Committee Report: Shakerley C of E voluntary-controlled primary school

Report to:	Children's Services Panel Cabinet
Date:	9 November 2006 16 November 2006
Subject:	Shakerley C of E voluntary-controlled primary school
Report of:	Director of Children and Young People's Services
Contact officer:	Avril Walton - 01942 486004 A.Walton@wiganmbc.gov.uk Chris Parry - 01942 486035 c.parry@wiganmbc.gov.uk
Purpose / summary:	To: inform members of the outcome of the informal consultation on the proposal to close Shakerley C E Primary School; and request permission to move to the formal consultation process.
Alternative options considered and reason for selecting the one recommended:	These are discussed in the report.
Recommendation / decision:	That the Director of Children and Young People's Services move to the formal consultation process on the closure of Shakerley C E Primary School on 31 August 2007 by: publishing a statutory notice to close the school; and naming Hindsford CE and St George’s Central CE primary schools as receiving schools in the notice.
Key Decision:	This report involves a key decision within ground 2 . The decision made as a result of this report will be published within 48 hours and cannot be actioned until five working days have elapsed after that (making a total of seven working days after the meeting) i.e. before 28 November 2006
Implications:
Financial:	The closing of Shakerley will result in improved value for money within the Dedicated Schools Budget making approximately £185,000 per annum revenue savings. Approximately £243,208 of backlog of repairs will be removed from the Education Asset Management Plan.
Staffing:	If the school were to close, the permanent staff would be supported in finding alternative employment.
Policy:	Wigan Strategy for School Places and Buildings.
Equal Opportunities - Has a Diversity Impact Assessment been conducted?	Yes
Wards affected:	Tyldesley
Special Interest Members – Which have been consulted	None

Tracking/Process:

Panel	Overview & Scrutiny	Cabinet	Council
	Consultation	Ward Members	Partners
	15/09/2006-13/10/2006	-	-
09/11/2006	-	16/11/2006	-

List of Background Papers in accordance with Section 100D of the Local Government Act 1972:

Document	Date	File Reference	Place of Inspection
School Organisation Plan and Wigan Strategy for School Places	2006	School Organisation	Progress House, Westwood Park Drive, Wigan, WN3 4HH
Responses to consultation	September-October 2006	Shakerley C E Primary School	Progress House, Westwood Park Drive, Wigan, WN3 4HH

Proper Officer	G. Rowney
Date	6th November 2006

1.0 Background

1.1 On 15 June 2006, Cabinet was informed that Ofsted had placed

Shakerley C E Primary school in Special Measures. There are various options available to the authority in such circumstances. These range from an action plan to turn the school around through to closure.

1.2 On 13 July 2006, Cabinet considered a further report which recommended that the Director of Children and Young People's Services take the necessary action to close Shakerley C E Primary School. The report also advised that Hindsford C E Primary School and St George's Central CE Primary School, Tyldesley be named as receiving schools and that they have enough places in all but one year groups to accommodate pupils from Shakerley CE.

1.3 Cabinet agreed the recommendation and the informal consultation on the closure proposal took place between 15 September 2006 and 13 October 2006.

2.0 The informal consultation process

2.1 The LA produced a consultation document (Appendix 1) that was sent to parents, staff, governors and other interested parties as well as being made available to members of the local community.

2.2 Consultation meetings were held as follows:

Date	Meeting
27 September 2006	Parents and members of the public
2 October 2006	St George's Central C E governors
9 October 2006	Shakerley C E - separate meetings for staff and governors
11 October 2006	Hindsford C E governors

2.3 We also offered parents of Shakerley pupils individual meetings with LA officers. The parents/grandparents of 11 families took up this offer. In total they had 13 children at the school. One parent of a child at Shakerley pre-school also attended.

3.0 Response to the informal consultation

3.1 Notes of the meetings detailed in 2.2 are attached as follows:

Meeting	Appendix
Parents and members of the public	Appendix 2
Shakerley C E staff	Appendix 3
Shakerley C E governors	Appendix 4
St George's Central C E governors	Appendix 5
Hindsford C E governors	Appendix 6

3.2 A summary of the responses given at the individual meetings with parents is attached at Appendix 7. Some of these parents also attended the public meeting and sent in written responses.

