PART 1
(OPEN TO THE PUBLIC)
ITEM NO.
REPORT OF THE LEAD MEMBER FOR EDUCATION
TO THE CABINET MEETING
ON 28 MAY 2003
TITLE : PRIMARY SCHOOL REVIEW
RECOMMENDATIONS :
It is recommended:
(i)
That Members approve the detailed recommendations for each school in
this report.
(ii)
That a public notice is published with regard to:
a.
the closure of Alder Park Community Primary School,
b.
the enlargement of Westwood Park Community Primary School.
(iii)
That Members approve the commencement of the process involving the
Schools Adjudicator regarding the further reductions in admission
numbers and alterations to schools as detailed in the report at paragraph
6.2.
(iv)
That progress in the Review Groups linked to regeneration be the subject
of a further report to Cabinet at a later date.
(v)
That Members ask Salford Diocesan Schools Commission, Manchester
C.E. Diocesan Board of Education and Jewish Community
representatives to bring forward proposals to reduce surplus places in
their schools within the Voluntary Aided sector where indicated.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
(i)
This report informs Members of the outcome of the second informal
consultation process on primary review which took place between
February and April 2003. Some commentary is provided on the
responses received during consultation, but for full notes of the
consultation meetings and written and e-mailed responses received,
Members should see the Second Round Consultation Responses File
lodged in the Members’ Room. The first round Consultation Responses
Files are also available in the Members’ Room
(ii)
The report proposes detailed actions based on the consultation
responses to reduce surplus places in community and voluntary
controlled primary schools. However, detailed actions for the Voluntary
Aided (VA) sector are not included as the LEA is not the admission
authority for these schools and has no powers to bring forward proposals
for them. However, discussions with the VA sector representatives
continue to be pursued with a view to removing surplus places.
(iii)
The recommended level of surplus places across all schools in the City
are as follows:
(iv)
a.
As provided in the OfSTED Judgment Recording Statements (JRS)
Criteria, the recommended level of surplus places is less than 10%
surplus overall, no schools at all with greater than 25% surplus
places and no schools overcrowded by more than 10%.
b.
As detailed in the School Organisation Plan, schools with surplus
places in excess of 16% will be monitored and schools with surplus
places in excess of 20% will trigger action in terms of surplus place
removal.
c.
BVPI 34(a) takes account of the percentage of primary schools with
25% or more surplus places (and at least 30 unfilled places). For
each school which falls into this category, the Council’s score is
affected under the cost-effectiveness section of the Local Public
Service Agreement.
Detailed proposals for each school are in the main body of the report. If
these proposals are implemented in full then the level of surplus across
the City at primary level is projected as follows:
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Overall
Community and
Controlled only
9.8%
10.7%
12.0%
13.2%
14.4%
15.3%
16.7%
17.8%
7.2%
8.2%
9.7%
11.1%
12.6%
13.6%
15.2%
16.4%
The above projections are based on the latest Schools’ Census figures
(January 2003).
Taking into account the impact of the revised Schools’ Census figures, some of
2
the recommendations in this report have changed from the previous report of
19 February 2003, and are underlined in the document.
Full details of Salford Primary Surplus Places Projections (area by area and
totals for the City overall) are attached to this report, at Appendix 1.
BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS:
School Organisation Plan 2002 – 2007, Strategic Review of Primary School
Places Cabinet Report – 22 January 2002, Primary School Review Cabinet
Report 10 September 2002, Primary Review Informal Consultation Document
September 2002, Primary School Review Cabinet Report 19 February 2003
ASSESSMENT OF RISK:
See paragraph (iii) of the Executive Summary.
THE SOURCE OF FUNDING IS:
Normal local budget allocations (including schools’ devolved formula capital
and other sources) and DfES allocated Supplementary Credit Approvals
(SCAs).
LEGAL ADVICE OBTAINED:
School Organisation Committee processes, Admission Arrangements new
processes, Office of the Schools’ Adjudicator.
FINANCIAL ADVICE OBTAINED:
Developed with Corporate Service inputs.
CONTACT OFFICER:
Judy Edmonds, Acting Deputy Director, Tel: 0161 778 0134
WARD(S) TO WHICH REPORT RELATE(S): ALL
KEY COUNCIL POLICIES:
Pledges 1 and 6, Education Development Plan, School Organisation Plan,
Asset Management Plan
DETAILS (Continued Overleaf)
3
Detail
1.
CONSULTATION PROCESS
1.1
Public Meetings
Five public meetings were held across the City between the period of March and April 2003. Details
of the meetings and the concerns / issued raised are detailed below.
(a)
Public Meeting held on 17 March 2003 at Wentworth High School
This meeting was attended by 35 participants.
The concerns / issues expressed were:







why close Alder Park?
language unit and special needs pupils / Sure Start initiative
disruption to pupils and staff
why not close Westwood Park?
funding
will revenue savings go back to schools?
timescales
The full notes of the meeting and any correspondence received are available in the Second Round
Consultation File in the Members’ Room.
(b)
Public Meeting held on 18 March 2003 at Broadwalk Training Centre
This meeting was attended by 18 participants.
The concerns / issues expressed were:






