do not seem to deal with the priority of the educational interests of and outcomes for local young people. They do have some limited surface attraction, but they appear to be generally unworkable and non-viable.

4.51 It would seem perverse to undertake this kind of comprehensive review of 11-19 provision in the Carlisle area for the future without dealing with the issues surrounding Lochinvar School.

4.52 In terms of alternative provision, a survey of parents of secondary and primary school children living in Lochinvar School’s catchment area has been conducted recently. Parents were asked about preferences for alternative provision in relation to the two Cumbrian secondary schools whose catchment areas border on that of Lochinvar School, ie William Howard and Trinity Schools. On the basis that Trinity School remains on its present site, 83% of parents indicated they would prefer William Howard School and 12% Trinity School. There was a greater support for William Howard from the parents of primary and pre-school pupils than those with secondary age children. There was a clear majority preferring William Howard from parents living in Longtown itself and the areas to the south and west of the town. The response rate of over 40% gives confidence in the use of this data.

4.53 The case for the closure of Lochinvar seems overwhelming and the alternative school preferred by parents is clear.

An Academy

4.54 Those who expressed a clear view on the position of Academies were fairly evenly split, but with rather more against than for. With the vast majority (90%) ‘silent’ on the issue, it seems reasonable to conclude that there is no great concern about the possibility of an Academy for the city. Carlisle College and a number of other partners and key stakeholders welcomed this possibility.

4.55 Given that an Academy would bring additional capital resources, enable the earmarked £30m to do a better job than otherwise would be possible and introduce a dynamic and fresh dimension to secondary provision in the city, Members may well conclude that it should be part of the way forward.

of 22


The Way Forward Under Option 4

4.56 In line with what has been said above, a possible way forward based on Option 4 is set out below:

• Caldew School is retained with the possibility of limited investment in its accommodation.

• James Rennie is retained as it is and the school will continue to play its part in the provision for children with special needs.

• The closure of Lochinvar School is proposed by the Council with its catchment area being added to that of William Howard School.

• Morton School is retained with investment in its facilities and a reduction in its capacity to around 850 places.

• Newman School is retained with the possibility of investment to improve its specialist facilities.

• Moves to establish an Academy on the St. Aidan’s School site are supported by the Cabinet. If an Academy were to be established, the Council would need to propose the closure of St. Aidan’s and NCTC. Should attempts to secure an Academy prove to be unsuccessful, the Council would propose the closure of NCTC with its catchment area being added to that of St. Aidan’s School.

• Trinity School remains on its present site but is ‘downsized’ to a capacity of 1,500 pupils through the redevelopment of its accommodation.

• William Howard School is retained, its catchment area extended to include that of Lochinvar School, its capacity temporarily increased to accommodate ex-Lochinvar pupils and some investment made in its specialist facilities.

• The establishment of a 14-19 centre, with its accommodation being created as part of the second phase of the development of Carlisle College, is supported by the Council.

The Next Steps and Transitional Arrangements

General

4.57 Agreeing a broad way forward is just the start of the change process. Much work and activity on a range of fronts on the part of Council officers and partner organisations over an extended period of time will be necessary to make progress towards and achieve implementation. Decisions by the Cabinet, the School Organisation Committee and others will be required further down the line.

4.58 It is important to set out for Members the scale and scope of the kind of action involved. This is categorised and outlined in the remainder of this section of the report.

of 22


Early Further Individual Meetings with Partners

4.59 The successful implementation of the potential way forward is in part dependant on the cooperation of schools with the Council and collaboration between schools. At the meeting of partners referred to in para 4.38, there was a general commitment expressed to making such a contribution.

4.60 Very shortly after the Cabinet meeting it is intended that further meetings be held with partners to identify outstanding issues and come to agreements on various details associated with their part in the agreed way forward.

The Publication of Formal Proposals

4.61 The recommendations if accepted as they stand mean that, potentially, the Council would publish formal proposals to close three of the area’s secondary schools.

4.62 As far as Lochinvar is concerned, the intention would be, subject to the call-in procedures, to publish the statutory proposals on 3 November.

4.63 In the event of moving ahead with an Academy, proposals to close both St Aidan’s and NCTC would be published at the appropriate time. If there is not to be an Academy in the city, a formal proposal to close NCTC would be made as soon as that outcome was clear.

4.64 The responsibility for taking decisions on formal proposals is currently in the hands of the School Organisation Committee. The Committee is, however, to be disbanded and this is set to occur between May and September 2007. Its decision-making powers will then revert back to the County Council.

