Many thanks for the information that you have provided in response to my query regarding the SOR plans for Bosmere Primary School and Needham Market Middle School.
I would like you to clarify a number of points that you have made in your response please:
Q2. You have not responded to my question:
"What is the anticipated future demand in primary school places in the catchment area for Bosmere Primary School?"
Clarification required:
Please provide figures and calculations for the anticipated future demand as requested.
Historic catchment populations and arrivals over the previous 4 years gave arrival rates for each year. A weighted average of these was calculated – the 2011 figure of 83% did not reflect the normal pattern so was discounted in the weighting process.
2009/10 / 2010/11 / 2011/12 / 2012/13Population / 39 / 49 / 41 / 46
Arrivals / 45 / 44 / 34 / 45
Arrival rate / 115% / 90% / 83% / 98%
Weighting / 1 / 2 / 0 / 4
Weighted average / (115x1 + 90x2 + 83x0 + 98x4) / 7 = 98%
The 98% arrival rate was applied to the pre-school populations of the catchment. The figure for 2017/18 was a simple weighted average of the previous 4 years as those children were not born at the time of calculation.
2013/14 / 2014/15 / 2015/16 / 2016/17 / 2017/18*Population / 54 / 42 / 47 / 43 / 45
Arrivals / 53 / 41 / 46 / 42 / 44
The forecasts were then put together using the arrivals calculated above and assuming all children remain at the school from one yeargroup to the next.
Nat Curryear / Academic
Age / Actual pupil rolls / Forecast peak age group sizes
2009/10 / 2010/11 / 2011/12 / 2012/13 / 2013/14 / 2014/15 / 2015/16 / 2016/17 / 2017/18
R / 4+ / 45 / 44 / 35 / 45 / 53 / 41 / 46 / 42 / 45
1 / 5+ / 43 / 42 / 44 / 35 / 45 / 53 / 41 / 46 / 42
2 / 6+ / 35 / 42 / 45 / 46 / 35 / 45 / 53 / 41 / 46
3 / 7+ / 34 / 30 / 44 / 45 / 46 / 35 / 45 / 53 / 41
4 / 8+ / 43 / 34 / 30 / 46 / 45 / 46 / 35 / 45 / 53
5 / 9+ / 45 / 46 / 35 / 45
6 / 10+ / 45 / 46 / 35
7 / 11+
Age group totals / 200 / 192 / 198 / 217 / 224 / 265 / 311 / 308 / 307
Potential year-on-year changes / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0
Potential pupils from new housing / 3 / 8 / 12 / 12 / 12
Forecast Summer term total rolls / 227 / 273 / 323 / 320 / 319
Year on year changes were an average of the changes over the previous 3 years
2009/10-2010/11 / 2010/11-2011/12 / 2011/12-2012/13R to 1 / -3 / 0 / 0
1 to 2 / -1 / 3 / 2
2 to 3 / -5 / 2 / 0
3 to 4 / 0 / 0 / 2
Total / -9 / 5 / 4
Average year on year / (-9 + 5 + 4) / 3 = 0
Pupils from new housing were based on the number of unbuilt units with planning permission and the average pupil yields from the various types of unit. At the time of forecast there was only one such housing development in the catchment (the former Unilever site on the High Street).
1 bed flat / 2+ bed flat / 1 bed house / 2+ bed house / TotalNumber of units / 14 / 53 / 0 / 27 / 94
Pupil yield (per yeargroup) / 0.0080 / 0.0256 / 0.0350 / 0.0350
Potential pupils produced (whole school) / 0.6 / 6.8 / 0.0 / 4.7 / 12.1
Completions data from the District gave an expected number of properties completed each year. Assuming these were split evenly between the types of unit gives the final figure for potential pupils.
2013/14 / 2014/15 / 2015/16 / 2016/17 / 2017/18Completions / 20 / 40 / 34 / 0 / 0
Potential pupils / 3 / 5 / 4 / 0 / 0
Cumulative potential pupils / 3 / 8 / 12 / 12 / 12
You responded:
"Future housing development that has yet to receive planning permission is not included in forecasts."
Clarification required:
Can you please explain why the Council is taking a such a short-sighted view and not taking into account the potential future growth in the population of the local area and hence increased demand in school places - e.g. the potential for 610 new dwellings around Needham Market by 2025 was outlined in the MSDC Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment April 2009 - whilst undertaking the SOR. This is a project which will impact children in the area for many years to come.
The council is not taking a short sighted view. 610 houses, depending on their type, would be expected to contain about 15 children per year of age. With the transfer of the former middle school playing fields it will be possible to expand Bosmere as and when required.