liaison with regeneration bodies and personnel
complaints regarding communications
constitution of the Review Group
problems of getting to meeting
refurbishment versus replacement of schools
uncertainty for staff
The full notes of the meeting and any correspondence received are available in the Second Round
Consultation File in the Members’ Room.
(c)
Public Meeting held on 24 March 2003 at The Albion High School (Mesnefield
Road site)
This meeting was not well attended, with fewer than 10 participants.
The concerns / issues expressed were:



the net capacity / admission process and the related primary review action timescales
financial viability / small schools issues
future prospects for pupil numbers
4
The full notes of the meeting and any correspondence received are available in the Second Round
Consultation File in the Members’ Room.
(d)
Public Meeting held on 25 March 2003 at Irlam and Cadishead Community High
School
This meeting was not well attended, with only one member of the public attending.
The concerns / issues expressed were:


the primary review in general
the implications for Irlam and Cadishead
The full notes of the meeting and any correspondence received are available in the Second Round
Consultation File in the Members’ Room.
(e)
Public Meeting held on 7 April 2003 at Harrop Fold High School (Longshaw Drive site)
This meeting was not well attended, with fewer than 10 participants.
The concerns / issues expressed were:





when will the report go forward and what are the timescales?
why is Alder Park not being amalgamated rather than a closure?
practicalities of building work and suitabilities of both sites, and value for money
future use of school sites and staffing arrangements
future of Sure Start initiative
The full notes of the meeting and any correspondence received are available in the Second Round
Consultation File in the Members’ Room.
1.2
Consultee Responses
An analysis of the written and e-mailed responses received is detailed below. The full texts of these
are available in the Second Round Consultation File in the Members’ Room.
(i)
Kersal, Pendleton, Broughton / Blackfriars

No correspondence was received for this area.
(ii)
Swinton North, Swinton South, Pendlebury and Claremont
Three written communications were received with regard to two schools in this area. The issues can
be broadly summarised as:


(iii)
Proposal to remodel the school and lose surplus places at Summerville Primary School,
Proposed increase in the admission number at Light Oaks Infants School.
Eccles, Winton, Barton
12 written communications were received with regard to six schools in this area, along with one
petition. An additional 21 posters were received from pupils at Alder Park Primary School. The
issues can be broadly summarised as:
5





Proposed increase in the admission number at Monton Green Primary School,
Proposed reduction of admission number at Barton Moss Primary School,
Funding issues with regard to the closure of Alder Park Primary School and enlargement of
Westwood Park Primary School,
Proposals regarding Christ Church CE and Lewis Street Primary Schools,
Objections to the closure of Alder Park Primary School.
(iv)
Weaste, Seedley, Langworthy, Ordsall
Two written communications were received with regard to two schools in this area. The issues can be
broadly summarised as:


Response to the revised proposals for Seedley and Langworthy (with specific regard to the
level of surplus places in the area, the geographical position of the school and other local
schools, standards of education and contribution or other wise to regeneration),
Lark Hill Community Primary School to be included in the Review Group.
(v)
Little Hulton

No correspondence was received for this area.
(vi)
Worsley / Boothstown

No correspondence was received for this area.
(vii)
Irlam and Cadishead
One written communication was received with regard to one school in this area. The issues can be
broadly summarised as:

Proposal for Moorfield Primary School.
(viii)
Other Correspondence
One written communication was received from C.E. Manchester Diocesan Board of Education. The
issues can be broadly summarised as:

Support for the majority of proposals, with specific issues in respect of Church of England
provision in the Ordsall area.
2.
REVIEW GROUPS
2.1
Review Groups are to be established to include the schools (including the VA schools,
representatives of the Diocesan Boards) and the LEA and to seek contributions from
representatives of New Deal for Communities, Seedley and Langworthy Initiative for the
following areas:


2.2
Kersal, Broughton / Blackfriars,
Weaste, Seedley, Langworthy, Ordsall.
We would hope to draw up some initial proposals to reduce surplus places in these areas by
September 2003.
6
3.
WORSLEY AND BOOTHSTOWN
3.1
Recommendations for schools in Worsley / Boothstown are included in the report, and reflect
the level of school place provision required.
4.
PRIORITISATION OF AREAS
4.1
When prioritising the areas for implementing changes, it is clear based upon the current and
projected number of surplus places, that the areas requiring most urgent attention are (a)
Eccles, Winton and Barton, and (b) Weaste, Seedley, Langworthy, Ordsall.
4.2
It is therefore recommended that the Alder Park / Westwood Park and Radclyffe / St.
Clement’s CE proposals are brought to the forefront for immediate action.
4.3
With specific regard to the Radclyffe / St. Clement’s CE proposal, the Targeted Capital Fund
Bid (TCF) submitted to the DfES in December 2002 to fund the amalgamation of the schools
was unsuccessful. However, it continues to be recommended to Members that this proposal
goes forward and that the Council continues to seek ways to fund a new school on the
‘Tamworth Jennings’site.
5.
PERFORMANCE INFORMATION
5.1
Information regarding schools’ performance has been used to inform decisions made relating
to the proposals within this report. This information is attached at Appendix 2.
6.
TIMESCALES AND PROCESSES
6.1
These are indicative timescales and may be subject to amendment.
6.2
School Organisation Committee (SOC) Process
The School Organisation Committee is the body which will determine major school changes
such as closures, new schools, significant enlargements, relocations. The proposals arising
from these recommendations which will need to go before the SOC are for Alder Park /
Westwood Park and Radclyffe / St. Clement’s CE. Proposals cannot be put before the SOC
unless funding is secure. Whereas it is possible to fund the Alder Park / Westwood Park
proposals out of locally allocated budgets, the new school for the Radclyffe / St. Clement’s CE
proposal is beyond that scope, and an agreement will need to be reached with the DfES about
how this project is funded.
SOC Timescale






