To review Cabinet’s decision that Dilwyn Church of England Primary School be discontinued on 31 August 2011, which has been called in by three Members of the Committee.

Mr P Burbidge, Chair of St Mary’s Roman Catholic High School, and Mr P Sell, Director of Education, Diocese of Hereford, both declared personal interests in this item and in view of their positions declared that they would not be voting.

The Committee reviewed the Cabinet decision that Dilwyn Church of England Primary School be discontinued on 31 August 2011, which had been called-in by three Members of the Committee.

The agenda report detailed the stated reasons for the call-in.  Appended to the report was the decision notice of Cabinet setting out the decision and the report to Cabinet on 25 November 2010 on which that decision had been based and the joint statement issued at the meeting.  The draft minutes of Cabinet held 25 November 2010 were circulated prior to the meeting.  Also attached to the report were the minutes of Cabinet on 12 July together with agenda report when the options for Dilwyn C of E school had been previously considered.

Both the Liberal Democrat Group Leader and the Herefordshire Independents Group Leader criticised the Council’s constitution for the way it restricted free debate on call-in issues.

The Cabinet Member (ICT, Education and Attainment) reported that there had been no significant change at Dilwyn school since Cabinet had considered the matter at its July 2010 meeting that would improve the financial position or the sustainable outlook for the school.  Consultation over and above that required had taken place and officers had worked with both Diocesan authorities to investigate possible ways forward. A number of questions or comments had been made at Cabinet and these were covered in the minutes of that meeting.

In the course of considering the stated reasons for the call-in the following principal points were noted in relation to each point:

Stated reason - first bullet point

• A question was raised concerning the accessibility of pupil numbers. The Herefordshire Local Admissions Forum (HLAF), which usually received reports on pupil numbers in schools, had been cancelled.  It was claimed that there had been no information on the closure of Dilwyn School and accurate pupil numbers had been difficult to obtain.  It was suggested that the HLAF was an independent body and could have considered the matter. In response the Assistant Director, Planning, Performance and Development reported that the recent HLAF had been cancelled due to lack of business.  Consideration of Dilwyn school had been ongoing since January 2009 and HLAF had received reports on pupil numbers, but not specifically in relation to Dilwyn.
• While Hope-under-Dinmore and Brilley schools had closed with the agreement of the governing bodies, it was claimed that the local authority had actively campaigned to dissuade parents from placing their children at Dilwyn. In response the Committee questioned where the evidence was for such a claim.

Stated reason – second bullet point

• The Education and Inspections Act 2006 placed the likely effect of the discontinuance of the school on the local community as a material consideration.  It was pointed out that the community had raised money to support the school and that the closure of the school would have a knock on effect to other community groups in the village.  The Interim Director of Children’s Services responded that community representation had been well understood throughout the process.  There had been extensive discussions with the community and the school.  An opportunity to work differently at the school had been led by the local authority.  Unfortunately this had not lead to an increase in the numbers on roll.
• Following reference to the Council’s Small Schools Policy the Cabinet Member (ICT, Education and Attainment) responded that the policy had been in existence for a number of years and hadn’t been questioned.  For the last 2 years Dilwyn school had been dealt with under that policy and options, including federating with another school had been pursued.
• The Interim Director of Children’s Services strongly refuted claims that pupils had been directed away from Dilwyn school.  A member of scrutiny committee noted that no evidence had been produced to support any such claim.  With the Diocese, intensive support had been given over a number of years in an attempt to increase the numbers on roll.
• Comment was made that greater emphasis should be given to the community particularly as the government was due to issue the Localism Bill.  Cabinet had failed to consider the affordable housing need in the area.  Other schools in a similar situation had been helped.  In response a contra comment was made that the community had made its own decision by not sending its pupils to this particular school.
• Community Groups used the village hall for meetings and activities.
• The Committee noted that it was a case of balancing the impact, value for money and the quality of education.
• It was questioned whether there was a structured framework that set out what a rural community should consist of.  The Interim Director of Children’s Services reported that the consultation had followed the statutory process and the responses received had been reported to Cabinet.
• Questioned on who owned the school and playing fields the Director of Education, Diocese of Hereford, responded that a ‘reversion order’ would be sought by the Trustees should the premises not continue as a educational establishment. The playing fields were Glebe land.

