HERTFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL

CABINET

MONDAY 5 FEBRUARY 2007 AT 2.00 P.M.

HEMEL HEMPSTEAD PRIMARY REVIEW

Report of the Director of Children, Schools & Families

Authors: Paul Wray, Kate Maguire, Janet Rees

Tel:01992 555860/555864/555813

Executive Member: David Lloyd

  1. Purpose of report

To inform Cabinet of the outcome of the public consultation on proposals relating to the reduction of primary places in Hemel Hempstead, and the recommendation from the Education Panel meeting on 15 January 2007.

  1. Summary

Hemel Hempstead has a large number of surplus primary school places that is forecast to remain roughly the same by 2012/13, but with variations between the planning areas (see table in 4.1 below).

Thecurrent level of surplus in most areas is well above the 5-10% that is recommended by the Audit Commission. Maintaining such a high level of surplus isnot cost effective, and could leave schools at risk of under performance and serious weakness.

The options listed in 4.2 below remove a total of 4.1FE from Hemel Hempstead Primary provision, still leaving a surplus of over 10%. This is a larger surplus than would normally be left by a review of school places, but the County Council is exercising caution because the recently published East of England Plan has indicated an increased level of new housing to be built in Dacorum. Although not all of this will be in Hemel Hempstead, there will be a considerable amount of housing built between now and 2021. Any new large developments would require developers to provide new schools, should the journey to existing schools be unacceptably long.

Recommendations from Education Panel

Following the public consultation, a report was made to the Education Panel meeting on 15 January 2007. At that meeting, the Panel made the following recommendations to Cabinet (please see the map on page 1 of the consultation document, Appendix 1, that shows the planning areas listed below).

North West – proposed reduction of 0.9FE

“To amalgamate MartindaleSchool and RossgateSchool as a 1.5 FE primary school on the Rossgate site.”

North East – proposed reduction of 1FE

“To amalgamate BarncroftSchool and EastbrookSchool as a 1FE primary school on the Eastbrook site.”

West – proposed reduction of 0.9FE

“To close Chaulden Infant and JuniorSchools and relocate PixiesHillSchool to form a 2FE primary school on the Chaulden site.”

East – proposed reduction of 1FE

“To amalgamate BellgateSchool and JupiterDriveSchool as a 2FE primary school on the BellgateSchool site.”

  1. Conclusion

Cabinet is invited to consider the report and the recommendations of the Education Panel.

4.Background

4.1Context

The Hemel Hempstead Primary Review had originally been planned to commence in April 2007, but was brought forward by a year because of the high level of surplus places.

Surplus places in Hemel Hempstead

North West / North East / West / East / South East / Total across the town
Current surplus at reception 2006/07 (including January 07 intake)* / 31.8% (1.4FE) / 30.3%
(2FE) / 20%
(1.3FE) / 19.3%
(1.7FE) / 14.5%
(1.6FE) / 23.18%
(8FE)
Forecast surplus at reception 2012/13 / 28.8%
(1.3FE) / 27.7%
(1.8FE) / 26%
(1.7FE) / 19.3%
(1.7FE) / 10.9%
(1.2FE) / 22.54%
(7.7FE)

*(Source: data obtained direct from schools September 2006)

Surplus places are distributed across the town but are not distributed evenly across all schools, with the surplus being concentrated in certain schools, as shown in the table below.

