“ A local authority shall (so far as their powers enable them to do so) contribute towards the spiritual, moral, mental and physical development of the community by securing that efficient primary education and section education … are available to meet the needs of the population of their area .”
“(1) A local authority shall secure that sufficient schools for providing — (a) primary education, and (b) education that is secondary education by virtue of section 2(2)(a) , are available for their area . (2) The schools available for an area shall not be regarded as sufficient for the purposes of subsection (1) unless they are sufficient in number, character and equipment to provide for all pupils the opportunity of appropriate education. (3) In subsection (2) “appropriate education” means education which offers such variety of instruction and training as may be desirable in view of— (a) the pupils' different ages, abilities and aptitudes, and (b) the different periods for which they may be expected to remain at school, including practical instruction and training appropriate to their different needs. … (6) In exercising their functions under this section, a local authority shall in particular have regard to— (a) the need for securing that primary and secondary education are provided in separate schools; … (7) The duty imposed by subsection (6)(a) does not apply in relation to middle schools or special schools.”
“(1) Where a local authority in England propose to discontinue – (a) a community , foundation or voluntary school , … the authority must publish their proposals under this section. (2) … (3) Proposals under this section must– (a) contain such information, and (b) be published in such manner, as may be prescribed. (4) The matters to which the relevant body must have regard in formulating any proposals under this section in relation to a rural primary school include – (a) the likely effect of the discontinuance of the school on the local community, (b) the availability, and likely cost to the local authority, of transport to other schools, (c) any increase in the use of motor vehicles which is likely to result from the discontinuance of the school, and the likely effects of any such increase, and (d) any alternatives to the discontinuance of the school; and in considering these matters the relevant body must have regard to any guidance given from time to time by the Secretary of State. … (6) Schedule 2 has effect in relation to the consideration, approval and implementation of proposals published under this section. (7) In this section– (a) “the relevant body” means the local authority mentioned in subsection (1) or the governing body mentioned in subsection (2) (as the case may be); (b) “rural primary school” means a primary school designated as such for the purposes of this section by an order made by the Secretary of State. (8) In this Part any reference to a local authority – (a) discontinuing a school, or (b) implementing proposals to discontinue a school (whether published by the authority or the governing body), is a reference to the authority ceasing to maintain the school.”
“(1) Before publishing any proposals under section 15 which relate to a school which is a rural primary school or a community or foundation special school, the relevant body must consult – (a) the registered parents of registered pupils at the school , (b) in the case of the rural primary school – (i) the local authority (where they are not the relevant body), (ii) where the local authority are a county council, any district council for the area in which the school is situated , and (iii) any parish council for the area in which the school is situated , (c) [subparagraph omitted as it only applies “in the case of a community or foundation special school”] …, and (d) such other persons as appear to the relevant body to be appropriate . (2) Before publishing any other proposals under section 15, the relevant body must consult such persons as appear to them to be appropriate. (3) In discharging their duty under subsection (1) or (2) the relevant body must have regard to any guidance given from time to time by the Secretary of State. (4) In this section “the relevant body” and “rural primary school” have the same meaning as in section 15.”
“ The presumption against the closure of rural schools Proposers should be aware that the Department expects all decision-makers to adopt a presumption against the closure of rural schools. This doesn’t mean that a rural school will never close, but that the case for closure should be strong and clearly in the best interests of educational provision in the area. The presumption doesn’t apply where a rural infant and junior school on the same site are being closed to establish a new primary school. Proposers should set out whether the school is referred to in the Designation of Rural Primary Schools (England) Order or, where it is a secondary school, whether the school is identified as rural on the Get Information about Schools database. Proposers should provide evidence to show they have carefully considered: • alternatives to closure including: federation with another local school; conversion to academy status and joining a multi-academy trust; the scope for an extended school to provide local community services and facilities e.g. childcare facilities, family and adult learning, healthcare, community internet access etc; • transport implications i.e. the availability, and likely cost of transport to other schools and sustainability issues; • the size of the school and whether it puts the children at an educational disadvantage e.g. in terms of breadth of curriculum or resources available; • the overall and long term impact on the local community of the closure of the village school and of the loss of the building as a community facility; and • wider school organisation and capacity of good schools in the area to accommodate displaced pupils.”
“Although there is no longer a statutory ‘pre-publication’ consultation period for prescribed alteration changes, there is a strong expectation that schools and LAs will consult interested parties in developing their proposal prior to publication, to take into account all relevant considerations.”
“(1) A person (A) discriminates against another (B) if A applies to B a provision, criterion or practice which is discriminatory in relation to a relevant protected characteristic of B's. (2) For the purposes of subsection (1), a provision, criterion or practice is discriminatory in relation to a relevant protected characteristic of B's if— (a) A applies, or would apply, it to persons with whom B does not share the characteristic, (b) it puts, or would put, persons with whom B shares the characteristic at a particular disadvantage when compared with persons with whom B does not share it, (c) it puts, or would put, B at that disadvantage, and (d) A cannot show it to be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. (3) The relevant protected characteristics are— age; disability; gender reassignment; marriage and civil partnership; race; religion or belief; sex; sexual orientation.”