Developing the Transitional Partnership – Lochinvar and William Howard Schools

4.65 An embryonic transitional partnership was being explored at the time the consultation document was written.

4.66 Since then further discussions have taken place between the headteachers and senior staff of both schools to look at transitional arrangements and partnership working. The aim is to ensure that the best possible education provision is maintained for all of the pupils at William Howard and Lochinvar Schools during any period of transition.

4.67 These discussions, which are facilitated by school improvement and other officers, are ongoing. The governors of both schools have been kept fully in the picture regarding the content and outcomes of these discussions.

4.68 If the Cabinet decides to progress the closure of Lochinvar School, the pace of discussions needs to accelerate particularly in relation to those children whose parents are currently in the process of expressing a preference regarding their secondary education with effect from September 2007.

of 22


Supporting the Longtown Community

4.69 As is recognised elsewhere in the report, there may well be negative economic and other community-related impacts of the closure of Lochinvar School.

4.70 It is important for the Council to do all it can to support the local community should Lochinvar School close. There are potential roles to be played by more than one directorate.

4.71 There would be a need to consider how the facilities and services provided on the campus and accessed by the community could be retained or replaced. These include the swimming pool, the all-weather surface, the library, the embryonic children’s centre, non-school services for children generally and adult education. Support in terms of the economy of the area will be particularly important.

Pursuing the Academy Possibility

4.72 A couple of weeks ago a local businessman went public on his willingness to act as a lead sponsor for an Academy for the city and to commit £500k sponsorship money to the project. He is looking for other locally-operated businesses to join him in a sponsoring consortium.

4.73 If an Academy possibility is to be pursued, the Council will want to encourage the development of such a consortium which at this point looks to have a good chance of success. Once sponsorship is secured, the next step is the production of an Expression of Interest to the DfES. Discussion and negotiation with the sponsors on its content so that it reflects the section covering Academies in the strategic framework for school organisation approved by Cabinet in May 2006 will be necessary and important.

4.74 The Council will want to remain involved in the stages that follow the Expression of Interest. It may also wish to consider whether to support the sponsorship consortium with a revenue contribution towards the total of £2m required. It could do this over, or at any point during, the five year period for acquiring that sum.

The 14-19 Centre

4.75 The planning for the operation of the centre is currently being considered by a small working group. This is dealing with issues such as governance, on-going funding and the services to be provided. It is likely that the centre will be involved in direct curriculum delivery, possibly with an emphasis on vocational education, and a wide range of services for young people in the target age group.

4.76 The Council needs to play its part in these discussions, to consider with the non-city centre schools the transport issues involved in accessing the centre and to give that thought to making a capital contribution to the second phase of Carlisle College’s redevelopment project.

of 22


Securing the Capital Resources Earmarked by Government

4.77 When the £30m provisional allocation related to the floods was made it was stressed that the release of funding would be subject to certain conditions being met. The ones which were about having a strategic approach and achieving a broad consensus on a way forward can be said to have been met.

4.78 The others which need further work and discussion are:-

• Producing a satisfactory strategic business case to justify the investment involved.

• Making a substantial local contribution alongside the Government’s money. A possible figure for this of £10m was included in the consultation document.

4.79 It is now clear that Government is anxious that a final decision on the allocation be taken very soon. Consequently, there is an urgent need to get in a position to satisfy these two outstanding conditions. At the further meetings with partners mentioned in para 4.38 items for discussion will be the contribution of schools’ formula capital and in the case of the two voluntary aided schools, the financial responsibilities of the governors.

Allocation of Capital Resources and Planning the Building Projects Involved

4.80 No detailed work has yet been done on the specific building projects which would be associated with Option 4. Whether or not there is to be an Academy will clearly affect the overall capital resource available.

4.81 The detailed planning relating to the consequences for the school infrastructure should begin as soon as possible after the way forward is agreed. There are obviously some decisions to make on what is to happen now as a result of the review and the implementation of its outcomes and what waits for the Building Schools for the Future resources to come on stream for Cumbria. Of course, whatever is necessary to secure the implementation of the key elements of the way forward must be given priority.

4.82 Decisions on the precise sizes of schools in terms of the number of places will be part of the upcoming planning process.

4.83 Given that the DfES wants the Authority to move as quickly as possible to utilise the £30m earmarked capital resources, assuming that the business case prepared justifies their release, it is important to attempt to fast track progress without cutting corners.