Numbers on roll as at September 2006

Planning Area / School / Published Admission Number (PAN) / Capacity (PAN x No of Year Groups) / Numbers on roll 06/07
ExcNursery but inc January R intake / No of surplus places / % of surplus places
North West / GadeValley / 30 / 210 / 204 / 6 / 2.8%
Martindale / 30 / 210 / 119 / 91 / 43.3%
Micklem / 30 / 210 / 165 / 45 / 21.4%
Rossgate / 42 / 294 / 236 / 58 / 19.7%
St Cuthbert Mayne RC Jnr / 60 / 240 / 238 / 2 / 0.8%
North East / Aycliffe Drive / 45 / 315 / 283 / 32 / 10.1%
Barncroft / 30 / 210 / 107 / 103 / 49%
Brockswood / 30 / 210 / 138 / 72 / 34.3%
Eastbrook / 30 / 210 / 137 / 73 / 34.8%
Holtsmere End Inf / 60 / 180 / 151 / 29 / 16.1%
Holtsmere End Jnr / - / 240 / 194 / 16 / 6.6%
West / Boxmoor / 30 / 210 / 209 / 1 / 0.47%
Chaulden Inf / 50 / 150 / 93 / 57 / 38%
Chaulden Jnr / 60 / 240 / 97 / 143 / 59.5%
Pixies Hill / 30 / 210 / 204 / 6 / 2.8%
St Rose’s RC Inf / 60 / 180 / 179 / 1 / 0.5%
South Hill / 30 / 210 / 219 / 0
(9 over) / 0
East / Bellgate / 60 / 420 / 165 / 255 / 60.7%
Broadfield Inf / 60 / 180 / 168 / 12 / 6.6%
Broadfield Jnr / - / 240 / 233 / 7 / 2.9%
George St / 30 / 210 / 193 / 17 / 8%
Hammond / 30 / 210 / 193 / 17 / 8%
Hobletts Manor Inf / 60 / 180 / 165 / 15 / 8.3%
Hobletts Manor Jnr / - / 240 / 217 / 23 / 9.5%
Jupiter Drive / 30 / 210 / 107 / 103 / 49%
South East / Belswains / 30 / 210 / 206 / 4 / 1.9%
Chambersbury / 30 / 210 / 184 / 26 / 12.3%
Hobbs Hill Wood / 60 / 420 / 432 / 0
(12 over) / 0
Leverstock Green / 38 / 266 / 252 / 14 / 5.2%
Lime Walk / 30 / 210 / 183 / 27 / 12.8%
Nash Mills / 30 / 210 / 199 / 11 / 5.2%
Reddings / 30 / 210 / 113 / 97 / 46.1%
St Albert the Great RC / 30 / 210 / 208 / 2 / 0.9%
Tudor / 30 / 210 / 153 / 57 / 27.1%
Two Waters / 30 / 210 / 209 / 1 / 0.4%

4.2Options

The following options formed the basis for the public consultation.

North West– proposed reduction of 0.9FE

Option 1:(officer preferred option)

AmalgamateMartindaleSchool and RossgateSchool as a 1.5FE primary school on the RossgateSchool site (this is an increase of 0.1FE which would increase RossgateSchool’s admission number from 42 to 45)

Option 2:CloseMartindaleSchool and expand RossgateSchool to 1.5FE

Option 3:CloseRossgateSchool and relocate MartindaleSchool to the RossgateSchool site as a 1.5FE primary school

North East– proposed reduction of 1FE

Option 1:(officer preferred option)

Amalgamate BarncroftSchool and EastbrookSchool as a 1FE primary school on the EastbrookSchool site

Option 2:CloseBarncroftSchool

Option 3:CloseEastbrookSchool and relocate BarncroftSchool on the EastbrookSchool site as a 1FE primary school

West– proposed reduction of 0.9 FE

Option 1:(officer preferred option)

Amalgamate Chaulden Infant and JuniorSchools and PixiesHillPrimary School as a 2FE school on the Chaulden site

Option 2:ClosePixiesHillSchool and amalgamate Chaulden Infant and JuniorSchools as a 2FE primary school

Option 3:Close Chaulden Infant and JuniorSchools and relocate PixiesHillSchool to form a 2FE primary school on the Chaulden site

East– proposed reduction of 1FE

Option 1:(officer preferred option)

Amalgamate BellgateSchool and JupiterDriveSchool as a 2FE primary school on the BellgateSchool site

Option 2:CloseJupiterDriveSchool

Option 3:CloseBellgateSchool and relocate JupiterDriveSchool on the BellgateSchool site, as a 2FE primary school

4.3Process and timescale

4.3.1 Public consultation on the proposals started on 12 September and finished on 4 December 2006. Prior to this, discussions took place over several months with stakeholders about the need to reduce surplus places, as well as some of the practical implications. These stakeholders included Headteachers, Governing Bodies, local County and District Councillors, MPs, Unions, and other interested representatives.

4.3.2Following these discussions,a long list of options was drawn up by the County Councilfor discussion with stakeholders. These were then evaluated against the four tests listed below, which have been endorsed by the County Council’s Cabinet. A decision was then made by the Director of CSF as to which options should be taken forward to public consultation.

The four tests are that the option should:

  • reduce surplus places and provide places where they are needed to meet demand
  • enhance capacity to raise educational standards, reduce risk of under-performance or serious weakness, and offer extended schools
  • have acceptable implications for building design, environmental impact, and cost
  • have acceptable transitional arrangements for affected pupils.

4.3.3Consultation documents were sent to all parents/carers, governors and staff of the schools affected, as well as to all schools in the area and to all other statutory consultees. Documents were also sent to residents local to the schools, supermarkets, doctors’ surgeries, libraries and Citizen’s Advice Bureaus in the area. In addition, a notice was placed in the local newspaper giving details of the public meetings and how to obtain further copies of the consultation document. The document and response form were also available on HCC’s website. A copy of the consultation document is attached as Appendix 1. The current numbers on roll at the schools potentially affected is attached as appendix 2, as well as in the table in 4.1 above.