“It is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention right.”
“Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. ”
“Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.”
“The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or social status.”
“No person shall be denied the right to education. In the exercise of any functions which it assumes in relation to education and to teaching, the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions.”
“9. There have been longstanding concerns about the financial viability of this three-tier structure. Those concerns have focused in particular on the financial viability of the upper school, Wadham, and the two middle schools, Maiden Beech and Swanmead. 10. Wadham school has a significant budget deficit which, despite school leaders’ best efforts, is growing year on year. The deficit at31 March 2019 was£598,046 ; at31 March 2020 the deficit was£925,114 ; and at31 March 2021 the deficit was£1,399,118 (this is the latest figure available). For 2021/22 the school projected a deficit of£1,869,242 . … 18. … While we do not have access to the financial records of Maiden Beech (the middle school academy), Swanmead Community School (the local authority maintained middle school) also has a growing deficit. Swanmead’s deficit on31 March 2019 was£25,382 ; on31 March 2020 the deficit was£61,017 ; and on31 March 2021 the deficit was£62,563 . The school’s submitted budget plan for 2021/22 projected a deficit of£79,095 . … 22. … Records show that Wadham went into deficit in 2007/08 and this rose steadily until it reached£440,000 in 2011/12. In this year the school’s deficit was written off on the agreement of Schools Forum, when there was a change to the Schools Funding Formula. It was felt this presented an opportunity to start on a level playing field for those schools in deficit. As part of the agreement a local charitable organisation, the Crewkerne Education Trust, donated half the sum needed to pay off the deficit. The school was back into deficit by 2015/16.”
“That standardised funding reflects the cost of delivering education, but assumes some economies of scale. Economies of scale in the staffing of schools are based on the school’s ability to match the volume of pupils with the number of separate subjects requiring a different specialist teacher.”
“Most secondary schools teach Key Stage 3 and Key Stage 4, and it is standard practice to subsidise the costs of teaching a higher number of discrete subjects in Key Stage 4 by the lower costs of delivering the narrower curriculum in Key Stage 3. Large upper schools may also achieve similar economy of scale for Key Stage 4 due to their size.”
“Secondary schools can become financially not viable when they are too small. Small pupil numbers give rise to even more acute difficulties for upper schools, and Wadham is in the bottom 10% by size for schools nationally serving Year 7 and higher. By contrast, the other local authority-maintained secondary school in Somerset, Frome Community College, has around 1200 pupils compared to around 470 pupils on the roll at Wadham. At more than twice the size it can comfortably deliver the Key Stage 4 curriculum within funding. For Wadham to reach a similar level of efficiency it would need to make drastic and brutal cuts to the curriculum in Key Stage 4. This would have an immediate negative impact on children’s education by curtailing the options available for GCSE or other national qualifications. Further, this impact would be felt most by children whose economic circumstances meant they had no other choice of school, as there is no other school that teaches GCSEs within the funded transport area.”
“In a rural area, there will be some pupils who can afford the cost of transport to attend a more distant school. For pupils from lower income background, however, a local school is likely to be the only viable option. Therefore, it is crucial that the school they attend is a good school, and that they can feel a sense of pride that they attend a school of choice.”
“The underlying factors are demographic and arise as a result of ongoing changes within the community which mean that there are fewer resident children of school age and a greater proportion of households with older residents. The number of pupils in the two middle schools and upper school in Years 7 to 11 only was 929 in 2010. By 2020 this was 773, a reduction of 156 pupils. The minimum funding for each pupil in the National Funding Formula is£3,000 for secondary-aged pupils. A loss of 156 pupils represents a loss of at least£468,000 - a figure which equates very closely to the level of deficit being accumulated in the area each year.”
“The review confirms that whilst there are some savings to optimise efficiency, the school is in structural deficit. Staffing costs are too high to support the children with a broad and balanced curriculum; the school would need to be significantly larger in the current age range or expand by adding year 7 and year 8 children into the school. Increasing the average class size across the school will support the current curriculum offer and thereby balancing the finances with the educational experience. The only financial alternative to this would be to drastically reduce the curriculum offer; close the sixth form and dramatically reduce non-curriculum support staff.”
“17. The area around Ilminster and Crewkerne is attractive and represents a desirable location to live. There are a number of planned and proposed developments which could, if realised, bring more pupils into local schools in time. However, given what we know about declining birth rates and the age distribution of the population, the impact of house building is only likely to mitigate losses and is unlikely to result in significant growth in pupil numbers… 18. The impact of declining numbers is not restricted to the upper school. … The pupil numbers in the middle schools are also in decline. While there has been some small growth in the past few years, this is due to a national ‘bulge’ in the pupil population which is not projected to continue and the downward trajectory is likely to return (based on numbers currently in the primary/first sector and what is known about the birth-rate.)”
