ITEM CMDSI2
CABINET MEMBER FOR SCHOOLS IMPROVEMENT - 5 FEBRUARY 2008
ROSE HILL PRIMARY SCHOOL OXFORD – OUTCOME OF FORMAL CONSULTATION ABOUT A POSSIBLE ‘FRESH START’ BID.
Report by Director for Children, Young People & Families
Introduction
1. On 7 November 2007 the Cabinet Member for Schools Improvement received a report of the outcome of an informal consultation about possible future options for Rose Hill School, Littlemore. Strong support for ‘Fresh Start’ had been expressed by parents, governors and the headteacher, along with qualified support from school staff. In response officers were authorised to carry out a formal consultation.
2. A consultation document was circulated direct to the following: · Staff and governors of Rose Hill School · Local city and county councillors · The local member of parliament · The City Council · Headteachers of local schools · Governing bodies of local schools
A public meeting was held on 18 December 2007 and a meeting with staff on 14 December 2007.
Consultation outcomes
3. The meeting with staff updated them on possible timetables for ‘Fresh Start’ , including the implications of holding a competition for the new school should this be required. Staff expressed a preference for the shortest possible timescale for opening of a new ‘Fresh Start’ school as this would minimise the period of uncertainty about their own futures.
4. The public meeting held on 18 December attracted 13 people, split fairly evenly between parents of pupils currently attending Rose Hill Primary School, governors, members of the public and local councillors. The headteacher also attended. Issues raised included: the name of the new school and whether it had to be different; extra provision for pupils with specific difficulties; parental involvement in school life; admission of pupils currently attending Rose Hill Primary School; the future of the children’s centre; communication with parents about progress towards ‘Fresh Start’; and facilities in the new school.
5. As well as questions, attendees were invited to comment upon the ‘Fresh Start’ proposal. Everyone who spoke was positive and in support of this.
6. In addition one e-mail response has been received to date (11 January 2007). This supports the idea of ‘Fresh Start’ but argues for retention of the current school name. It also raises concerns about the possible impact of further staff changes upon the education of the author’s children, currently attending Rose Hill Primary School.
7. Any further e-mails or written responses received by the 25 January deadline will be reported to the 5 February meeting.
Progress with ‘Fresh Start’ bid
8. A formal bid for ‘Fresh Start’ funding, both revenue and capital, was submitted in December 2007. A definitive decision on whether or not the Department for Children, Schools & Families (DCSF) has confirmed the funding has yet to be received. Officers are currently seeking to secure such a decision and, if available, will report the outcome at the 5 February meeting.
9. The 2006 Education and Inspections Act introduced the requirement that, other than in certain circumstances, all new primary schools, including those created through ‘Fresh Start’, would be subject to a competition. This provides for bodies other than Local Authorities to put forward proposals to be the promoter of the new school. A competition process would extend the timetable for opening the new school so that it would be unlikely to be opened before Easter 2009. If ‘Fresh Start’ for Rose Hill Primary School were exempted from the requirement to hold a competition the new school could open as early as September 2008. A formal application for an exemption has been submitted to the DCSF and a response is awaited. If available, this will be reported at the 5 February meeting.
Financial and Staff Implications
10. There are no financial and staff implications arising directly from this report. However, were a Fresh Start bid to be successful it would bring significant additional revenue and possibly capital investment to Rose Hill School. Implementation would require closure of Rose Hill School and all current staff would need to apply for posts in the new school. It is therefore possible that some staff may not secure posts and, if suitable alternative employment could not be found for them, redundancy and associated compensatory payments could be incurred. The size of any redundancy payments would be dependent upon salary and length of reckonable service as laid down in the Council's agreed policy on redundancy payments. In certain circumstances Premature Retirement Compensation in line with the Premature Retirement Compensation Scheme may be appropriate. The ‘Fresh Start’ bid to the DCSF contains an £80,000 contribution towards the costs of possible redundancies.
RECOMMENDATION
11. The Cabinet Member for Schools Improvement is RECOMMENDED to:
(a) consider the outcome of the formal consultation;
(b) determine whether to proceed with the publication of statutory notices for the closure of Rose Hill Primary School and its replacement by a new Fresh Start school, subject to approval of the ‘Fresh Start’ revenue bid from the DSCF; and
(c) in the event that exemption from the requirement to hold a competition is not forthcoming, to authorise officers to publish a competition notice.
JANET TOMLINSON Director for Children, Young People & Families
Background papers: DCSF The Standards Site (www.standards.dfes.gov.uk)
Contact Officer: Roy Leach, Senior Adviser Educational Achievement & Service Monitoring Tel: 01865 - 428117
January 2008
|