Appendix 7 - School Catchment Options Study
Version 20/02/2014
Appendix 7
School Catchment Options Study Methodology Appendix
1. Introduction
The following pages detail the steps taken to undertake Scenario 2: ‘Revising Catchment
Areas’ as part of the Catchment Options Study.
There are four options under Scenario 2 as identified in the main document.
Option A: Primary, Infant and First School catchments with no catchment for the new Junior
school.
Option B: Primary, Infant and First School catchments with a nominal catchment for the
new Junior school.
Option C: Primary, Junior and Middle School catchments with no catchment for the new
Junior school.
Option D: Primary, Junior and Middle School catchments with a nominal catchment area for
the new Junior school.
1.1 Data
Current one year old data was used which represents children eligible to start reception in
2015. This is a total of 1788 children.
To plan new catchments using the children who will attend school for the first time in
2016/17 would mean using the current zero year old data. This data is deemed to be less
reliable.
1.2 Rate of Take up
When designing new catchments it was important to note that not all children living in the
Borough of Poole will attend Poole schools. Therefore a rate of uptake, the percentage of
Poole children expected to take a place in a Poole school, was established. A weighted
average for the last five years intake was used, which gave a percentage figure of 92.70%.
This is therefore the amount of Poole children expected to take up a place in a Poole school
each year.
This was further adjusted to take into account St Mary’s Catholic Primary School and St
Joseph’s Catholic Primary School, who do not operate a Local Authority catchment area.
These two schools were removed from the rate of uptake as they were not included within
the new catchment design. Therefore the amount of children expected to attend the two
schools was calculated and removed from the rate of uptake. This left a final rate of uptake
of 86.64%.
1
Appendix 7 - School Catchment Options Study
Version 20/02/2014
1.3 Catchment Principles
A set of principles were established by which the newly designed catchments had to
conform. These principles were –
 The Published Admission Number (PAN) for each school was set at that already
agreed for 2015.
 The number of children in new catchments should match the capacity of the
school (as defined by the 2015 PAN) as closely as possible.
 Due to their oversubscription criteria St Joseph’s and St Mary’s Primary Schools
would not be included in this study. The diocese has indicated that they do not
wish to change this arrangement.
 Schools should be located within their own catchment area.
 There should be no shared catchment areas (there is a shared catchment area
between a Poole and Dorset school that would require a joint project with Dorset
County Council to consider changes).
 Split catchments should not be created.
 Where a three tier education system currently exists children in this area should
not be assigned to schools in an area with a two tier structure and vice versa.
 Wherever possible an address should be allocated to a school within 2 miles
(using safe walking routes).
 To initially maintain catchment boundaries adjacent to Bournemouth Borough and
Dorset County Councils and consider whether changes should be explored further
with these Local Authorities.
1.4 Creating building blocks to develop revised catchments
To undertake the study the Borough of Poole was divided into just over 3000 fragments.
These fragments were formed by taking a centre point of each postcode and then creating
thiessen polygons from each of these points (Figure 1). How many children residing in each
fragment was known and routing calculations were also performed. These routing
calculations used the safe walking routes used by the current admissions process, and
established the three closest schools and their relative distances for each fragment.
2
Appendix 7 - School Catchment Options Study
Version 20/02/2014
Figure 1 - Borough of Poole split into just over
3000 fragments using thiessen polygons Thiessen polygons are polygons whose
boundaries define the area which is closest to
each point relative to all other points.
2. Option A: Catchment design which includes Primary, Infant and First School
catchments with no catchment for the new Junior school
2.1 Stage One Allocation
The first stage was to allocate all fragments to their closest school if the closest school had
capacity (PAN) to accommodate all these fragments. This was established by comparing the
schools capacity with the total number of children residing in all the selected fragments and
applying the take up rate of 86.64%. If a school’s capacity (PAN) could not accommodate all
the children residing in its closest fragments, no fragments were assigned to that school in
stage one. This stage allowed 572 (32%) children spread over 10 schools to be allocated.
3
Appendix 7 - School Catchment Options Study
Version 20/02/2014
Figure 2 - Allocation of fragments to their closest
school following Stage One.