“Potentially viable structures were established against these options, resulting in six scenarios deemed to represent the most viable models for further assessment and discussion . Scenarios are identified based on their viability and deliverability and as such many alternatives have been discounted on the basis of not being deliverable within the assumptions and constraints of the review scope (e.g. where sites are too small to practically deliver a scenario, physically or in terms of viability of the resultant educational model, the scenario is not carried forwards as it would not be viable / deliverable / recommended as a structure). Resultant scenarios vary in numbers of schools in the system (and converse potential school closures) and the complexity of associated changes. These scenarios are not recommendations but an assessment of viable models for future consultation and feasibility study, and as such no single scenario or hybrid scenario is proposed as the best solution. The scenarios show ways required capacity and alternative educational structures could be delivered within the constraints of existing and potential future expanded site developments; but this needs to be reviewed in the wider context of community and Diocese impact, Academisation, estate ownership and the changing MAT landscape etc. No one option can be progressed without critical decisions being taken by stakeholders to agree a way forward.”
“You will recall that in my previous letter which I had asked Headteachers to distribute to you I explained that we had been meeting with Headteachers of schools in the area for some time now discussing the need to review the school structure in and around Ilminster and Crewkerne. This is about making sure it is financially viable and has the capacity to provide the range of curriculum opportunities to equip the children and young people in the area with the skills and qualifications that they will need for the future. In that letter I explained that we had commissioned an organisation called Futures for Somerset (FfS) to carry out a review of provision in the area and that they would be looking at a range of alternative structures, setting out the pros and cons of each. In assessing each model they would look at a number of factors including the educational impacts of each model at each key stage. They will also look at the impact on pupils with Special Educational Needs, early years provision (pre-school and nursery), staffing implications, transport costs, impact on communities and the costs of making any change. FfS have now completed this work and presented their report to the Local Authority and last week the findings of the review were shared with Chairs of Governors and Headteachers. It is important to understand that the report does not make proposals or recommendations for change but sets out what is possible. We will be spending the next few weeks until the end of term meeting with Governors of all the schools in the area to seek their feedback on the report which will then inform decisions about how we proceed. A copy of the report is available here: [a link to the report was provided]. There are a considerable number of appendices to the report which are not yet attached to it because of their size. These are being uploaded over the next few days. We have set up a short survey to gauge people’s views of the options and ask what is important to you in considering the structure of schools in the area. This is available here: [a link to the questionnaire was provided]. We will be meeting again with Chairs of Governors and Headteachers and representatives of the Diocese and the Regional Schools Commissioners Office before the end of term to draw together all the responses. Over the summer break we will decide whether there are option(s) we want to take forward for further development or whether there are alternative models we want to explore further with a view to making a final decision on how to proceed in the autumn term, subject to statutory consultation processes. I appreciate that this is an unsettling time whilst we decide how we need to proceed. However, the one thing that the review has shown is that there is no one obvious, straightforward solution and so it is important that we use the report as a starting point for discussion to make sure that whatever is decided is the right solution.”
“I responded to the June/July 2019 consultation voting for no change to the current system but it was not my understanding that this would be the last time the option of keeping Misterton open would be on the table. At no point during the 2019 consultation was it made clear that the closure of Misterton would be the final result.”
“That Cabinet agrees to: a) Publish a formal consultation on a proposed new two-tier model (see para 3.6 (sic)), followed by publication of statutory notices ahead of reporting back to Cabinet for a final decision. b) Delegate responsibility for agreeing the publication of statutory notices to the Cabinet Member for Education and Transformation, except in the case where consultation responses are such that significant changes to proposals are required and therefore necessitate reporting back to Cabinet.”