6.3
Proposed changes in this report approved by Cabinet 28 May 2003
Decision Notice published, which is subject to 5 working days calling period
Notices prepared for publication - June 2003
6 weeks objection / comment period - July 2003
Objections and comments to SOC – August 2003
SOC meets to consider proposals – October 2003
Schools Adjudicator Process
The Office of the Schools Adjudicator determines whether the Council can now alter the
admission numbers which were recently set for September 2004, for all community and
voluntary controlled primary schools. This applies unless the changes are major ones in which
case they go to the SOC as described above. This is a new process and at present it is
7
envisaged that the change will roll out as below. All schools with recommendations for
alteration which are not named in the above SOC section will need to go through this process.
Adjudicator Timescale








Proposed changes in this report approved by Cabinet 28 May 2003
Re-consult headteachers / governing bodies and work up in detail the proposed
changes and funding source. This includes the following actions:
estimates
drawings
funding sources agreed including school contributions
formal consultation with governing bodies
(All to take place before school summer holidays - July 2003)
All of these minor projects approved at Lead Member Briefing - August 2003
Refer proposed changes to Schools Adjudicator
Notify all consultees about procedures – August 2003
Decision of Schools Adjudicator – approximate 7 week process
Notify Governing Bodies and other consultees of the changed arrangements as
determined by the Schools Adjudicator
LEA informs the SOC of the decision of the Adjudicator
7.
CONCLUSION
7.1
The review of community and controlled primary school places must continue to be an
ongoing process which the LEA will pursue in conjunction with schools, governing bodies,
partners and other stakeholders.
7.2
All schools generally need to be monitored and in some cases where small school situations are
developing, there are instances of financial difficulties starting to occur. Given the changes to
schools’ finance, e.g. standards fund, it is more difficult to reliably predict future school
budgets from number on roll. However, we are aware currently of some schools which are
projected to experience financial difficulties over the next 2 – 3 financial years, which may
result in unviability. This situation needs to be continually monitored.
7.4
The proposals outlined in relation to schools in this report are recommended to Members for
approval.
8
A.
KERSAL, BROUGHTON / BLACKFRIARS
(Please note: the proposals for schools in this area which have altered since the
Cabinet report of 19 February 2003, are underlined).
1.
INDIVIDUAL SCHOOL ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
1.1
St. Paul’s CE Primary School
ST. PAUL’S CE KERSAL
A
B
Current Net
Capacity (NC)
Figure
Indicated Admission Limit
207
29
(NC divided by 7 and
rounded down) *
C
D
Number
on Roll
Percentage
Surplus
159
23%
* In accordance with DfES guidelines regarding calculation of admissions limits
1.1.1
It is recommended that members ask officers and the schools governors to work cooperatively to reduce the Net Capacity to no higher than 175, and an admission limit of 25,
which will reduce the surplus to 9%.
1.2
Brentnall Primary School
BRENTNALL
A
B
Current Net
Capacity (NC)
Figure
Indicated Admission Limit
175
25
(NC divided by 7 and
rounded down)
C
D
Number
on Roll
Percentage
Surplus
155
11%
* In accordance with DfES guidelines regarding calculation of admissions limits
1.2.1
At present, the school is showing a surplus of 11%. However, for the immediate future it is felt
that overspill from Marlborough Road Primary School will necessitate the retention of these
places. Accordingly, it is recommended that Brentnall remain with its current capacity and
admission number, but that this situation continue to be monitored.
1.3
Marlborough Road Primary School
MARLBOROUGH ROAD
A
B
Current Net
Capacity (NC)
Figure
Indicated Admission Limit
420
60
(NC divided by 7 and
rounded down)
C
D
Number on
Roll
Percentage
Surplus
505
-20%
* In accordance with DfES guidelines regarding calculation of admissions limits
9
1.3.1
It is recommended that the new admission limit for the school is 60. This will produce an initial
overcrowding of 20%.
1.4
Lower Kersal Primary School
LOWER KERSAL
A
B
Current Net
Capacity (NC)
Figure
Indicated Admission Limit
243
34
(NC divided by 7 and
rounded down)
C
D
Number on
Roll
Percentage
Surplus
181
25%
* In accordance with DfES guidelines regarding calculation of admissions limits
1.4.1
It is recommended that members ask officers and the school governors to work together cooperatively to reduce the Net Capacity to no higher than 196 and an admission limit of 28,
which will reduce the surplus to 7%.
1.5
St. George’s CE Primary School
ST. GEORGE’S CE
A
B
Current Net
Capacity (NC)
Figure
Indicated Admission Limit