2.2 Stage Two Allocation
The second stage was to allocate all fragments to their closest school if they were within a
10 minute walking distance of this school and were not allocated in Stage One. A further 219
children (12%) were allocated at this stage. Time was established by using the routing
calculations from Section 1.4 and then applying a 2mph walking speed. This walking speed
accommodates younger aged children and the prospect that parents may have pushchairs.
Figure 3 – Areas assigned after Stage One and
Two. Note the additional areas in clusters around
the school locations which have been allocated
under Stage Two.
4
Appendix 7 - School Catchment Options Study
Version 20/02/2014
2.3 Stage Three Allocation
For fragments not allocated in Stage One or Stage Two, three criteria were applied to
produce a ranked score for each fragment. The criteria used were as follows:
1. Distance to closest school – The lower the distance the higher the priority. Therefore
giving weight to those areas that are very close to a school.
2. Distance to second closest school – The higher the distance the higher the priority.
Therefore giving weight to those areas which are a long way away from their second
closest and therefore third closest school, meaning it would be optimal if they are
allocated to their closest if possible.
3. Difference in distance between closest school and second closest school – The
higher the difference the higher the priority. This is to ensure any area where there is
a significant difference between the distance to their closest and second closest
school gets allocated a higher priority.
Closest
School
Rank (a)
150m
1050m
2400m
1200m
2500m
1
2
4
3
5
Second
Closest
School
1500m
1400m
3000m
2000m
2600m
Rank (b)
Difference
Rank (c)
4
5
1
3
2
1350m
350m
600m
800m
100m
1
4
3
2
5
Overall
Rank
(a+b+c)
4
7
8
8
9
Figure 4 - Explanation on how the ranking was allocated with mock figures
Once the ranking had been attributed to each fragment, the fragments were analysed in
numerical order of rank, and assigned to their closest school if it had capacity, second
closest if not the closest, and third closest if not the second. If a fragment could not get into
any of its top three schools it was left at this stage. If a fragment had the same ranking score
as another fragment these were allocated in tandem. This study did not have a scenario
where a fragment with the same ranking score as another got into its closest school whilst
the other did not.
This left 129 fragments unallocated at this stage; this equated to 112 children unallocated
this is 6.2% of the total child count.
2.4 Stage Four Allocation
To assign schools to the fragments not allocated at the end of Stage Three, it was necessary
in some areas to review the allocation already made with a view to reassigning them to a
school which still had capacity. At this stage schools with a 3 tier system were fixed to mirror
the Corfe Hills catchment. New routing calculations were performed as per Section 1.4 to
ensure any fragments chosen to be reallocated did not get assigned to a new school which
was significantly further away compared to its original allocation.
5
Appendix 7 - School Catchment Options Study
Version 20/02/2014
Figure 5 – After Stage Four all areas of the
Borough had been allocated to a school
2.5 Stage Five Allocation
At the end of Stage Four all fragments within the Borough of Poole had been allocated by a
mathematical model but this would not make sense for some properties situated on
catchment boundaries. Therefore the next stage was to review each catchment and perform
a ground check in relation to:
a. Natural boundaries,
b. Reducing the amount of roads which were being split between catchments,
c. Brownsea Island – Although in Purbeck the Borough of Poole accommodate
any children living on the island. Therefore this area was added to the Lilliput
catchment, being their closest school.
It is important to note that stringent routing checks were undertaken during the ground
checking stages, to ensure walking distances of reallocated areas were not significantly
increased, and the principles in Section 1.3 were still followed.
6
Appendix 7 - School Catchment Options Study
Version 20/02/2014
Figure 6 – The final proposed catchments for
Options A.
The table below shows the numbers of children within each of the proposed catchments with
both actual numbers of children and the adjusted 86.64% count.