3.3 Written responses to the consultation were received as follows:

Type of written response	Number of responses
Letter from Shakerley CE governing body (appendix 8)	1
Letter from Shakerley Community Partnership (appendix 9)	1
Response form included in consultation document	43
Batch circular letter (photocopies of the same letter)	307 copies (on receiving an acknowledgement, some parents contacted the LA to say they had not sent a letter)
Email petition from Shakerley residents	1 with 22 names (7 of whom also completed a response form)
Individual letters	3

Appendix 10 contains summaries of the response forms, batch circular letter, petition and individual letters.

4.0 Comments on the main areas of concern raised in the consultation responses

4.1 Letter from Shakerley CE governing body

4.1.1 The school serves the second most disadvantaged area in the Borough: over 60% of our children are entitled to Free School Meals and 50% have Special Educational Needs, including a significant number with emotional and behavioural difficulties.

The IDACI (Income Deprivation Affecting Children Index) shows that Shakerley is the 12th most deprived area in the Borough. Shakerley CE which draws the majority of its pupils from the Shakerley area has the 3rd most disadvantaged school population in the Borough. Over 60% children are entitled to free school meals.

Over 50% of the children do have special education needs, compared to an average of 20-25%.

The contextual value-added scores for the school, which take levels of deprivation into account, show that the school is not achieving the educational standard it should.

4.1.2 The Nurture Group has had outstanding results in turning around the education prospects of many of our pupils

The Nurture Group has had a positive effect on pupils' social development. However educational standards at the school, as identified by Ofsted and the SATS results, are not high enough.

4.1.3 We disagree that despite support Shakerley C E school has failed to improve since 2002. Senior managers and governors have acted to address the weaknesses in teaching in some year groups.

The Ofsted report of 14 June 2006 is attached at appendix 11.

Ofsted inspectors are independent of the school and local authority and it is their view that 'There has been a deterioration in children's academic standards and achievement and, overall, measures taken to improve things have had too little impact.' Ofsted also states that the school's evaluation of its own performance is 'too positive' and that 'given the inadequate level of improvement since the last inspection [October 1999], the school is not showing sufficient capacity for improvement.'

4.1.4 Advisers and consultants had repeatedly confirmed that these measures [4.1.3] were appropriate; improvements had been made and are ongoing.

LA officers have not confirmed this. Section 4 of the LA Action and Support Plan (appendix 12), prepared following the Ofsted inspection, gives details of the intensive support given to the school since 2003, including 2 periods of support from a seconded headteacher in 2004.

Such intensive support would not have been given if it was felt that sufficient improvement was being made.

4.1.5 The LA has specific powers to intervene in schools causing concern. At no time did Wigan LA issue a formal warning notice, nor even an informal warning, to the Governing Body.

The LA, in collaboration with the school, identified that support was needed to improve standards. This was put in place with the full co-operation of the school and is evidenced in the Action Plan.

A formal warning is a last resort and can only be issued if the school is not collaborating and working with the LA. This was not the case.

Prior to the inspection LA officers had discussed conducting a school review, again in collaboration with the school. This is only suggested when there are concerns about a school and could have led to the school being identified as a 'school of concern'. A school review is the only circumstance in which LA officers can actually observe lessons.

4.1.6 LA advisers and consultants have regularly and consistently praised the educational provision and quality of leadership at the school.

The LA advisers work in partnership with the school and always try to be positive. However, LA advisers cannot observe lessons first-hand in the way that Ofsted inspectors can. They are reliant on information given by the headteacher. The LA therefore has no observational evidence on which to judge standards but has praised the school on the nurturing environment of the school.

If a school review had taken place, it would have been the first opportunity for the LA to make hard, first-hand judgements about teaching at the school.

4.1.7 Why was special measures used as the determining factor in the future of the school?

There has been concern about the viability of the school because of low pupil numbers for some years. In addition, there have been concerns about standards and pupil achievement, resulting a great deal of LA support for the school since 2002.

When Ofsted place a school in special measures, the LA must consider closure as one of the options and the above concerns were the determining factors.

4.1.8 External Advisers who have guided governors in the Headteacher’s performance management review have commented on the exceptional quality of education at the school.

The LA cannot comment on what external advisers may have said about quality of education at the school.

However, the role of the external adviser is to agree the Headteacher's performance targets, judge whether those targets have been met and advise governors. The external adviser does not go into classrooms, look at pupil's work or talk to other staff.

4.1.9 The Nurture Group has won a national award and the school has also received an award for inclusion.

The LA acknowledges that the Nurture Group is very successful and that the school has a very caring and inclusive ethos.