175
25
(NC divided by 7 and
rounded down)
C
D
Number on
Roll
Percentage
Surplus
177
-1%
* In accordance with DfES guidelines regarding calculation of admissions limits
1.5.1
It is proposed that this new admission figure be implemented.
1.6
Charlestown Primary School
CHARLESTOWN
A
B
Current Net
Capacity (NC)
Figure
Indicated Admission Limit
181
25
(NC divided by 7 and
rounded down)
C
D
Number on
Roll
Percentage
Surplus
174
3%
* In accordance with DfES guidelines regarding calculation of admissions limits
1.6.1
It is proposed that this new admission figure be implemented.
10
1.7
The Friars Primary School
THE FRIARS
A
B
Current Net
Capacity (NC)
Figure
Indicated Admission Limit
210
30
(NC divided by 7 and
rounded down)
C
D
Number on
Roll
Percentage
Surplus
197
6%
* In accordance with DfES guidelines regarding calculation of admissions limits
1.7.1
It is proposed that this new admission figure be implemented.
1.8
North Grecian Street Primary School
NORTH GRECIAN STREET
A
B
Current Net
Capacity (NC)
Figure
Indicated Admission Limit
341
48
(NC divided by 7 and
rounded down)
C
D
Number on
Roll
Percentage
Surplus
291
14%
* In accordance with DfES guidelines regarding calculation of admissions limits
1.8.1
It is recommended that members ask officers and the school governors to work together cooperatively to reduce the Net Capacity to no higher than 315 and an admission limit of 45,
which will reduce the surplus to 7%.
11
B.
SWINTON NORTH, SWINTON SOUTH, PENDLEBURY, CLAREMONT
(Please note: the proposals for schools in this area which have altered since the
Cabinet report of 19 February 2003, are underlined).
1.
INDIVIDUAL SCHOOLS ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
1.1
Summerville Primary School
SUMMERVILLE
A
B
Current Net
Capacity (NC)
Figure
Indicated Admission Limit
237
33
(NC divided by 7 and
rounded down)
C
D
Number on
Roll
Percentage
Surplus
190
19%
* In accordance with DfES guidelines regarding calculation of admissions limits
1.1.1
It is recommended that members ask officers to work co-operatively with the school governors
to reduce the Net Capacity to no higher than 210 and an admission limit of 30, which will
reduce the surplus to 9%.
1.2
Light Oaks Infant School
LIGHT OAKS INFANTS
A
B
Current Net
Capacity (NC)
Figure
Indicated Admission Limit
270
90
(NC divided by 7 and
rounded down)
C
D
Number on
Roll
Percentage
Surplus
250
7%
* In accordance with DfES guidelines regarding calculation of admissions limits
1.2.1
It is proposed that this new admission figure be implemented.
1.3
Light Oaks Junior School
LIGHT OAKS JUNIOR
A
B
Current Net
Capacity (NC)
Figure
Indicated Admission Limit
(NC divided by 7 and rounded
down)
360
90
C
D
Number
on Roll
Percentage
Surplus
328
8%
* In accordance with DfES guidelines regarding calculation of admissions limits
1.3.1
It is proposed that this new admission figure be implemented.
12
1.4
St. John’s CE Primary School
ST. JOHN’S CE
A
B
Current Net
Capacity (NC)
Figure
Indicated Admission Limit
196
28
(NC divided by 7 and
rounded down)
C
D
Number
on Roll
Percentage
Surplus
212
-8%
* In accordance with DfES guidelines regarding calculation of admissions limits
1.4.1
Under the new Net Capacity calculation, the indicated admission limit is 28. However, local
demand would appear to indicate an admission limit of 30 to meet with parental preference
and that is what is proposed.
1.5
Grosvenor Road Primary School
GROSVENOR ROAD
A
B
Current Net
Capacity (NC)
Figure
Indicated Admission Limit
600
85
(NC divided by 7 and
rounded down)
C
D
Number
on Roll
Percentage
Surplus
454
24%
* In accordance with DfES guidelines regarding calculation of admissions limits
1.5.1
It is proposed that this new admission figure is not implemented. Instead it is recommended
that members ask officers to work co-operatively with school governors to reduce the Net
Capacity to no higher than 490 and an admission limit of 70, which will reduce the surplus to
7%.
1.6
Moorside Primary School
MOORSIDE
A
B
Current Net
Capacity (NC)
Figure
Indicated Admission Limit
385
55
(NC divided by 7 and
rounded down)
C
D
Number
on Roll
Percentage
Surplus
297
22%
* In accordance with DfES guidelines regarding calculation of admissions limits
1.6.1
It is proposed that this new admission figure is not implemented. Instead it is recommended
that members ask officers to work co-operatively with school governors to reduce the Net
Capacity to no higher than 315 and an admission limit of 45, which will reduce the surplus to
5%.
13
1.7
Broadoak Primary School
BROADOAK
A
B
Current Net
Capacity (NC)
Figure
Indicated Admission Limit
420
60
(NC divided by 7 and
rounded down)
C
D
Number on
Roll
Percentage
Surplus
432
-2%
* In accordance with DfES guidelines regarding calculation of admissions limits
1.7.1
It is proposed that this new admission figure be implemented.
1.8
The Deans Primary School
THE DEANS
A
B
Current Net
Capacity (NC)
Figure
Indicated Admission Limit
210
30
(NC divided by 7 and
