Agenda item

Report by Assistant Director Education and Skills

The Committee is asked to carry out pre-decision scrutiny of the proposals to reduce surplus primary school places in the Worthing and Durrington area.

47.1     The Cabinet Member for Learning and Skills, Cllr N Jupp, introduced the report highlighting that the reason for reviewing pupil provision across Worthing and Durrington, had been as a response to an approach from schools in the areas asking the local authority to lead on this work as it impacted a range of schools.  The County Council had led a well organised consultation which received a good level of responses and the recommendations in the decision report reflected the outcome and wishes of communities and schools.

47.2     The Assistant Director of Education and Skills reported that this work had been a piece of engagement, for over a year, with schools to model up solutions and proposals.  The consultation had run from November 2022 to January 2023 and had two parts. Firstly, work on the Pupil Admission Numbers (PAN) which needed to be done by the end of January 2023 to implement by September 2024, and on capital reduction of temporary classrooms and investment of capital into SEND provision within the locality of schools.  Secondly, potential work around three schools, two infants and a junior school, to find a more co-ordinated approach. The paper talked through how conclusions were drawn, and the aim would be for the Cabinet Member to take the key decision following consideration of any comments or suggestions by the scrutiny committee, in order to proceed to statutory notices in due course.

47.3     The Committee heard from Cllrs Smith and Baxter, as local Members for the three schools being considered for reorganisation, and they highlighted that:

47.4     Both Members supported the proposals being put forward around the three schools, particularly leaving Springfield as an standalone infant school.

47.5     The service should have involved local members sooner in the process so that they could help officers understand the needs of respondents in their areas.

47.6     The consultation had not been user-friendly, had only been provided online and had not been easy to find on the website.  There had been no translated or printed versions.  Future consultations needed to be inclusive and open to all residents. 

47.7     There had been no support for the community in completing the consultation document.  Schools had offered support for parents.

47.8     The questions in the consultation document were not clear and often there was no option to add comments.  There had also been no option to continue with the status quo.  The survey questions did not fully reflect the information in the consultation booklet.

47.9     Whilst it was good to have an additional 21 SEND places at Chesswood, should there be more aspiration for more places at Whytemead Primary or Downsbrook Junior School, which was a larger school site?

47.10  The sensitivity and timing of communications with schools as changes are implemented needed improvement e.g. not sending just before school close at the end of term, or at busy times of the year.

47.11  In future the service needed to involve local members more and earlier in the process.

47.12  The new governing body needed to consider changes in uniforms, etc, which might have cost implications for parents.

47.13  Thought needed to be given to the use of any redundant buildings, e.g. for SEND support or with borough or district councils.

47.14  It was unclear if newly amalgamated schools would be able to apply for academy status?

47.15  Officers responded that:

47.16  The early co-development work with headteachers, chairs of governors and the County Council had been at the request of schools.

47.17  Schools had been asked to help parents and carers who needed support completing the consultation document.  The offer for translated version had been extended but there had been no requests and one school had said they would manage it.

47.18  The consultation questionnaire had been reviewed by the County Council’s Communications team for access and clarity but officers were grateful for the comments on how to improve consultations in the future, and they would be reviewed.  The intention had been to allow the opportunity for comments on a wider range of options, from which outcomes and suggestions could come forward. 

47.19  The Governing Body of any newly amalgamated school would be able to decide if they wished to join an academy trust.

47.20  The suggestion of an 8 place Special Support Centre (SSC) at Whytemead Primary or Downsbrook Junior School was a lower number of places as it was intended to be for pupils with more complex needs.

47.21  Future use of any empty buildings would be considered by the County Council’s Assets team.  Consideration was always given to how a building can be used in different ways. 

47.22  Members of the Committee asked questions and a summary of those questions and answers follows.

47.23  Falling pupil numbers were a concern in some areas of the county but the Planning School Places strategy showed how occupancy levels were, and had considered new developments, new towns, etc.  Work was underway with a small number of localities where headteachers had raised issues within their communities.  Analysis of local data and trends was critical and ongoing.

47.24  Springfield Infant School children moving into junior provision might not be guaranteed a place at the new Chesswood school.  This was because many of the Springfield pupils come from a much wider catchment area and to guarantee places would disadvantage other children.  Discussions would need to be had with the governing body of the new school to look at the implications and detail of any decision on admissions criteria. 

47.25  For future consultations, it would be good for the Scrutiny Committee to hear feedback from school representatives on how the process went and what could have been done differently.   Members also felt it was the County Council’s responsibility to ensure that parents understood the survey questions and they were asked to explain their objections.

47.26  Language was an issue every year with the school’s admissions process.  Could this be looked at and more support given?

47.27  Modelling had started in 2021 with all Worthing schools and academies.  There had been concern that a new 2FE primary free school in the area with a potential 420 spaces could impact numbers further in other schools.  However, the DFE had now made the decision not to proceed with that school.  Analytics were shared, alongside current pupil admission numbers and the impact of the large number of surplus places was looked at in terms of financial challenges for the schools.  The views of schools and their local knowledge were acknowledged during discussions on possible reductions to the number of school places.  Durrington Infant and Junior schools were admitting children from outside their catchment area, leaving other schools to be under capacity.  The aim was to encourage children to attend local schools as opposed to travelling to different catchment areas.

47.28  The modelling work with schools had raised a wish for more SEND provision across Worthing and Durrington.  A survey question was included to gauge the feeling of the local community to support SEN places.  This was an opportunity to put forward the right proposals for children who might not have much of a voice.  The number of objections could be more to do with placement rather than the principle of creating more SEN places.

47.29  The Chairman challenged the inclusion of a question around a 21-place SSC, given the percentage of objections (around 14%).  Officers expressed that they would have wanted to take account of the strength of feeling and had there been larger objections this is something they would have wanted to have regard to, and further stated that there could be uncertainty about what that (SSC) might mean for admissions to the school.  The Chairman connected this to earlier comments which the Committee had made regarding respondents being well enough informed to understand all the consultation questions.

47.30  The Cabinet Member for Learning and Skills, Cllr N Jupp, thanked the Committee for their comments and questions and was heartened by the comments about the outcomes.  Officers would take on board the comments about the survey questions for future consultations.  He also thanked parents and children for the letters, emails and pictures that he had received.

47.31  Resolved – That the Committee:

1.   Supports the proposals as set out in the draft decision report to meet the aim of reducing surplus places in the Worthing and Durrington area and welcomes how the consultation outcomes have been taken into account.   

2.   Have raised various areas of learning for future consultations to ensure they are inclusive and accessible as outlined in the minutes.  The Committee asks that these are taken away to ensure the purpose of the questions and what people are being asked to respond to are clear in future consultations.  Specific areas mentioned include support in other languages, short specific questions and further opportunities for comments to be made. 

3.   Asked that for future similar proposals, the service consider engaging with the relevant schools and local members at an early stage, including around the consultation content.