The DfE's School Capacity Survey forecasts an increase of over 7% in the number of primary school age children in Suffolk between 2011/12 and 2016/17.
Has this forecast been factored into your calculations for the provision of places at Bosmere?
The growth in school age children is not uniform across Suffolk, nor is it uniform across districts within Suffolk. Using the Office of National Statistics figures the number of reception class places across Mid-Suffolk would appear to peak in 2018 with 77 more pupils than today. How these 77 children will be spread across the 46 schools cannot be predicted until we receive data from the health authority about the number of children living in each school catchment area for inclusion in our own forecasting system.
Q6. You responded:
"No changes proposed." in relation to the realignment of the public footpath.
Clarification required:
The Bosmere Community Primary School Feasibility Report makes passing reference to the footpath. What assessment has been made of the impact to primary school children and their safety, with regards to a public footpath bisecting the school site?
If you believe this to be "a matter for the headteacher and governing body", please explain why?
I have checked with the Definitive Maps Officer and there is no public footpath bisecting the existing primary school site. So I am assuming that the clarification relates to the proposal to use the middle school playing field adjacent to the eastern boundary of the primary school which would lead to the primary site being crossed by Footpath 17 on the Definitive Map of the area. It is not uncommon for school playing fields to be crossed by footpaths in Suffolk and elsewhere. The day to day management of school sites and the pupils are a matter for headteacher and governing body in these cases.
Q7. You responded:
"While the current roll of Bosmere is nearer to 200, the capacity of the buildings is 300. The communal facilities would have originally been designed to serve this number of pupils.".
Clarification required:
Where does the figure of 300 come from please? The school was originally built in the 1980s and has been expanded since then. Please provide full details of the *original* planned capacity of the building at the time of the original build.
Bosmere opened in 1982, the statutory notice described it as the first 200 places of a 300 place school.
You also responded:
"The pupils will benefit from economies of scale of a larger school and are expected to reach higher levels of attainment at the age of 11."
Clarification required:
Please elaborate on the 'economies of scale' anticipated?
When a school grows while the number of teachers and classroom assistants may increase in proportion, the number of other staff eg head, caretakers, admin staff do not. The way schools are now funded with smaller fixed blocks and more funding based on pupil numbers this also favours bigger schools.
Q8. You stated:
"The costs of converting middle schools to primary schools are greater than extending primary schools as extensive changes to the environment are required to make them suitable for the younger pupils."
Clarification required:
Please provide a copy of the feasibility report investigating the conversion of Needham Market Middle School into a primary school.
No such feasibility study was carried out. Average costs of converting middle schools to primary schools elsewhere are in excess of £1m
You state:
"This option was not feasible within the budget."
Clarification required:
Please provide full details of the estimated costs of the conversion of NMMS into a primary school - and of the budget for extending Bosmere Primary School as currently proposed.
See above. Estimated cost for Bosmere £388450
Q12 You responded:
"See the following link – Agenda Item 10."
Clarification required:
The report accessed via the link ("Future Back Office Requirements for Suffolk County Council") makes no reference to resources specifically required to complete the Schools Organisation Review, but refers to returning Finance and HR services into the direct control of SCC; reducing service costs of these functions by 30%; and establishing an internal trading organisation to provide services to Schools.
I would repeat my original question, "What 'resources' were approved by the SCC Cabinet to complete the review?"
The relevant paper is dated 24 January 2012
Q19. You responded:
"This is a matter for the headteacher and governing body"
Clarification required:
Why, as the SOR is being imposed on the school, are pastoral matters such as this not being considered by SCC?
SOR is not being imposed on the school. The school played an integral part in promoting the reorganisation. SCC will support the head and governors by disseminating good practice in managing pupils in separate buildings.
Q27. You stated:
"The money is not allocated on the basis of high school pyramid."
Clarification required:
This appears to contradict your answers to questions 13 and 14?
The funding for this group of schools is not separated between Stowmarket and Stowupland pyramids. It is separate to funding to that for Thurston and Bury St Edmunds
Q29. Absent:
Feasibility report looking into the provision of a two-site school at Stowmarket High School.
Clarification required:
Please provide a copy of the report investigating the various options for the provision of a High School at Stowmarket.
There is no feasibility study on the two sites at Stowupland High
Q30. You stated:
"Not required"
Clarification required:
Please see my clarification request for Q29. If no such feasibility report is available, please explain why.
There is sufficient and suitable accommodation on the Stowmarket sites for the number and age range of students planned to be on those sites.