rounded down)
C
D
Number on
Roll
Percentage
Surplus
197
6%
* In accordance with DfES guidelines regarding calculation of admissions limits
1.8.1
It is proposed that this new admission figure be implemented.
1.9
Mossfield Primary School
MOSSFIELD
A
B
Current Net
Capacity (NC)
Figure
Indicated Admission Limit
432
61
(NC divided by 7 and
rounded down)
C
D
Number on
Roll
Percentage
Surplus
380
12%
* In accordance with DfES guidelines regarding calculation of admissions limits
1.9.1
It is recommended that members ask officers to work co-operatively with school governors to
reduce the Net Capacity to no higher than 420 and an admission limit of 60, which will reduce
the surplus to 9%.
14
1.10
Wardley CE Primary School
WARDLEY
A
B
Current Net
Capacity (NC)
Figure
Indicated Admission Limit
198
28
(NC divided by 7 and
rounded down)
C
D
Number on
Roll
Percentage
Surplus
190
4%
* In accordance with DfES guidelines regarding calculation of admissions limits
1.10.1 It is proposed that this new admission figure be implemented.
1.11
Clifton Primary School
CLIFTON
A
B
Current Net
Capacity (NC)
Figure
Indicated Admission Limit
315
45
(NC divided by 7 and
rounded down)
C
D
Number on
Roll
Percentage
Surplus
306
2%
* In accordance with DfES guidelines regarding calculation of admissions limits
1.11.1 It is proposed that this new admission figure be implemented.
15
C.
ECCLES, WINTON, BARTON
(Please note: the proposals for schools in this area which have altered since the
Cabinet report of 19 February 2003, are underlined).
1.
INDIVIDUAL SCHOOL ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
1.1
Alder Park Primary School
ALDER PARK
A
B
Current Net
Capacity (NC)
Figure
Indicated Admission Limit
210
30
(NC divided by 7 and
rounded down)
C
D
Number on
Roll
Percentage
Surplus
157
25%
* In accordance with DfES guidelines regarding calculation of admissions limits
1.1.1
Alder Park is one of several local schools with surplus place issues. It is not possible to retain
all of the local schools. Alder Park is the lowest performing of the schools in terms of pupil
outcomes. It is therefore proposed for closure in this review.
1.2
Monton Green Primary School
MONTON GREEN
A
B
Current Net
Capacity (NC)
Figure
Indicated Admission Limit
280
40
(NC divided by 7 and
rounded down)
C
D
Number on
Roll
Percentage
Surplus
255
8%
* In accordance with DfES guidelines regarding calculation of admissions limits
1.2.1
It is proposed that this new admission figure be implemented. The school, however, have
requested to remain at 38.
1.3
Westwood Park Primary School
WESTWOOD PARK
A
B
Current Net
Capacity (NC)
Figure
Indicated Admission Limit
315
45
(NC divided by 7 and
rounded down)
C
D
Number on
Roll
Percentage
Surplus
276
12%
* In accordance with DfES guidelines regarding calculation of admissions limits
16
1.3.1
Westwood Park is one of several local schools with surplus place issues. It is not possible to
retain all of the local schools. Westwood Park’s performance has been above average over
three years. It is therefore proposed to expand to accommodate pupils from Alder Park, which
will close.
1.3.2
The school capacity will need to increase to 420 to accommodate pupils from both schools.
Pupils will initially be accommodated by a mixture of refurbishment and extension / temporary
accommodation on the Westwood Park site. However, longer term the Council would look to
replace a school building of that age and profile. The Alder Park site should therefore be
retained with a view to that purpose.
1.4
Beech Street Primary School
BEECH STREET
A
Current Net
Capacity (NC) Figure
B
Indicated Admission Limit
(NC divided by 7 and
rounded down)
307
43
C
D
Number
on Roll
Percentage
Surplus
181
41%
1.4.1
It is proposed that this new admission figure is not implemented. Instead it is recommended
that members ask officers to work co-operatively with school governors to reduce the Net
Capacity to no higher than 189 and an admission limit of 27, which will reduce the surplus to
4%. This will have to be effected by alternative occupancy by other services, etc.
1.5
Lewis Street Primary School
LEWIS STREET
A
Current Net
Capacity (NC) Figure
210
B
Indicated Admission Limit
(NC divided by 7 and
rounded down)
30
C
D
Number
on Roll
Percentage
Surplus
181
13%
* In accordance with DfES guidelines regarding calculation of admissions limits
1.5.1
It is recommended that members request officers to work in conjunction with the school
governors and governors of Christ Church CE Primary and the Manchester Church of England
Diocesan Board of Education to explore amalgamation of Lewis Street with Christ Church CE
Primary School, preferably in a new building.
1.5.2
In the meantime, it is recommended that the indicated admission limit of 30 be applied.
17
1.6
Barton Moss Primary School
BARTON MOSS
A
B
Current Net
Capacity (NC)
Figure
Indicated Admission Limit
243
34
(NC divided by 7 and
rounded down)
C
D
Number on
Roll
Percentage
Surplus
199
18%