4.3.4Twelve public meetings were held in total, one at Eastbrook, one at Barncroft, two at Jupiter Drive, one at Bellgate, two at Pixies Hill, two at Chaulden Juniors (for both the Infant and Junior Schools), one at Rossgate and two at Martindale. These were attended by a total of approximately 486 people. Each of the meetings was chaired by an independent facilitator from Accent (an independent market research company). The meetings were tape recorded, and the tapes transcribed and posted on the HCC website.

4.3.5Meetings were offered to the governing bodies of the schools and representative organisations.

4.3.6If it is decided to publish statutory notice(s) these would run for six weeks during which time comments and objections may be made. If there are objections, the proposal(s) would be determined by the independent School Organisation Committee for Hertfordshire at a meeting on 29 March 2007.

Results of Consultation and Commentary

5.1Responses to the consultation

There were 1102 written responses to the public consultation, verbal contributions from 12 public consultation meetings, and petitions received from the following schools:- Barncroft, Rossgate, Pixies Hill, Jupiter Drive, and a joint petition from Bellgate and Jupiter Drive.

Copies of all responses received plus transcripts of the public meetings are available in the Members’ Room. The consultation document and transcripts from the meetings are published on the HCC website.

Copies of the responses from the following key stakeholders are attached as Appendix 3 to this report:

aGoverning Body of ChauldenJuniorSchool

bFriends of Rossgate Association

cGoverning Body of RossgateSchool

dDacorum Indian Society

eChair of Governors, HeathLaneNursery School

fCouncillor A L Johnsen

gChair of Governors, BarncroftSchool

hGoverning Body, PixiesHillSchool

Two further options were received from stakeholders during the public consultation period, as listed below. These were evaluated against the four tests that are listed in the public consultation document, and also in 4.3.2 of this report.

  1. Amalgamate Chaulden Infant and JuniorSchools as a 1FE school on the Chaulden site (-0.9FE)

This option was rejected for the following reasons. It is the County Council’s policy that a review of school places should, wherever possible, result in the provision of schools not normally smaller than 2FE in size. Larger schools tend to have better financial stability in a falling rolls situation. Reducing the Chaulden Schools to 1FE would be contrary to the County Council’s policy, and would leave 2FE buildings to continue to be maintained for pupil numbers around, or less than, 1FE. This would not be cost effective or conducive to improving educational standards. With one school having a lower level of parental preference than other schools in the area, reducing it to 1FE could leave it potentially vulnerable. Historically, the three 1FE schools (Pixies Hill, South Hill and Boxmoor) have high levels of parental preference, and any surplus has resided at the Chaulden schools.

  1. Amalgamate Chaulden Infant and JuniorSchools as 1FE (-0.9), close MicklemSchool (-1FE) and reduce RossgateSchool to 1FE (-0.4).

This option considers the West and North West planning areas together. It was included in the County Council’s long list of options presented during the stakeholder process, but was subsequently rejected when evaluated against the 4 tests. However, at the request of a stakeholder, it was reconsidered during the public consultation stage.

The option was again rejected for the following reasons. It removes 2.3FE from the West and North West planning areas. The proposal is to remove 0.9FE from each of two areas, totalling 1.8FE. It is felt that removing 2.3FE would remove too many places. However, taking out the reduction of Rossgate from the option (-0.4FE) would equate to the removal of 1.9FE, and this was therefore also considered. It was also rejected, because it does not leave a good geographical spread of schools, since MicklemSchool is placed at the centre of the two planning areas. It would leave only 1FE schools in the West area, one of which has a lower level of parental preference than others, thus leaving it potentially more vulnerable. In addition, with only 1FE schools remaining, there would be insufficient space at any one school for all the Micklem pupils to transfer together, and they would have to be dispersed to several schools.

5.2Key issues raised by respondents during the consultation and officer response

There were some issues raised by respondents that were common to all areas of Hemel Hempstead, and others that were more specific. The general respondent issues are listed first (5.2.1 to 5.2.10), shown in bold for ease of reference, with the officer response immediately after. Area specific issues follow (5.2.11 to 5.2.26).

Issues Common to All Areas

5.2.1The accuracy of the County Council’s forecasting was raised, especially with regard to regeneration and/or new house building in some parts of the town. The County Council uses a forecasting tool that bases its calculation upon the following: NHS data on live births and children aged 0-5 years categorised by postcode and date of birth, actual pupil numbers supplied by schools, new housing developments from local Planning Authorities and District local plans. The accuracy of HCC’s forecasts across the County is within +/-1%, which is within the Audit Commission’s guidelines. They recommend that there should be no more than between 5 and 10% surplus places. To remove 4.1FE from Hemel Hempsteadwould leave a surplus of over 10%, which is above this recommendation. This is because the County Council is exercising caution because of the Regional Spatial Strategy, which has recommended an increase to the amount of housing to be built in the Dacorum area. However, if future new housing were to create unsatisfied demand for school places, then developers would be required to contribute either towards the creation of new places in existing schools, or else provide new school(s) if warranted by pupil numbers and length of journey to existing schools.