School Name
Capacity
1 year old
count
Adjusted
Count
Under / Over
Capacity
Ad Astra Infant School
Bearwood Primary and
Nursery School
Bishop Aldhelm’s CE VA
Primary School
90
123
106.57
-16.57
30
43
37.26
-7.26
90
98
84.91
5.09
Broadstone First School
60
33
28.59
31.41
Canford Heath Infant School
120
118
102.24
17.76
Courthill Infant School
120
128
110.90
9.10
90
99
85.77
4.23
60
80
69.31
-9.31
Lilliput CE VC Infant School
Longfleet CE VC Primary
School
120
140
121.30
-1.30
90
107
92.70
-2.70
Manorside Primary School
60
66
57.18
2.82
Merley First School
Old Town Infant School and
Nursery
60
33
28.59
31.41
90
103
89.24
0.76
Springdale First School
46
26
22.53
23.47
Stanley Green Infant School
120
113
97.90
22.10
Sylvan Infant School
Heatherlands Primary School
Hillbourne School and
Nursery
150
176
152.49
-2.49
Talbot Primary School
90
95
82.31
7.69
Turlin Moor Primary School
60
68
58.92
1.08
120
124
107.43
12.57
Twin Sails Infant School
7
Appendix 7 - School Catchment Options Study
Version 20/02/2014
To investigate the resilience of the proposed catchments, work was also undertaken to look
at what the impact would have been if they were implemented in September 2012 or
September 2013 for the reception intake. The figures can be found below:
School Name
Ad Astra Infant
School
Bearwood
Primary and
Nursery School
Bishop Aldhelm’s
CE VA Primary
School
Broadstone First
School
Canford Heath
Infant School
Courthill Infant
School
Heatherlands
Primary School
Hillbourne School
and Nursery
Lilliput CE VC
Infant School
Longfleet CE VC
Primary School
Manorside
Primary School
Merley First
School
Old Town Infant
School and
Nursery
Springdale First
School
Stanley Green
Infant School
Sylvan Infant
School
Talbot Primary
School
Turlin Moor
Primary School
Twin Sails Infant
School
2012
Count
Adjusted
2012
Count
Under /
Over
Capacity
in 2012
2013
Count
Adjusted
2013
Count
Under /
Over
Capacity
in 2013
-16.57
108
93.57
-3.57
101
87.51
2.49
37.26
-7.26
45
38.99
-8.99
49
42.45
-12.45
98
84.91
5.09
86
74.51
15.49
91
78.84
11.16
60
33
28.59
31.41
49
42.45
17.55
40
34.66
25.34
120
118
102.24
17.76
119
103.10
16.90
121
104.83
15.17
120
128
110.90
9.10
159
137.76
-17.76
108
93.57
26.43
90
99
85.77
4.23
105
90.97
-0.97
79
68.45
21.55
60
80
69.31
-9.31
61
52.85
7.15
71
61.51
-1.51
120
140
121.30
-1.30
136
117.83
2.17
143
123.90
-3.90
90
107
92.70
-2.70
124
107.43
-17.43
92
79.71
10.29
60
66
57.18
2.82
58
50.25
9.75
52
45.05
14.95
60
33
28.59
31.41
52
45.05
14.95
43
37.26
22.74
90
103
89.24
0.76
71
61.51
28.49
71
61.51
28.49
46
26
22.53
23.47
43
37.26
8.74
59
51.12
-5.12
120
113
97.90
22.10
130
112.63
7.37
96
83.17
36.83
150
176
152.49
-2.49
182
157.68
-7.68
173
149.89
0.11
90
95
82.31
7.69
80
69.31
20.69
69
59.78
30.22
60
68
58.92
1.08
71
61.51
-1.51
87
75.38
-15.38
120
124
107.43
12.57
106
91.84
28.16
93
80.58
39.42
Capacity
1 year
old
count
Adjusted
Count
Under /
Over
Capacity
90
123
106.57
30
43
90
8
Appendix 7 - School Catchment Options Study
Version 20/02/2014
3. Option B: Catchment design which includes Primary, Infant and First
School catchments with a nominal catchment for the new Junior school
Option B varies in design from Option A to allow the creation of a nominal catchment for the
new junior school. The new junior school will be built on the Fourways site and will be
opened in September 2015.
As the new school is a Junior school, to create a nominal catchment means its location could
not fall within a Primary school catchment. This is because it would create a shared
catchment for children at KS2 level going against a principle set out in Section 1.3.
Option B followed the same first Four Stages as Option A. But at Stage Five the Courthill
Infant School boundary was moved to contain the new Fourways site (Figure 8).
Fourways Site
Courthill Catchment
Longfleet Catchment
Figure 7 – Location of the new Junior school, Fourways site, shown to be in Longfleet catchment following
Stage Four.