4.1.10 The latest key stage 2 SATS results show that standards at the school have improved.

SATS results for 2002-2006 are attached at appendix 13. These show:

Key stage 2

In English the school's results have been consistently significantly below both the LA and national averages at Level 4+ and Level 5 since 2002. They have remained below the DfES 'floor' target of 65%.
In mathematics the school's results at Level 4+ were consistently well below LA and national averages between 2002 and 2005 and were below the DfES 'floor' target of 65%. Whilst results for 2006 were better they were still below the LA and national average. Results at Level 5 are consistently well below average.
In science the school's results have remained consistently significantly well below both LA and national results since 2002 at both Level 4+ and Level 5. They have similarly remained below the DfES 'floor' target of 65%.
In all subjects there has been fluctuation in the results year on year since 2002. Whilst the improvement in the results for mathematics in 2006 is welcomed, there is no evidence to suggest that the improvement is sustainable.

Key stage 1

In reading for 2006 the school's results were significantly well below both LA and national results at all levels. This has been the trend since 2002.
In writing for 2006 the school's results are again significantly below LA and national results at all levels. This has been the trend since 2002 and no children have achieved level 3 during this period.
In mathematics in 2006 the results are below both LA and national results at all levels. This has again been the trend since 2002.

The Fischer Family Trust uses information on deprivation to compare attainment between schools serving similar communities and children of similar socio-economic backgrounds. This is used to give the contextual value-added score for school attainment. For 2005-2006 and earlier years, the contextual value-added scores show that pupils at Shakerley CE are not achieving the levels they should at Key Stage 1 or 2.

Predictions for Key Stage 2, based on the socio-economic background of children at the school and attainment at Key Stage 1, show that this will continue to be the case for the next 4 years.

4.1.11 Small schools have many advantages over larger ones.

In a small school there will be smaller teaching groups and children may all know each other. However, small schools present significant disadvantages.

Can be difficult to manage the national curriculum because there are smaller numbers of teaching staff.
One absent or weak member of staff makes up a high percentage of the staffing complement.
Recruitment and retention of staff can be difficult.
Unpredictable budgets can make medium and long-term planning difficult.
A higher proportion of the budget is spent on fixed costs such as buildings and management.
The number of small schools also has a direct impact on all school budgets as the Individual School Budget (the total budget for all schools) is spread thinly over a large number of schools.

4.1.12 Pupil numbers at the school have suffered because of the long-standing threat of closure. If this threat were removed, numbers would improve as the school would be first choice for people living in the area.

The Shakerley estate does not have enough children to maintain a one-form entry primary school and the school does not generally import children from outside the area.

There were 23 children living in the Shakerley area admitted to Reception classes in September 2006. Of these 5 were admitted to a Catholic primary school (the average in Wigan is 25% Catholic children). If all the non-Catholic families had applied to Shakerley C E, there would only have been an intake of 18 instead of 8.

4.1.13 There is not the same expertise in Nurture Groups or inclusion at other schools.

Shakerley CE does have more experience of nurture groups than many other schools. However, staff would take this expertise with them if they move to other schools.

4.2 The letter from Shakerley CE governing body also contained alternative proposals for the school.

4.2.1 Relocate Tyldesley Children’s Centre onto the school site, bringing Health, Social Services, SureStart and other support services within easy access of the most disadvantaged community in Tyldesley.

The council has no plans to relocate Tyldesley Children's Centre.

4.2.3 Maintain Shakerley CE school as a resourced school for inclusion, Nurture Groups Behaviour and attendance within the Children’s Centre, building on the expertise already here.

LA reviews of Special Needs and Emotional, Behavioural and Social Difficulty provision have recently been completed and did not identify Shakerley as a site for such provision.

4.2.4 Develop the school and on-site Neighbourhood Nursery as a model of excellence in early education and extended school provision, sharing best practice with maintained, voluntary and private providers.

The LA is proposing closure of the school because Ofsted identified that educational standards at the school are inadequate.

4.3 Letter from Shakerley Community Partnership

4.3.1 There is concern that closure will mean the loss of Little Stars Nursery which runs from the school site.

The LA is working with the Shakerley Community Partnership to review early years provision in the area. There will be a separate report to Members when this has been completed.

4.4 Other comments received

4.4.1 There are not enough places/classes will be too big at alternative schools.

Section 5.2 gives details of places available at alternative schools. There are sufficient places in all year groups except year 4 where there is a shortfall of 6 places.