“The public consultation would seek views on the following five elements to the proposal for a new two-tier model of education for the area: 1) Crewkerne: Wadham School would change from an upper school with 460 pupils (including to a secondary school with an estimated 780 pupils 2) Ilminster: Swanmead Community School (middle school) and Greenfylde Church of England First School would amalgamate into a split site primary school . Should approved housing development progress in the town, S106 investment would be used to part fund a new single site school bringing these two sites together. In order to achieve this amalgamation, one school would be closed and pupil numbers would be expanded in the other school. However, the intent would be that this would be a wholly new school with a new name and staffing structure, not the continuation of one school and the closing of the other. The new school would be a Church of England primary. 3) Villages near Crewkerne: Merriott First School and Haselbury Plucknett Church of England First School would become primary schools. Hinton St. George Church of England Primary School would not be part of a structure change as it is already moved to becoming a primary school but it would be considered as part of any changes to ensure all schools receive a sustainable proportion of the total pupil cohort. Misterton Church of England First School is federated with Ashlands in Crewkerne (see below). 4) Crewkerne and Misterton: Ashlands and St Bartholomew's Church of England First Schools and Maiden Beech Academy (middle school) would form three primary schools. Misterton is a very small school and is located only 1.2 miles from St Bart's. Though the federation has invested in condition improvements since the assessment, it was the only school in the area rated Red/Amber for building condition in the FfS review. At present, there are not enough pupils in the area to keep the Misterton site in use and so this school would close at the end of the 2021/22 academic year. This means the school would remain open for two years, during which time all pupils would be supported to choose and plan for transition to another local school. In the consultation we would seek views about the best way to keep the building in operation, either for some other educational purpose or for community use. 5) Subject to statutory notices and future decisions by the Council, the proposed implementation of these changes would commence starting September 2022. We will work with schools and local communities to develop a transition plan that ensures quality of education is not adversely affected, every school has a manageable number of pupils in each year of transition, and schools are adequately funded through the transition period and beyond.”
“The 'do nothing' option has not been put forward in the current proposal because the only other response to the funding pressures on school in the area would be to dramatically reduce the range of subjects offered to pupils in Years 10, 11, 12 and 13. This would have significant negative impacts on the education of young people in the area, now and into the future.”
“36. … Having already undertaken the Summer 2019 consultation and returned no evidence of consensus locally, I judged that a further consultation on a wide range of options would, in all likelihood, return the same result and provide us with no new intelligence on which to proceed. I concluded that we needed more information about the impact that change would have on individual schools and families, and that we would only gain this understanding by consulting on a particular configuration of schools in detail. This could result either in confirming that the model would be viable, or it could identify how the model could be improved, or it could elicit an entirely new way forward that had not previously been considered. Any of these avenues would improve our position in securing a model for the future. 37. I consulted with the various members of staff with expertise within the County Council and from this advice it was clear that all of the models considered in the 2019 review had disadvantages in relation to the principles elicited from that consultation. Option 1A was discounted as ‘doing nothing’ would, in fact, not result in no action, but would necessitate swingeing cuts to Wadham’s curriculum which was unacceptable. Options 3B, 4A and 4D required the closure of multiple rural schools and recognising the strength of feeling in the first consultation against school closure, as well as the presumption against the closure of rural schools and the impact on rural communities of closure, we established that, while school closure was potentially unavoidable, we should aim to close as few schools as possible . Options 5C and 5D retained the rural schools, but at a cost of efficiency. There was no merit in undergoing the pain of reorganisation only to create a new inefficient system. 38. Because I was not involved in the scoping of the FfS review, I am not aware how the specific options evaluated were selected. However, there were other configurations that were possible that would take elements of the different models. My aim was to create a single ‘least worst’ model that would balance retaining as many small rural schools as possible, maximise efficiency and make best use of transport, the school estate, church and non-church options .”
“ Why have other options not been considered? Couldn’t Misterton be considered as a primary school? A. This option has been investigated. In the last consultation, people told us that they wanted to keep as many schools as possible and avoid closure. However, if all schools in the Crewkerne area, including Misterton, were retained, this would result in far too many places compared to how many children there would be. The council cannot close Maiden Beech, and it is unlikely the remaining schools could accommodate all the children without this large school. Hinton St George, Haselbury Plucknett and Merriott are significantly further away from Crewkerne. Ashlands is the only school in North Crewkerne and the likelihood is that this will be the location for housing growth. There would be too many spaces in and around South Crewkerne. To reduce this oversupply either St Barts or Misterton could be closed. Misterton is a smaller school and therefore the number of children disrupted by closure would be fewer. Around half the pupils in Misterton live in Crewkerne. … Why is there only one option on the table? A. This is not the first time we have consulted on this matter. In the last consultation multiple options were provided. The outcome of that consultation was entirely inconclusive, and no options received general support, including no change. The council is required by law to precede any decision to reorganise by a publication of one clear and definitive plan. It was judged to be most transparent to consult on that plan widely before a decision was taken whether to progress with that statutory stage. The law states that a proposal that is taken to Cabinet must be the same as the statutory notices. By consulting on one option it provides the opportunity for the community to influence what that model looks like or stop the progress of the decision-making process.”