* In accordance with DfES guidelines regarding calculation of admissions limits
1.6.1
It is proposed that this new admission figure is not implemented. Instead it is recommended
that members ask officers to work co-operatively with school governors to reduce the Net
Capacity to no higher than 210 and an admission limit of 30, which will reduce the surplus to
5%. This will enable a community project involving nursery provision to take place, sufficient
places for pupils living on the Brookhouse estate, and a surplus level of 8% on current
projections.
1.7
St. Andrew’s CE Primary School (Eccles)
ST. ANDREW’S CE
A
B
Current Net
Capacity (NC)
Figure
Indicated Admission Limit
206
29
(NC divided by 7 and
rounded down)
C
D
Number on
Roll
Percentage
Surplus
180
12%
* In accordance with DfES guidelines regarding calculation of admissions limits
1.7.1
It is proposed that this new admission figure is not implemented. Instead it is recommended
that members ask officers to work co-operatively with school governors to reduce the Net
Capacity to no higher than 196 and an admission limit of 28, which will reduce the surplus to
8%.
1.8
Clarendon Road Primary School
CLARENDON ROAD
A
B
Current Net
Capacity (NC)
Figure
Indicated Admission Limit
415
59
(NC divided by 7 and
rounded down)
C
D
Number on
Roll
Percentage
Surplus
326
21%
* In accordance with DfES guidelines regarding calculation of admissions limits
1.8.1
It is proposed that this new admission figure is not implemented. Instead it is recommended
that members ask officers to work co-operatively with school governors to reduce the Net
Capacity to no higher than 315 and an admission limit of 45, which will result in a slight
overcrowding of 3%.
18
D.
WEASTE, SEEDLEY, LANGWORTHY, ORDSALL
(Please note: the proposals for schools in this area which have altered since the
Cabinet report of 19 February 2003, are underlined).
1.
INDIVIDUAL SCHOOL ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
1.1
Tootal Drive Primary School
TOOTAL DRIVE
A
B
Current Net
Capacity (NC)
Figure
Indicated Admission Limit
210
30
(NC divided by 7 and
rounded down)
C
D
Number on
Roll
Percentage
Surplus
166
20%
* In accordance with DfES guidelines regarding calculation of admissions limits
1.1.1
This level of surplus must be addressed, as numbers are set to decline. Recommendations to
resolve this situation must be an urgent priority for the Review Group.
1.2
Seedley Primary School
SEEDLEY
A
B
Current Net
Capacity (NC)
Figure
Indicated Admission Limit
383
54
(NC divided by 7 and
rounded down)
C
D
Number on
Roll
Percentage
Surplus
274
28%
* In accordance with DfES guidelines regarding calculation of admissions limits
1.2.1
This level of surplus must be addressed, as numbers are set to decline. Recommendations to
resolve this situation must be an urgent priority for the Review Group.
1.3
St. Luke’s CE Primary School
ST. LUKE’S CE
A
B
Current Net
Capacity (NC)
Figure
Indicated Admission Limit
189
27
(NC divided by 7 and
rounded down)
C
D
Number on
Roll
Percentage
Surplus
129
31%
* In accordance with DfES guidelines regarding calculation of admissions limits
19
1.3.1
This level of surplus must be addressed, as numbers are set to decline. Recommendations to
resolve this situation must be an urgent priority for the Review Group.
1.4
Larkhill Primary School
LARKHILL
A
B
Current Net
Capacity (NC)
Figure
Indicated Admission Limit
420
60
(NC divided by 7 and
rounded down)
C
D
Number on
Roll
Percentage
Surplus
268
36%
* In accordance with DfES guidelines regarding calculation of admissions limits
1.4.1
It is proposed that this new admission figure is not implemented. Instead it is recommended
that members ask officers to work co-operatively with school governors to reduce the Net
Capacity to no higher than 294 and an admission limit of 42, which will reduce the surplus to
8%. It is recommended that the school remain under review and participate in the Review
Group.
1.5
Langworthy Road Primary School
LANGWORTHY ROAD
A
B
Current Net
Capacity (NC)
Figure
Indicated Admission Limit
304
43
(NC divided by 7 and
rounded down)
C
D
Number on
Roll
Percentage
Surplus
262
13%
* In accordance with DfES guidelines regarding calculation of admissions limits
1.5.1
This level of surplus must be addressed, as numbers are set to decline. Recommendations to
resolve this situation must be an urgent priority for the Review Group.
1.6
Radclyffe Primary School
RADCLYFFE
A
B
Current Net
Capacity (NC)
Figure
Indicated Admission Limit
278
39
(NC divided by 7 and
rounded down)
C
D
Number on
Roll
Percentage
Surplus
217
21%
* In accordance with DfES guidelines regarding calculation of admissions limits
1.6.1
It is proposed that this new admission figure is not implemented. There remain some
concerns about pupil numbers on this basis and it is recommended that the school
amalgamates with the nearby St. Clement’s CE Primary School in a new building on the local
‘Tamworth Jennings’ site.
20
1.7
St. Clement’s CE Primary School
ST. CLEMENT’S CE