If Shakerley CE closes, parents will be asked for their preference of school and, if necessary, accommodation at the receiving schools can be adapted. Because of the small numbers involved permanent build will not be necessary, but we could use the opportunity to address suitability issues at the schools. Parents may also request places at schools other than the named receiving schools and children must be admitted if there are places.

Children in infant classes cannot be taught in classes of more than 30. This means that mixed-age teaching is sometimes necessary but this happens already at St George's Central because of the admission number (45) and also at Shakerley CE where the small number of pupils does not generate enough budget for a teacher for each year group.

4.4.2 It is too far to travel to alternative schools. Some children will not attend school if it is further away.

The walking distances from Shakerley CE (via main roads) to the named receiving schools are:

Hindsford CE - 0.85 miles
St George's Central CE - 1.02 miles (via main roads)

The walking distances to the 2 schools from the furthest point on the Shakerley estate are:

Hindsford CE - 1.03 miles
St George's Central CE - 1.28 miles

All distances are within the government guidance of 2 miles maximum walking distance for primary age pupils. Catholic children living in Shakerley already travel off the estate to Sacred Heart Catholic Primary school and a number of children already travel to Hindsford CE and St George's Central CE.

The Education Welfare Service will monitor pupil attendance and take action as necessary.

4.4.3 It will be unsettling and disruptive for the children

Moving school will involve some disruption for the children. However, when schools close the staff work closely with the receiving schools to plan the transition and make this as positive as possible. Many children will be moving with their friends.

Research following previous school closures has shown that when pupils transfer school, their attainment changes to reflect that of the receiving school. It is therefore the LA view that, because of the standards at the receiving schools, the Shakerley children's educational achievement will improve despite the change.

5.0 Pupil numbers, surplus places and places available

5.1 Pupil numbers at the school have fallen since the previous report.

School year	Admission no:	R	Y1	Y2	Y3	Y4	Y5	Y6	Total	Surplus
2005-2006	22	14	9	14	13	11	10	14	85	44%
2006-2007	22	8	9	7	10	9	7	8	58	55%

5.2 Places are available at the receiving schools as follows:

	Admission No	R	Y1	Y2	Y3	Y4	Y5	Y6
Hindsford C E	30	20	26	16	27	29	27	28
St George's Central C E	45	32	30	40	37	43	38	29
Total places available		23	19	19	11	3	10	18

5.3 Based on projections for 2009-2010 and 2010-2011, there will be a need for some additional places in Tyldesley for these years. An analysis of preferences and where people live shows that these places will be needed in the south of the area. This, and other areas which are oversubscribed, will be the subject of a further report in January 2007.

6.0 Action taken to address special measures

6.1 Although closure of the school is proposed, it is essential that action is taken to address the issues raised by Ofsted now so that pupils attending the school are not disadvantaged further.

6.2 The LA, with the school, has produced an Action and Support Plan with the aim of the school coming out of special measures by 31 July 2007. Work on the plan will continue whatever the decision on the future of the school. The plan gives details of support given to the school to date, as well as future targets, and is attached at appendix 12.

7.0 Recommendation

7.1 It is recommended that the Director of Children and Young People's Services be requested to publish statutory notices containing a proposal to close Shakerley C E Primary School from 31 August 2007.

7.2 It is also recommended that Hindsford CE and St George’s Central CE be named as receiving schools in the Notices.

8.0 Conclusion

8.1 The viability of Shakerley C E Primary School has been in doubt for a considerable time as numbers on roll have fallen. This causes difficulties in providing a broad balanced curriculum and with staff retention. It also means the school does not provide cost effective education.

8.2 Despite initiatives such as Little Stars Nursery, numbers at the school have not increased. The number of Reception age children on the estate for September 2006, whose parents did not want a Catholic school, show that there are not enough children in the area to sustain a one-form entry primary school.

8.3 Shakerley CE school was placed in special measures by Ofsted in June 2006, despite several years of intensive support from the LA. Although key stage 2 SATS results have improved this year, they are still far lower than Wigan LA or the national average. It is the considered opinion of the LA that this improvement is not sustainable. Key stage 1 results are not as good as last year.

8.4 There are places available for Shakerley CE pupils at the receiving schools, Hindsford CE and St George’s Central CE, and the slight shortage of places in current year 4 will be addressed, if necessary, when parental preferences are known.

8.5 If Shakerley CE is closed, pupils will transfer to viable, sustainable schools, which have higher educational standards, ensuring that their educational needs are best met.

Appendices

Return to Agenda