“3) What do you see as the advantages of the proposed changes/proposals? 4) What do you see as the disadvantages of the proposed changes/proposals? 5) What are your views on the proposal to change Wadham school Crewkerne from upper to secondary school? 6) What are your views on the proposal to amalgamate Swanmead Community School and Greenfylde CofE First School in Ilminster into a split site primary school? 7) What are your views on the proposal to convert Merriott First School and Haselbury Plucknett CofE First School into primary schools? 8) What are your views on the proposal to convert Ashlands CofE First School, St Bartholomews CofE First School and Maiden Beech Academy into 3 primary schools in Crewkerne and reduce the total number of schools from 4 to 3 by closing Misterton CofE First School? 9) What are your views on the proposal to make September 2022 the first date that pupils would attend classes in different schools under the new arrangements? 10) What are your views on how these proposals might be implemented? You may wish to comment, for example, on curriculum, pupil numbers, admissions, provision of early years, preparing for housing growth, managing environmental impact & community impact, school transport or staff re-organisation.”
“• There is significant opposition to proposals, with roughly two-thirds of respondents expressing negative viewpoints. This reflects the outcomes of the previous consultation. However, while there are concerns and opposition, there has also not come forward any viable alternative to the proposals. The alternative options which have been put forward are detailed below. • Whilst some significant new concerns have come forward, these can all be mitigated in some way. These are detailed in the Consultation responses document.”
“Whilst in principle a single MAT could potentially be part of a solution for education provision in the area, in practice Maiden Beech Academy is part of the Bridgwater and Taunton College Trust (BTCT) and in order for all schools to sit within the same trust, BTCT would need to adopt church articles, with the permission of the Diocese of Bath and Wells. BTCT does not have church articles, and while conversations have taken place over the past few years about the prospect of BTCT adopting church articles, the outcome of this discussion concluded with no further action. Therefore, there is no prospect in the foreseeable future of a single trust solution for these three schools. Prior to the current consultation, the Regional Schools Commissioner engaged other multi-academy trusts in discussion about the prospect of taking on Wadham School as a solution to the structural deficit. These conversations were not productive, as the issue of low pupil numbers and financial deficit would remain whether the school was located within a trust or not.”
“57. …While we were in complete agreement that this would have been a preferable option, our repeated attempts to ascertain agreement by all the parties who would be required to agree (all governing bodies, the trust, the RSC and the Diocese) showed us that, not only had agreement not been secured, it was not likely ever to be secured . In this scenario the Diocese and upper school have an effective veto. This is because academisation decisions have to be taken by the school’s governing body in the first instance, and the decision to join a trust must additionally be agreed by the trust and the Regional Schools Commissioner, with advice from the headteacher board. However, where the school is a church school, the trust must hold church articles, and the Diocese must agree that the trust meets the criteria to hold church articles. Therefore, unless all parties are in agreement, a church school such as Wadham cannot academise and join a particular trust. 58. Various elected members and SCC officers directly raised the matter on a number of occasions with the parties involved, over many years including on multiple occasions that I was involved in during the pre-publication and statutory consultations. Though we consistently returned the same message, in the final stages of the debate we sought representations in writing, which were received, which established conclusively that no further avenues existed to be pursued .”
“4. What is your view of the proposal?” [Giving five answers ranging from strongly in favour to strongly not in favour.] 5. Listed are the common views shared by respondents in the pre-publication consultation which were given as reasons to support the proposal. • Do any of these reflect your views? • Select as many options as apply. • I believe this has the potential to improve the quality of the whole education system in the area. • I believe that this would put schools on a more sustainable financial footing. • I believe it is advantageous to have a two-tier system as this is in place in most of the rest of the country. • I believe that there would be a positive impact if children were to stay at first schools for longer. • I believe that there would be a positive impact if children were to stay in the same school for each key stage. • I believe that fewer transition points would be helpful for children with SEND and other vulnerabilities. • I believe starting secondary school in year 7 can help better prepare children for GCSEs. • I believe the proposals have the potential to improve Wadham School. 6. Listed are the common views shared by respondents in the pre-publication consultation which were given as reasons to oppose the proposal. • Do any of these reflect your views? • Select as many options as apply. • I believe the three tier and Middle School system is preferable. • I am concerned that proposals could increase mixed age and mixed phase classes. • I am concerned about the impact of additional travel for children between Ilminster and Crewkerne. • I am concerned there is a risk to the provision of high-quality provision for pupils with SEND • I am concerned about the extent of training needed for teachers to operate within a different phase of education. • I am concerned about the potential loss of specialist subject teaching for years 5 and 6. • I disagree with the method and timing of the review and consultation period. • I disagree with the closure of Misterton First School. 7. Please share any further comments you have on the proposal.”
“ Sometimes, particularly when statute does not limit the subject of the requisite consultation to the preferred option, fairness will require that interested persons be consulted not only upon the preferred option but also upon arguable yet discarded alternative options. For example, in R (Medway Council) v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions [2003] JPL 583 , the court held that, in consulting about an increase in airport capacity in South East England, the Government had acted unlawfully in consulting upon possible development only at Heathrow, Stansted and the Thames estuary and not also at Gatwick; and see also R (Montpeliers and Trevors Association) v Westminster City Council[2006] LGR 304 , para 29.”