4.84 For this reason, working with the Council’s strategic partner, Capita Symonds, an outline approach has been developed and agreed which involves viewing the various projects at individual schools as a single programme and appointing a single contractor and design team to scheme up and undertake all of the work involved.

of 22


4.85 This outline approach has been accepted by all of the schools involved but needs urgent further development and discussion with the Council’s partners and swift action on the procurement front.

Admissions / Catchment Areas

4.86 There was a general concern voiced at the meeting with partners held on 22 September that the admission arrangements – policies and practices of all of the secondary schools in the area needed, in the future, to reflect a more trusting and collaborative approach.

4.87 The suggestion was made on that occasion that there should be a joint meeting of all schools as soon as possible after the Cabinet meeting to discuss solely issues relating to admissions in the context of a revised network and different sizes of schools.

Transport and Traffic Issues

4.88 During the consultation process transport and traffic issues featured quite strongly. There are a number of dimensions to the concerns felt and a range of possible responses to them if Option 4 is to be pursued. These include:-

• Seeking a dialogue with Stagecoach (and potentially other providers) regarding the possibilities of a public service between Longtown and Brampton and whether public transport services accessed by pupils might be varied to complement the ‘Learning Village’ concept.

• Considering whether any highways-related responses might bring about the alleviation of traffic congestion and a greater feeling of self-containment in the area around the city centre schools and Carlisle College.

Assessing / Funding the Transitional Costs

4.89 It is anticipated that the transitional costs will be contained within existing and overall future budgetary provision.

4.90 A strategic group and a local group of relevant officers and representatives of partners, including schools, have been formed to work on a range of different kinds of transitional arrangements. Included in this will be work to assess the costs involved.

5.0 OPTIONS

5.1 In section four of the report a possible way forward is identified and this is reflected in the recommendations.

5.2 Members can agree to move ahead on the basis of this identified possibility, suggest variations to it or adopt on entirely different approach.

of 22


6.0 CONCLUSION

6.1 The consultation on the planning of 11-19 education in the Carlisle area represented by far the most comprehensive consultative exercise relating to school organisation in a single geographical area ever undertaken by the Council.

6.2 The whole strategic approach to reviewing the school network in the county is based on the presumption that things need to change if we are to offer our young people in the future the best possible education that the available resources can provide. This was certainly the view of the LPG for Carlisle who formulated the options contained in the consultation document. With the respondents sharing that position outnumbering those content with the status quo by three to one, this feedback supports strongly making changes to existing provision.

6.3 Secondary school provision in Carlisle itself is currently inequitable. Two of the city centre schools are popular with parents. The two schools on the edge of the city centre are much less so. The tendency is for parents who have aspirations for their children and personal resources choose the city centre leaving the schools in the west and the east of the city with low numbers and some challenging pupils.

6.4 Standards are lower here, and in the case of NCTC to the point where there is great concern. Standards at Morton have improved. The proposed building of a significant number of new homes in that area, together with a down-sized Trinity might see that school become more successful. Trinity school itself wants to downsize and it is likely that a smaller school with a better environment and better facilities could raise standards. An Academy would be likely to give a new impetus to raising standards, opportunity and aspiration for the young people of southeast Carlisle.

6.5 NCTC is the school which meets (or almost meets) the criteria for establishing an Academy. The low standards and high levels of deprivation relating to that school influenced the Government’s decision to allow work on the possibility of an Academy to proceed. If an Academy is created in the centre of the city it might still be possible to ensure that services and facilities are provided for communities away from the centre. This would be enabled by the new sponsorship arrangements which could provide revenue funding of up to £200k each year for creative and innovative ways of engaging young people and their families in education. Outreach provision, including adult education, a range of services for families, and recreational and study facilities could be established on the NCTC site.

6.6 Option 4 has been supported by the majority of respondents to the consultation. This is no doubt in part because those respondents already send their children to city centre schools. However, there are powerful educational arguments for Option 4. Collaboration between the schools in the centre would be easier. Delivery of the new 14 to 19 curriculum would be facilitated, particularly with a 14 to 19 centre. This would help with this delivery in curriculum areas which demand high level equipment and facilities, provide services for young people, and potentially have social and study areas. Joint governance would allow all providers to work together to

of 22


create a range of curriculum choice for young people which we have not seen before in Carlisle.

6.7 The city centre solution could allow the creation of a campus for young people which would give them all the educational and social opportunities they would need during the school day, and afterwards. There would be new facilities on the campus which could be shared, a theatre or performance suite and specialist sporting areas, for example. Dedicated school transport could unload inside an otherwise pedestrianised area on Strand Road.