9
Appendix 7 - School Catchment Options Study
Version 20/02/2014
Fourways Site
Courthill Catchment
Longfleet Catchment
Figure 8 – Newly designed Courthill catchment to ensure the new Junior School, Fourways site, was
incorporated
It was decided that it was best to accommodate this change within the Longfleet CE VC
Primary School and Courthill Infant School catchments only. This was because the other
surrounding catchments which could have been used to ease capacity pressure were
already either at full capacity or had very little capacity (Figure 9).
School Name
Heatherlands Primary School
Old Town Infant School and Nursery
Sylvan Infant School
Lilliput CE VC Infant School
Capacity
+4
+0.7
-2
-1
Figure 9 – Capacity figures of the surrounding catchments for Courthill Infant School and Longfleet CE VC
Primary School. Demonstrating the Fourways change was best contained within the Longfleet CE VC
Primary School and Courthill Infant School catchments. (Positive figures means there is still capacity and
negative figures mean the school is oversubscirbed).
Ground checking was undertaken during Stage 5, the same as outlined in Section 2.5.
Increased walking time for any reallocated areas was limited as far as possible, but the most
significant increase in walking time for a reallocated area was 27 minutes.
10
Appendix 7 - School Catchment Options Study
Version 20/02/2014
Figure 10 – The final proposed catchments for
Option B.
The table below shows the impact of the change to accommodate a nominal catchment for
the new junior school. Both actual numbers of children and the adjusted 86.64% count are
shown.
School Name
Ad Astra Infant School
Bearwood Primary and Nursery
School
Bishop Aldhelm’s CE VA Primary
School
Capacity
1 year
old count
Adjusted
Count
Under / Over
Capacity
90
123
106.57
-16.57
30
43
37.26
-7.26
90
98
84.91
5.09
60
33
28.59
31.41
Canford Heath Infant School
120
118
102.24
17.76
Courthill Infant School
120
140
121.30
-1.30
Heatherlands Primary School
90
99
85.77
4.23
Hillbourne School and Nursery
60
80
69.31
-9.31
120
140
121.30
-1.30
Longfleet CE VC Primary School
90
95
82.31
7.69
Manorside Primary School
60
66
57.18
2.82
Merley First School
Old Town Infant School and
Nursery
60
33
28.59
31.41
90
103
89.24
0.76
Springdale First School
46
26
22.53
23.47
Stanley Green Infant School
120
113
97.90
22.10
Sylvan Infant School
150
176
152.49
-2.49
Talbot Primary School
90
95
82.31
7.69
Turlin Moor Primary School
60
68
58.92
1.08
120
124
107.43
12.57
Broadstone First School
Lilliput CE VC Infant School
Twin Sails Infant School
11
Appendix 7 - School Catchment Options Study
Version 20/02/2014
4. Catchment Design for Primary, Middle and Junior Schools
4.1 Data
The data used for the Primary, Middle and Junior school catchments remained the same as
that used for the Primary, Infant and First School design, outlined in Section 1.1
4.2 Rate of Uptake
The rate of uptake needed to be reviewed before planning the Primary, Middle and Junior
school catchments. Analysis was undertaken to look at five cohorts of children and how the
numbers of children changed from Reception intake to Year 3 intake for the same cohort.
The percentage difference was 100.07%, therefore allowing the study to use the same
86.64% rate of uptake as used when designing the Primary, Infant and First catchments.
4.3 Principles
The Primary, Middle and Junior school design shared all principles with the Primary, Infant
and First design, Section 1.3, but also had the following additions:



All Primary catchments should remain fixed.
The shared catchment between Broadstone Middle School and Allenbourne
Middle School could not be altered.
The following junior/middle catchments should be fixed to mirror infant/first
catchments (based on proximity of the two schools and historical links):
 Broadstone, Merley and Springdale First Schools with Broadstone Middle,
 Ad Astra Infant with Haymoor Junior,
 Canford Heath Infant with Canford Heath Junior,
 Sylvan Infant with Branksome Heath Junior,
 Twin Sails Infant with Hamworthy Park Junior.
5. Option C – Catchment design which includes Primary, Junior and Middle
School catchments with no catchment for the new Junior school
5.1 Creating building blocks to develop revised catchments
The same fragments as those created in the Primary, Infant and First school model were
used but those fragments inside the identified catchments not to be changed (Section 4.3)
were excluded (Figure 11).