“But, even when the subject of the requisite consultation is limited to the preferred option, fairness may nevertheless require passing reference to be made to arguable yet discarded alternative options . In Nichol v Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council(1988) 87 LGR 435 Gateshead, confronted by a falling birth rate and therefore an inability to sustain a viable sixth form in all its secondary schools, decided to set up sixth form colleges instead. Local parents failed to establish that Gateshead’s prior consultation had been unlawful. The Court of Appeal held that Gateshead had made clear what the other options were: see pp 455, 456 and 462. In the Royal Brompton case 126 BMLR 134 , cited above, the defendant, an advisory body, was minded to advise that only two London hospitals should provide paediatric cardiac surgical services, namely Guys and Great Ormond Street. In the Court of Appeal the Royal Brompton Hospital failed to establish that the defendant’s exercise in consultation upon its prospective advice was unlawful. In its judgment delivered by Arden LJ, the court, at para 10, cited the Gateshead case as authority for the proposition that “a decision-maker may properly decide to present his preferred options in the consultation document, provided it is clear what the other options are . . .”
“25. …while it is evident that the three-tier system is a key factor in the presenting issues, the imperative was to find a model that would create sustainability, not to remove the three-tier system per se. Were the review and/or subsequent consultation to have concluded that a different three-tier configuration was the most desirable, this would have been entirely acceptable as a model for the future . … 42. This consultation was a pre-publication consultation, and therefore it was not prescribed in regulations what the consultation would entail. Our decision to consult on a single model was a positive decision to do so. It was clear to us that this was an exceptionally complex scenario, and that any option, if pursued, could easily result in unintended consequences. Were we to consult again on multiple options, the feedback we would likely receive would be primarily in the form of lobbying for one option rather than another, and we would likely fail to receive detailed consideration of all aspects of the various models. The regulations require that statutory proposals include extensive consideration of a wide range of factors. It was my view that, without testing a specific model, we would be unable to progress a statutory proposal that was sufficiently detailed and insightful. If the consultation feedback had revealed that the model was fatally flawed, or if a more desirable model had come forward, we would have the latitude to make fundamental changes at that stage. Once we advance to statutory consultation, a decision must be taken within a defined time period that relates to those proposals, and while they may change, this does not allow for a complete about turn at that late stage. Consulting on a single model left open the widest possible number of routes to finding a model we could have confidence in.”
“65. WC, through TC, has alleged that the proposal to close Misterton was presented as a fait accompli or was taken in advance of the consultation process. This is not the case: the closure of Misterton was openly presented for consideration alongside all other elements of the proposal, with open-ended questions seeking views on this possibility. Had a viable alternative structure been suggested at any stage and in any manner, which permitted Misterton to remain open, SCC would have considered it. Where alternatives were suggested SCC did consider them, however they were all, unfortunately, unviable. ”
“True consultation is not a matter of simply ‘counting heads’: it is not a matter of how many people object to proposals but how soundly based their objections are.”
“Please may I register the following question/s for answering at the ‘Scrutiny for Policies, Children and Families Committee’ meeting which is being held on the 3 rd March: During one of your Nov/Dec 2020 consultation Q&As I asked if the merged Swanmead and Greenfylde school would receive extra financial assistance as obviously there will be unavoidable extra costs associated with operating one school over two sites. The answer was a blunt ‘yes’, which is good to know but hardly a very enlightening or informative answer. We appreciate there will be transitional funding but what, if any, kind of financial packages will there be for schools to mitigate the financial implications associated with significant surplus floor area being opened up across the school estate as a result of moving 2 extra year groups to Wadham? Obviously parents and staff have concerns and need reassurance that schools won’t be financially disadvantaged as a result of your proposed changes. In the case of a merged Swanmead and Greenfylde - will a certain amount of financial assistance be indefinite for as long as the school remains split site, or will there be a cut off point? Will the amount they receive actually cover all unavoidable extra costs or just lessen them? And will this extra financial assistance be guaranteed and protected from future budget cuts and changes in Council leadership? ”
“ I can give you absolute reassurance that a split-site primary school in Ilminster would be guaranteed split-site funding for as long as that was the arrangement. This is something that is hard-wired into the national funding formula which is the money provided by central government and so it would be in place whatever happened locally and as long as it was needed. If a decision is taken to move forward, one of the things we would be investing in is a detailed study of the accommodation options for an Ilminster school. Money has already been committed, subject to a decision to progress on the 17th, to invest in reconfiguring the accommodation so that Swanmead could serve Key Stage 2 pupils. It would be counterproductive not to look at the longer term at the same time, so if this goes ahead we would take the opportunity to think more widely about the future, including what the old Adult Education building on Ditton Street could be used for (because it sits right next to Swanmead). Or whether Swanmead could be expanded to bring all pupils onto one site. Or in what circumstances the time would be right to consider a whole new building. If the decision on the 17th is that change is coming, this would create opportunities as well as challenges. We would want to leave no stone unturned in order to secure the right spaces for children to learn in.”