Stated reason – third bullet point

• The Interim Director of Children’s Services reported that while a number of headlines concerning intended changes had been issued by government, until statutes were changed the Council was obliged to comply with current law.  He highlighted the considerations within the Education and Inspections Act 2006 set out in the report to Cabinet.
• While the call-in Members had no problem with government policy or the Small Schools Policy, they wished to ensure that statutory procedures had been adhered to.
• The Cabinet Member (ICT, Education and Attainment) reported that a well attended meeting had been held with the local community and the school management when the facts had been put. The statutory process had been explained and the level of assistance the Council was giving to the community had been highlighted. This had resulted in 60 to 70 letters on similar lines that supported the federation proposal.  Through out the process the community had had every opportunity to respond.
• Questioned whether the Director and Cabinet Member were satisfied that every option had been explored the Interim Director of Children’s Services responded that the process had been undertaken and all options and alternatives had been exhausted.  His concern now lay with the continued quality of education for the children at the school.  While national government may be considering changing statutes this matter now required a local decision.

Stated reason – forth bullet point

• The Interim Director of Children’s Services responded that federating with St Mary’s had been actively considered by the Council and the Dioceses under the Small School Policy and the options had been discussed with, and by, the Governors.  Only 3 schools had expressed any interest in federating and only St Mary’s had produced a proposal.  Having worked with St Mary’s on the federating proposal the final proposal had not been sufficiently robust in addressing the financial; long term stability; safeguarding and educational opportunities needed by a small cohort.
• It was reported that Burghill Community Primary School may have an interest in federating with Dilwyn School. Burghill had recently had a video link to a school in Ohio and it was suggested that technology may be a way of linking schools together and worthy of Cabinets consideration.  It was also suggested that more affordable housing for local workers e.g. at Tyrells, would increase the school population.  In response the Interim Director of Children’s Services commented that technology had a significant opportunity to improve education delivery in the County and the Cabinet Member (ICT, Education and Attainment) had been championing its development.  However, technology would not address the financial situation, the numbers on roll and long term sustainability of the school. Neither would it replace the social interaction of pupils.
• Responding to criticism concerning the last minute submission at Cabinet of the Joint Statement and the limited time allowed to consider it, the Cabinet Member (ICT Education and Achievement) responded that time had been taken to ensure that all options had been explored before a decision was taken and that the situation had been explored from early 2009. 
• All schools, including Lord Scudamore, had been asked 2 years ago about possible federation.

Stated reason fifth bullet point

• It was commented that reference to Eardisley should probably refer to Almeley Primary School.  It was suggested that the villages referred to had been supported in building houses and therefore the numbers on roll had increased and this scenario should be available to Dilwyn. 
• Responding to a suggestion that Dilwyn School be mothballed until pupil numbers increased the Director of Education, Diocese of Hereford reported that discussions were ongoing over the future of the property, including the possibility of it becoming a ‘free school’. If the school ceased under the trust deed to be an educational establishment the property would revert, hence the reversion notice’ to the rightful owners.

Stated Reason – sixth bullet point

• The Interim Director of Children’s Services reported that as at 3 December there were 31 pupils at the school.  There had been no evidence that parents had refused Dilwyn School because of any possible closure.  The potential for new house building in the area had been investigated but the number of expected houses would not provide sufficient numbers of children over a number of years to make the school viable.
• It was asserted that there were written statements that parents would consider sending pupils to Dilwyn if it was federated with St Mary’s.  It was also asserted that, according to government figures, the birth rate was increasing, and therefore pupil numbers would be rising.  It was also alleged that the 2008 aborted report to Council on possible school closures had influenced parental choice.  In response the Cabinet Member (ICT Education and Achievement) commented that Dilwyn School had known about the falling rolls issue for some years.  The Interim Director of Children’s Services responded that survey responses had not identified the 2008 report to Council as being a reason for not sending children to Dilwyn School.  He further commented that while there were areas that were experiencing an increased birth rate this was not the case in the North West of the county which had 160 spare spaces in schools.
• It was suggested that due to the economic down turn parents with children in private schools may be considering moving them to council schools.  The Interim Director of Children’s Services commented that if this were to happen the numbers would be minimal and would not effect the underlying position at Dilwyn.

RESOLVED: that the Committee accepts the decision of Cabinet with no further comment.

The Cabinet Member (ICT, Education and Achievement) stated that both he and the Interim Director of Children’s Services had noted the comments made during the debate.

At this point the Committee adjourned for 12 minutes and resumed at 11.53am