6.8 Three schools would be on the “outside” of the campus: Caldew, Morton and William Howard. Young people attending these schools should nevertheless have the same opportunities, and transport and timetabling arrangements would need to take this into account.

6.9 We must recognise and try to mitigate the effect on the community in and around Longtown of the potential closure of Lochinvar School. Arguments have been put forward about the damaging social and economic effects of this. However, there is a balance of benefit here. As was said in the consultation document, key to the Longtown area’s prosperity is good quality education for its young people. Furthermore, the Council’s “Vision”, adopted in February this year, is clear in its insistence on priority for learners in school organisation change. The alternative scenarios put forward to keep secondary education in Longtown involve too high a risk that learners’ attainment, standards and achievement will not be sustained.

6.10 There is the opportunity to re-invent the whole of secondary education in the city itself at the same time, particularly with the Academy option, which brings an extra £30m, raising the total amount of capital resource available to around £70m and allowing much more to be done to ‘re-create’ the other schools. Whilst standards and achievement are about more than buildings, new learning environments can bring about a sea change in young people’s motivation and aspiration. Allied to new relevant curriculum possibilities, enabled by new facilities and new partnerships, our young people could be given the life chances and choices they deserve. There are powerful social and economic arguments for change which would also contribute much to the broader plans for the city’s renaissance.

6.11 Given that there has been some uncertainty brought about by the Council positioning itself to be able to bring about change, it is crucial that Cabinet identifies a clear way forward that is then vigorously pursued and implemented. Representatives of all members of the family of education providers are as one in giving a strong commitment to making whatever is agreed work for the future benefit of all of the young people in the area.

Jim Mitchell, Manager/Coordinator, School Organisation Project 6 October 2006

of 22


APPENDICES Appendix A − School Organisation Forum Membership List Appendix B − Carlisle Local Partnership Group Membership List Appendix C − ‘Planning 11-19 education for the Carlisle area – A consultation

document’ Appendix D − CN Research report on ‘Planning 11-19 education for the Carlisle

area’ Appendix E − Notes of consultation meetings held with school staff and

governors Appendix F − Notes of Neighbourhood Forum meetings Appendix G − Responses from organisations / groups Appendix H − ‘Four Options to Keep Secondary Education in Longtown’ Appendix I − Position of Stakeholders IMPLICATIONS Staffing: There are real/potential implications for staff working in

schools which might be the subject of school organisation change.

Financial: Revenue The potential implications concern the use of existing resources rather than absolute fluctuations in budget levels overall. Moreover school organisation change can result in a more cost effective use of resources.

: Capital There are clearly capital expenditure implications involved when implementing the kinds of potential school organisation change covered by the report. Capital resource issues are dealt with at various points in the report and appendices.

Electoral Division(s): All Carlisle Local Committee Members; Alston and East Fellside; Bowness, Thursby and Caldbeck; and Greystoke and Hesket.

Executive Decision Yes

Key Decision Yes

If a Key Decision, is the proposal published in the current Forward Plan? Yes

Is the decision exempt from call-in on grounds of urgency? No

N/A If exempt from call-in, has the agreement of the Chair of the relevant Overview and Scrutiny Committee been sought or obtained?

No Has this matter been considered by Overview and Scrutiny? If so, give details below. PREVIOUS RELEVANT COUNCIL OR EXECUTIVE DECISIONS Cabinet, 7 September 2005. Cabinet, 28 February 2006 Cabinet, 2 May 2006.

of 22


CONSIDERATION BY OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY The Children and Young People’s Scrutiny Panel received reports on the strategic approach at its meetings on 5 October 2005, 1 February 2006, 22 March 2006 and 12 July 2006. The Panel will continue to be regularly up-dated on progress regarding its implementation. BACKGROUND PAPERS School Organisation Plan 2003-2008 ‘Enhancing Lives Through Learning – A Vision for Schools in Cumbria’ ‘Strategic Framework for School Organisation Change – Guidance for Local Partnership Groups (LPGs)’ RESPONSIBLE CABINET MEMBER Philip Chappelhow Cabinet Member for Children’s Services Contact: Jim Mitchell, Manager/Coordinator, School Organisation Project

Tel No 01228 606030 Mobile No 07971446247 Email address: [email protected]

cabinet paper no. meeting date: 17 october 2006 from ...councilportal.cumbria.gov.uk/data/county...

Documents