5.2.2Reduction of parental choice. It is the case that when there is a high level of surplus places, parents tend to have more choice, although surplus places tend to be concentrated in particular schools. As stated in 5.2.1 above, the Audit Commission recommends a surplus of no more than between 5 and 10%, which allows for parental choice. The surplus in Hemel Hempstead after 4.1FE is removed will still be above 10%.

5.2.3Disruption to pupils. Any school closure will inevitably cause some disruption to pupils. The County Council aims to keep this to a minimum by moving the smallest number of pupils wherever possible, and by amalgamating schools so that all pupils are starting at a new school with new uniform, school name and Governing Body. In Hemel Hempstead, there is one exception to the rule of moving the smallest number of pupils. This is in the West, where it is proposed to move the children from the Pixies Hill site to the Chaulden site, and there are 14 more children attending Pixies Hill than the Chaulden Schools. This is proposed in order to create a full 2FE school. The Chaulden site is the only 2FE site in that area, and Pixies Hill is the nearest school. While a school closure is undoubtedly unsettling for pupils, it is necessary for all concerned (the County Council, school staff, governorsand parents) to manage that transition in order to minimise potential disruption. Based on past reorganisations of school provision, it is HCC’s experience that everyone works exceptionally hard to achieve this end successfully.

5.2.4Disruption to staff. As stated in the consultation document, any school closure means that staff are at risk. That is part of the reason that the officer preferred option is for amalgamation, since most staff would transfer to the new school, although some roles, responsibilities and tasks may be changed depending on the staffing structure and pupil numbers. This does not include the posts of Headteacher and Deputy Headteacher, which would be subject to a different process.

5.2.5Adverse impact of school closure on local communities. While it is natural that a school closure will be resisted locally, the County Council has a duty to provide a good match of pupils with places. Falling pupil numbers can affect a school’s ability to deliver effective education to its children. Schools are mainly funded according to the number of pupils attending, and falling numbers means a decreased income while many of the running costs (such as premises) do not reduce. Therefore, the management of the school can become difficult in maintaining high quality provision on a reducing budget, and retaining and recruiting staff. This can cause instability and affect pupils’ achievement.

5.2.6School/class size and standards. Some respondents expressed a preference to maintain smaller schools because they felt that fewer schools mean larger classes and lower standards. In a situation where there are schools with large numbers of surplus places, having fewer schools results in a better use of resources. It does not mean large classes since all schools have a published admission number and classes will be organised appropriately by the management of the school. Key Stage 1 class sizes are protected by legislation at no more than 30 pupils per teacher. There is not a direct relationship between the size of a school, the standards it achieves and its overall effectiveness. Schools of differing sizes can, and do, perform very well The key factors which contribute to school standards and effectiveness are the quality of leadership and management, and of learning and teaching.

Where these factors are equal, larger (2FE) schools have some significant benefits. The larger budget provides greater flexibility in terms of staffing and resources; there is a better distribution of management responsibilities; there are improved opportunities for staff promotion within the school leading to better capacity to sustain leadership; and consequently the school is less vulnerable to turbulence. Conversely, smaller schools are more susceptible to change, particularly changes of leadership. There have been a number of examples in Hertfordshire of smaller schools becoming very vulnerable when, at time of falling rolls, other significant changes also occur.

5.2.7Preference to maintain the status quo and allow class sizes to reduce. To keep the status quo would mean maintaining a high level of surplus places in Hemel Hempstead, which would spread the funding thinly across schools with surplus places. This is because funding is mostly provided by central government for education on a per capita basis. Therefore, the more empty spaces a school has, the less funding it receives. This impacts on the school’s budget and can affect achievement, as described in 5.2.5 above. Therefore, it can become unviable for schools to function with significant surplus places.

5.2.8Longer journeys to school/increased walking distance. All schools mentioned in the options are less than a mile from the school with which they are partnered under these proposals. The distances between these schools are as follows:

  • Martindale to Rossgate (NW): 666 metres (0.41 mile)
  • Barncroft to Eastbrook (NE):1241 metres (0.77 mile)
  • Pixies Hill to Chaulden (W): 343 metres (0.21 mile)
  • Jupiter Drive to Bellgate (E): 358 metres (0.22 mile)

These distances are all below the statutory walking distance of 2 miles for under-8s and 3 miles for over-8s.