“i) It is not necessary in all cases where a particular proposal is the subject matter of a consultation to set out alternatives including those that may have been rejected or explain why they have been rejected. ii) Fairness requires that to be done where it is necessary to allow informed or intelligent responses. That is sometimes the case as Lord Wilson said at paragraph 27 of his speech. iii) Whether that is necessary, and correspondingly whether the consultation is a fair one, is a broad question in answering which the matters that fall to be considered include the purpose of the consultation, the nature of the proposal being consulted on, and what consultees can be reasonably taken to know about the proposal and its context.”
“… There appears to us to be very little between them as to the correct approach. We agree with Lord Reed JSC that the court must have regard to the statutory context and that, as he puts it, in the particular statutory context, the duty of the local authority was to ensure public participation in the decision-making process. …”
“• avoiding long journeys to and excess traffic around schools • the importance of high-quality education for all • the key role played in communities by village schools • any changes to result in sustainable schools with the right capacity • support for the needs of children caught up in change • benefits of teaching cohorts in complete key stages • mitigating or removing the negative effects of two school transfers • taking account of previous building investment and condition, • ensuring a safe environment on and around school sites for children.”
“• The structure should provide pupil numbers which, wherever possible, support efficient pupil / teacher ratios so that every school can deliver educational excellence sustainably. • There is a presumption to retain village schools, recognising that in some circumstances this may not be possible. • The structure should ensure sufficiency of places meet the future needs of the area. • The option to choose a church school should be retained in each locality for compulsory education. • The structure must consider the condition and suitability of the school estate. • The structure should avoid significantly increasing travel to school times where this can be avoided.”
“Whilst the option of a change to formula funding initially appeared as a potential quick fix, it soon became clear that this would in effect only result in a temporary relaxation of the increasing deficit and would not have any impact on the quality or sustainability of education going forwards.”
“The requirement that the consultation takes place at a “formative stage” means that at the relevant time the decision-maker must have an “open mind on the issue of principle involved”: Montpelier §21 (ii). The question is whether the decision-maker had already made up its mind to adopt the proposal or whether it was willing to reconsider its proposal in the light of the consultation process if a case to do so was made out. There must be no actual pre-determination on the part of the decision-maker . Where the decision-maker is consulting on a particular proposal, the consultation must include consultation on whether the proposal should be adopted, and not just on how. However I accept the Secretary of State’s submission that there is a legitimate distinction to be drawn between actual pre-determination on the part of the decision-maker and the decision-maker having a “pre-disposition” towards the proposal. The latter is permissible , and necessarily so in circumstances where the decision-maker is, as entitled to do, to determine the particular proposal upon which he wishes to consult, see Lewis v Redcar §§63, 95, 99, 106-107; Langton §§106, 107; Spurrier §§503-535, especially at §§509-511, 524, 531.”
“Yes, as an academy Maiden Beech are autonomous and decide their own admissions. However, the leadership of Maiden Beech and the trust, Bridgwater and Taunton College Trust, are working collaboratively with Somerset County Council and other partners in the recognition that all schools are part of a system and it is in the best interests of pupils and parents if schools work together. While the current proposal may not reflect the preference of every stakeholder, we have been encouraged by the willingness to accept the outcome of the consultation and political decision-making, and work in the best interests of children and the community.” ii) The Statutory Proposal stated: “The decision to review school organisation sits with the Council, because it has a legal duty to secure efficient and effective education in the area. The Council does not hold legal powers to execute every aspect of the current proposal, and it is therefore possible that other stakeholders might not cooperate in implementing proposals. However, the Council has been working cooperatively with the office of the Regional Schools Commissioner, the Diocese of Bath and Wells, Bridgwater and Taunton College Trust and the Baths and Wells Multi-Academy Trust and to date all stakeholders, whether in agreement with the substance of the proposals or not, have remained committed to playing their part in any future changes for the good of children and the area.”
“ The general consensus is people do not want this to go ahead. You are potentially damaging a generation of children’s education. What would happen if people start to vote with their feet and move their children so that Wadham loses further students and decide not to transition them there at all? A. We know this is an issue that divides the community. In the previous consultation, none of the many options received general support, including no change. However, it is a reality of political decision-making that it can be more damaging to avoid difficult decisions than to take them. We have already received many varied and constructive responses to this consultation, and remain open and willing to ideas about how to solve this longstanding problem.”
“there would be a reduction of non-church school spaces at middle school level. While this reduces choice, at present pupils in the Ilminster area do not have choice between a church and nonchurch option at any stage of their education, therefore the degree of choice is not reduced.”
“A litigant who has a real and genuine interest in challenging an administrative decision must be entitled to present his challenge on all available grounds.”