12
Appendix 7 - School Catchment Options Study
Version 20/02/2014
Figure 11 – Red catchment areas are those
catchments identified as remaining the same in
the principles above (Section 4.3)
The remaining fragments had new routing calculations performed to show the distances to
Baden Powell and Oakdale Junior as these are the only two schools remaining which
needed to be analysed after the principles of Section 4.3 were taken into account. Therefore
for each unallocated fragment the distance to both schools and the number of children was
known.
5.2 Allocation of Fragments
Due to Option C not trying to create a catchment for the new Junior school, and the
geographical make up of the Borough of Poole, staged allocation did not need to take place
for Option C.
When abiding by the principles set out in Section 4.3 the only two catchments which
unallocated fragments can be assigned to are Baden Powell and Oakdale Junior. As shown
in Figure 12 the Longfleet Primary catchment, which cannot be altered in this option, extends
around the northern edge of Poole Park lake. This means there is a barrier between Baden
Powell and Oakdale Junior as extending either one to the other side of Longfleet would
essentially create a split catchment.
13
Appendix 7 - School Catchment Options Study
Version 20/02/2014
Figure 12 – Blue area showing the
design of Longfleet Primary school.
Extending either Baden Powell
catchment or Oakdale beyond the
Poole Park lake would essentially
create a split catchment on the
ground.
This means all fragments to either side of the Longfleet Primary catchment could be
allocated to either Oakdale Junior or Baden Powell depending on whether they were East or
West of the designed Longfleet Primary catchment.
5.3 Figure Analysis
As Option C does not create a nominal catchment for the new junior school, without any
historical data it is hard to estimate where the children attending the new junior school will
live. In this model 50% of the new junior school’s PAN has been removed from both Baden
Powell and Oakdale Junior Schools to best indicate what the figures could look like.
Although the location of the students attending the new junior school are unlikely to be
contained within Baden Powell and Oakdale and there is no guarantee that the new junior
school will be full this is a logical progression for this methodology to take after considering
the fixed catchments identified in Section 4.3.
14
Appendix 7 - School Catchment Options Study
Version 20/02/2014
Figure 13 – Final proposed catchments for Option C
The table below shows the numbers of children within each of the proposed catchments with
both actual numbers of children and the adjusted 86.64% count. It also shows the amended
calculation as described above in relation to Baden Powell and Oakdale.
School Name
Baden Powell & St
Peter’s Junior School
Bearwood Primary and
Nursery School
Bishop Aldhelm’s CE
VA Primary School
Branksome Heath
Junior School
Broadstone Middle
School
Canford Heath Junior
School
Hamworthy Park
Junior School
Haymoor Junior
School
Heatherlands Primary
School
Hillbourne School and
Nursery
Longfleet CE VC
Primary School
Manorside Primary
School
Oakdale Junior School
Talbot Primary School
Turlin Moor Primary
School
Capacity
1 year
old count
Adjusted
Count
Under / Over
Capacity
180
268
232.20
-52.20
30
43
37.26
-7.26
90
98
84.91
5.09
150
176
152.49
-2.49
163
92
79.71
83.29
120
118
102.24
17.76
120
124
107.43
12.57
90
123
106.57
-16.57
90
99
85.77
4.23
60
80
69.31
-9.31
90
107
92.70
-2.70
60
180
66
216
57.18
187.14
2.82
-7.14
90
95
82.30
7.70
60
68
58.92
1.08
15
Fourways
Adjustment
-7.20
37.59
Appendix 7 - School Catchment Options Study
Version 20/02/2014
6. Option D – Catchment design which includes Primary, Junior and Middle
School catchments with a nominal catchment area for the new Junior
school
The following steps detail how the catchments were designed for this option. Sections 4.1,
4.2 and 4.3 still apply for this option.
6.1 Stage One Allocation
The first stage of allocation was to allocate all fragments to their closest school if the closest
school had capacity (PAN) to accommodate all these fragments. This was established by
comparing the schools capacity with the total number of children residing in all the selected
fragments and applying the take up rate of 86.64%. The total number of children had the rate
of uptake applied to account for the child attendance as described in Section 4.2. If a
school’s capacity (PAN) could not accommodate all the children residing in its closest
fragments, no fragments were assigned to that school in stage one.