A
B
Current Net
Capacity (NC)
Figure
Indicated Admission Limit
210
30
(NC divided by 7 and
rounded down)
C
D
Number on
Roll
Percentage
Surplus
151
28%
* In accordance with DfES guidelines regarding calculation of admissions limits
1.7.1
It is proposed that this new admission figure is not implemented. There remain some
concerns about pupil numbers on this basis and it is recommended that the school
amalgamates with the nearby Radclyffe Primary School in a new building on the local
‘Tamworth Jennings’ site.
21
E.
LITTLE HULTON
(Please note: the proposals for schools in this area which have altered since the
Cabinet report of 19 February 2003, are underlined).
1.
INDIVIDUAL SCHOOL ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
1.1
Wharton Primary School
WHARTON
A
B
Current Net
Capacity (NC)
Figure
Indicated Admission Limit
354
50
(NC divided by 7 and
rounded down)
C
D
Number on
Roll
Percentage
Surplus
251
29%
* In accordance with DfES guidelines regarding calculation of admissions limits
1.1.1
It is proposed that this new admission figure is not implemented. Instead it is recommended
that members ask officers to work co-operatively with school governors to reduce the Net
Capacity to no higher than 270 and an admission limit of 38, which will reduce the surplus to
7%.
1.2
St. Paul’s Peel CE School
ST. PAUL’S PEEL CE
A
B
Current Net
Capacity (NC)
Figure
Indicated Admission Limit
289
41
(NC divided by 7 and
rounded down)
C
D
Number on
Roll
Percentage
Surplus
287
0%
* In accordance with DfES guidelines regarding calculation of admissions limits
1.2.1
It is proposed that this new admission figure be implemented.
1.3
Dukesgate Primary School
DUKESGATE
A
B
Current Net
Capacity (NC)
Figure
Indicated Admission Limit
206
29
(NC divided by 7 and
rounded down)
C
D
Number on
Roll
Percentage
Surplus
164
20%
* In accordance with DfES guidelines regarding calculation of admissions limits
22
1.3.1
It is proposed that this new admission figure is not implemented. Instead it is recommended
that members ask officers to work co-operatively with school governors to reduce the Net
Capacity to no higher than 175 and an admission limit of 25, which will reduce the surplus to
6%.
1.4
Peel Hall Primary School
PEEL HALL
A
B
Current Net
Capacity (NC)
Figure
Indicated Admission Limit
210
30
(NC divided by 7 and
rounded down)
C
D
Number on
Roll
Percentage
Surplus
237
-12%
* In accordance with DfES guidelines regarding calculation of admissions limits
1.4.1
It is proposed that this new admission figure be implemented.
1.5
Hilton Lane Primary School
HILTON LANE
A
B
Current Net
Capacity (NC)
Figure
Indicated Admission Limit
210
30
(NC divided by 7 and
rounded down)
C
D
Number on
Roll
Percentage
Surplus
201
4%
* In accordance with DfES guidelines regarding calculation of admissions limits
1.5.1
It is proposed that this admission figure be implemented.
1.6
St. Andrew’s Methodist Primary School
ST. ANDREW’S METHODIST
A
B
Current Net
Capacity (NC)
Figure
Indicated Admission Limit
209
29
(NC divided by 7 and
rounded down)
C
D
Number on
Roll
Percentage
Surplus
200
4%
* In accordance with DfES guidelines regarding calculation of admissions limits
23
1.6.1
Under the new Net Capacity calculation, the indicated admission limit is 29. However, local
demand would appear to indicate an admission limit of 30 to meet with parental preference
and that is what is proposed.
1.7
Bridgewater Primary School
BRIDGEWATER
A
B
Current Net
Capacity (NC)
Figure
Indicated Admission Limit
315
45
(NC divided by 7 and
rounded down)
C
D
Number on
Roll
Percentage
Surplus
289
8%
* In accordance with DfES guidelines regarding calculation of admissions limits
1.7.1
It is proposed that this admission figure be implemented.
1.8
North Walkden Primary School
NORTH WALKDEN
A
B
Current Net
Capacity (NC)
Figure
Indicated Admission Limit
189
27
(NC divided by 7 and
rounded down)
C
D
Number on
Roll
Percentage
Surplus
192
-1%
* In accordance with DfES guidelines regarding calculation of admissions limits
1.8.1
Under the new Net Capacity calculation, the indicated admission limit is 27. However, local
demand would appear to indicate an admission limit of 30 to meet with parental preference
and that is what is proposed.
1.9
St. Paul’s CE Heathside Primary School
ST. PAUL’S CE HEATHSIDE
A
B
Current Net
Capacity (NC)
Figure
Indicated Admission Limit
196
28
(NC divided by 7 and
rounded down)
C
D
Number on
Roll
Percentage
Surplus
188
4%
* In accordance with DfES guidelines regarding calculation of admissions limits
1.9.1
Under the new Net Capacity calculation, the indicated admission limit is 28, which would
reduce this surplus to 4%. However, local demand would appear to indicate an admission
limit of 30 to meet with parental preference and that is what is proposed.
24
F.
WORSLEY AND BOOTHSTOWN
(Please note: the proposals for schools in this area which have altered since the
Cabinet report of 19 February 2003, are underlined).
1.