“• Adaptations would be compliant with the Equalities Act. • There is an extensive backlog of building condition works in affected schools and a number of the schools are old buildings where access and suitability can be below modern standards. Refurbishment is an opportunity to raise standards. • The proposed transition of pupils into a new secondary school would involve over 400 pupils transitioning at one time. Any physical adaptations needed would be undertaken. This could also increase the risk that pupils with SEND were negatively impacted by the change.”
“As we have stated in the Equalities Impact Assessment, the unusually extensive transition of up to 480 pupils from the middle schools to the new secondary school at one time that would be necessary should the reorganisation go ahead, would create a heightened risk to pupils with vulnerabilities. However, having identified the heightened risk in that transition, we are confident that measures can be put in place to reduce that risk. As a ‘one- off’ transition event it would benefit from the added expertise, investment and resources that are assigned to the implementation project, which are not available on an ongoing basis. Therefore, any risk presented by a single, exceptional transition event, is significantly lower overall than the ongoing risk of standard practice being three transition points for all pupils compared to two.”
“It is my view (and is a view that has been expressed to me repeatedly by Julian Wooster, the Director of Children’s Services in SCC), that the balance of evidence is that every educational transition point presents a risk to children with vulnerabilities. Reducing the number of transition points in any education system reduces the risk to children with vulnerabilities (including, but not restricted to, children with SEND) and is therefore desirable.”
“It is possible to maintain a flourishing system with a greater number of transition points. However, every transition point presents a risk for vulnerable pupils, and therefore there is merit in reducing transitions as part of this change project.”
“9.9.1 This scenario proposes that all pupils will transition directly from primary to secondary education after Year 6, this means a reduction to optimal position of only one transition, which could provide greater continuity for the more vulnerable (reducing anxiety for some students) and minimise impact associated with poor transition.”
“One of the principles which have informed the model that formed the basis of the consultation is: “the option to choose a church school should be retained in each locality”
“… BB, through HP, has alleged that it is important to him to attend a secular middle school. However, BB currently attends a church school, Greenfylde Church of England First school. BB lives in Westport, which is not in the catchment of Greenfylde. In fact, the nearest primary school to his home is Hambridge, a secular school, which has vacant places. Greenfylde is only the eighth nearest school to BB’s place of residence.”
“I chose the Ilminster three-tier school system because of the nurturing support I know Swanmead provides (from personal experience) and because we are very much part of the Ilminster community, but most importantly because I want my son to attend Swanmead, a non-faith middle-school. I consider it to be extremely important for my son to experience some time in a non-faith provision rather than an imposed religious environment. We are not Church of England, which is why I considered his future attendance at Swanmead to be an important element of his education career.”
“A decision-maker is under a duty of inquiry: a duty to ask himself the right question and to take reasonable steps to acquaint him or herself with the relevant information to enable him to answer it correctly: Tameside , supra, at 1065. Subject to Wednesbury challenge, it is for the decision-maker and not the court to conclude what is relevant and to decide upon the manner and intensity of inquiry to be undertaken into any relevant factor accepted or demonstrated as such. The court should only strike down a decision not to make further inquiries if no reasonable decision-maker, possessed of material before the decision-maker, could suppose that the inquiries made were sufficient: Khatun, supra, at §35.”
“A detailed cost/benefit analysis of baseline Scenario 1A against other options is recommended so the limitations and constraints of proceeding with changes for natural growth only are fully understood, in terms of continued impact on education provision (and potential future performance) and finances. All proposed improvement scenarios require increased levels of Capital expenditure and have potential revenue cost associated with factors such as travel; this needs to be better understood in relation to likely ongoing financial deficits and baseline capital funding requirements.”
“[I]t became clear once cost/analysis was commenced that this would not be the finely balanced affair that it first appeared. At first glance, the costs of ‘do nothing’ versus ‘re-organise’ are relatively similar, and it involves a lot of detailed work to account for all factors and weigh one against the other over twenty years. However, having started this work with the pre-supposition, it only then because [sic] clear that there was one, very expensive factor that made more detailed work unnecessary. That factor was that there was a longstanding pre-existing planning proposal in Crewkerne (the Key Site) which included a new first school to replace Ashlands. The finances for this build were only ever expected to partly cover the cost, with an expectation that SCC would fund£5 million from borrowing alongside the developer’s contribution. Once it was identified that the new model would mean it would be no longer necessary to take forward a new first school in Crewkerne, the scale of the saving meant that any further, more detailed analysis was never going to outweigh this very significant advantage to the proposed change. I do not believe this was a factor that FfS took into account in their judgement about the complexity of weighing cost and benefit. As it happens, the detailed financial analysis that was undertaken in establishing the cost of change, still resulted in an overall saving over 20 years of£7.9 million in total.”