There was a variation on the rule above for the new Junior school. Only some of the
fragments closest to the school were allocated. The fragments to the western side of the
Longfleet CE VC Primary School catchment were closer to the new Junior school than any
other junior school, but could not be allocated as they would have created a split catchment
for the new junior school. 1441 (80.6%) children were allocated after Stage One.
Figure 14 – Allocation after Stage One
6.2 Stage Two Allocation
The second stage was to allocate all fragments within a 10 minute walking distance of their
closest school to this school as per Section 2.2. It should be noted due to the principles in
Section 4.3 that only Baden Powell was affected by this stage. All areas within ten minutes
of any other school had already been assigned in relation to the set out principles or in Stage
One. Therefore this stage only allocated a further 9 children.
16
Appendix 7 - School Catchment Options Study
Version 20/02/2014
Figure 15 – Allocation after Stage Two –
Note the small cluster around the Baden
Powell School
6.3 Stage Three Allocation
The next stage was to allocate all fragments to their closest school if their closest school was
more than 2 miles away. This ensures that children who live a long distance from any school
location do not have to travel any further than required. Again because of the principles and
prior stages the Baden Powell catchment was the only one affected, with 29 children
allocated at this stage. After Stage Three a total of 1479 (82.7%) children had been
allocated.
Figure 16 – Allocation after Stage Three –
Note the additional allocation in Sandbanks /
Canford Cliffs area.
17
Appendix 7 - School Catchment Options Study
Version 20/02/2014
6.4 Stage Four Allocation
Stage 4 allocated all fragments which have a closest school which is less than 2 miles away
and their second closest school is greater than 2 miles away to their closest school. Forty
children were allocated in Stage Four bringing the total to 1519 (85%).
Figure 17 – Allocation after Stage Four
6.5 Stage Five Allocation
For fragments not allocated in Stages 1 – 4, ranking was again used as described in Section
2.3. This resulted in all fragments and therefore children, being assigned to a Primary, Junior
or Middle school catchment.
Figure 18 – Allocation after Stage Five – all
areas of Poole allocated to a Primary, Junior
or Middle School.
18
Appendix 7 - School Catchment Options Study
Version 20/02/2014
6.6 Stage Six Allocation
At the end of Stage Five all fragments within the Borough of Poole had been allocated by a
mathematical model but this would not make sense for some properties situated on
catchment boundaries. Therefore the next stage was to review each catchment and perform
a ground check in relation to:
a. Natural boundaries,
b. Reducing the amount of roads which were being split between catchments.
It is important to note that stringent routing checks were undertaken during the ground
checking stages, to ensure walking distances of reallocated areas were not significantly
increased, and the principles in Section 4.3 and 1.3 were still followed.
Figure 19 – Final proposed catchments for
Option D
The table below shows the impact of the change to accommodate a nominal catchment for
the new junior school. Both actual numbers of children and the adjusted 86.64% count are
shown.
19
Appendix 7 - School Catchment Options Study
School Name
Baden Powell & St Peter’s
Junior School
Bearwood Primary and
Nursery School
Bishop Aldhelm’s CE VA
Primary School
Branksome Heath Junior
School
Version 20/02/2014
1 year
old
count
Capacity
Adjusted
Count
Under / Over
Capacity
180
178
154.22
25.78
30
43
37.26
-7.26
90
98
84.91
5.09
150
176
152.49
-2.49
Broadstone Middle School
Canford Heath Junior
School
New Junior School
(Fourways)
Hamworthy Park Junior
School
163
92
79.71
83.29
120
118
102.24
17.76
90
102
88.37
1.63
120
124
107.43
12.57
Haymoor Junior School
Heatherlands Primary
School
Hillbourne School and
Nursery
Longfleet CE VC Primary
School
90
123
106.57
-16.57
90
99
85.77
4.23
60
80
69.31
-9.31
90
95
82.31
7.69
Manorside Primary School
60
66
57.18
2.82
Oakdale Junior School
180
216
187.14
-7.14
Talbot Primary School
90
95
82.30
7.70
Turlin Moor Primary School
60
68
58.92
1.08
20