INDIVIDUAL SCHOOL ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
1.1
James Brindley
JAMES BRINDLEY
A
B
Current Net
Capacity (NC)
Figure
Indicated Admission Limit
210
30
(NC divided by 7 and
rounded down)
C
D
Number on
Roll
Percentage
Surplus
206
1%
* In accordance with DfES guidelines regarding calculation of admissions limits
1.1.1
It is proposed that this admission figure be implemented.
1.2
Ellenbrook
ELLENBROOK
A
B
Current Net
Capacity (NC)
Figure
Indicated Admission Limit
210
30
(NC divided by 7 and
rounded down)
C
D
Number on
Roll
Percentage
Surplus
213
-1%
* In accordance with DfES guidelines regarding calculation of admissions limits
1.2.1
It is proposed that this admission figure be implemented.
1.3
Boothstown Methodist
BOOTHSTOWN METHODIST
A
B
Current Net
Capacity (NC)
Figure
Indicated Admission Limit
190
27
(NC divided by 7 and
rounded down)
C
D
Number on
Roll
Percentage
Surplus
207
-8%
* In accordance with DfES guidelines regarding calculation of admissions limits
25
1.3.1
It is proposed that this new admission figure is not implemented. Instead it is recommended
that members ask officers to work co-operatively with school governors to maintain the Net
Capacity at 210 and an admission limit of 30.
1.4
St. Andrew’s CE Boothstown
ST. ANDREWS CE
A
B
Current Net
Capacity (NC)
Figure
Indicated Admission Limit
399
57
(NC divided by 7 and
rounded down)
C
D
Number on
Roll
Percentage
Surplus
411
-3%
* In accordance with DfES guidelines regarding calculation of admissions limits
1.4.1
It is proposed that this new admission figure is not implemented. Instead it is recommended
that members ask officers to work co-operatively with school governors to maintain the Net
Capacity at 455 and an admission limit of 65.
1.5
Mesne Lea
MESNE LEA
A
B
Current Net
Capacity (NC)
Figure
Indicated Admission Limit
315
45
(NC divided by 7 and
rounded down)
C
D
Number on
Roll
Percentage
Surplus
287
8%
* In accordance with DfES guidelines regarding calculation of admissions limits
1.5.1
It is proposed that this admission figure be implemented.
26
IRLAM AND CADISHEAD
(Please note: the proposals for schools in this area which have altered since the
Cabinet report of 19 February 2003, are underlined).
1.
INDIVIDUAL SCHOOL ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
1.1
Moorfield Primary School
MOORFIELD
A
B
Current Net
Capacity (NC)
Figure
Indicated Admission Limit
180
25
(NC divided by 7 and
rounded down)
C
D
Number on
Roll
Percentage
Surplus
134
25%
* In accordance with DfES guidelines regarding calculation of admissions limits
1.1.1
It is proposed that this new admission figure is not implemented. Instead it is recommended
that members ask officers to work co-operatively with school governors to reduce the Net
Capacity to no higher than 142 and an admission limit of 20, which will reduce the surplus to
5%.
1.2
Fiddlers Lane Primary School
FIDDLERS LANE
A
B
Current Net
Capacity (NC)
Figure
Indicated Admission Limit
315
45
(NC divided by 7 and
rounded down)
C
D
Number on
Roll
Percentage
Surplus
261
17%
* In accordance with DfES guidelines regarding calculation of admissions limits
1.2.1
It is therefore proposed that this new admission figure is not implemented. Instead it is
recommended that members ask officers to work co-operatively with school governors to
reduce the Net Capacity to no higher than 285 and an admission limit of 40, which will reduce
the surplus to 8%.
1.3
Irlam Endowed Primary School
IRLAM ENDOWED
A
B
Current Net
Capacity (NC)
Figure
Indicated Admission Limit
210
30
(NC divided by 7 and
rounded down)
C
D
Number on
Roll
Percentage
Surplus
223
-6%
* In accordance with DfES guidelines regarding calculation of admissions limits
27
1.3.1
It is proposed that this new admission figure be implemented.
1.4
Irlam Primary School
IRLAM
A
B
Current Net
Capacity (NC)
Figure
Indicated Admission Limit
383
54
(NC divided by 7 and
rounded down)
C
D
Number on
Roll
Percentage
Surplus
373
2%
* In accordance with DfES guidelines regarding calculation of admissions limits
1.4.1
It is proposed that this new admission figure be implemented.
1.5
Cadishead Primary School
CADISHEAD
A
B
Current Net
Capacity (NC)
Figure
Indicated Admission Limit
398
56
(NC divided by 7 and
rounded down)
C
D
Number on
Roll
Percentage
Surplus
319
19%
* In accordance with DfES guidelines regarding calculation of admissions limits
1.5.1
It is proposed that this new admission figure is not implemented. Instead it is recommended
that members ask officers to work co-operatively with school governors to reduce the Net
Capacity to no higher than 364 and an admission limit of 52, which will reduce the surplus to
12%.
1.6
St. Mary’s CE Primary School
ST. MARY’S CE
A
B
Current Net
Capacity (NC)
Figure
Indicated Admission Limit
210
30
(NC divided by 7 and
rounded down)
C
D
Number on
Roll
Percentage
Surplus
198
5%
* In accordance with DfES guidelines regarding calculation of admissions limits
1.6.1
It is proposed that this new admission figure be implemented.
28