The first OFSTED inspection of the new school was carried out in late March 1998. Five issues were highlighted by the inspection team.

1. Make more effective use of the financial resources and accommodation available to the school by rationalising them against its long term strategic needs.

 

2. Raise the quality of teaching where it is unsatisfactory by: -

1. Providing more opportunities for inexperienced teachers to work alongside the other teachers to learn from the good teaching which currently exists, and have opportunities to strengthen their subject knowledge;

 

2. The Headteacher regularly reviewing the progress staff are making to improve their teaching and informing the governing body of this process and the outcomes.

1. Raise expectations of what pupils can achieve particularly the higher attainers by: -

1. improving the use of assessment to inform teachers' plans of what to teach next;

 

2. providing all teachers with opportunities to develop a secure understanding of the appropriate levels of attainment in English, Mathematics and Science which pupils should attain by the ages of seven and eleven, which the school has already identified as a priority;

 

3. set realistic targets against which to measure improvement in pupils' attainment in the core subjects, which the school has identified as a priority.

1. Provide all children under the age of five who are at the school with equal opportunities to experience all the areas of learning considered desirable for children of this age.

 

2. Provide pupils at the Bubbenhall site with same amount of taught time as those of similar age at the Ryton site.

Although there were some very positive messages in the report, some of the statements within the report were clearly directed towards the structure of the school. The final conclusion was that funds were being used inefficiently and that overall, the school offered unsatisfactory value for money. It is clear from the report that the inspection team was concerned that the school was using time and money inefficiently maintaining two sites.

It is the responsibility of the governing body to develop and implement an action plan to resolve the key issues identified by the OFSTED Inspection.

As a first stage in addressing Key Issue I the governing body has developed 12 aims which constitute our agreed long term objectives for the school. They are:

1. Aim for 100% satisfactory teaching or better, and not less than 90% in the next 3 to 5 years.
2. Single age classes
3. Equal opportunities to all children who come to our school.
4. Strong home/school links and partnership with communities.
5. Provide a well-maintained and suitable accommodation.
6. Make the best use of all resources to provide a caring, stimulating environment.
7. Work towards raising the expectations of pupils, staff and parents of each child's potential.
8. To be the preferred school for all parents within Ryton and Bubbenhall.
9. Demonstrate added value.
10. To prepare children for the next stage of their education.
11. Maintain and develop links with the church.
12. Continue to develop good broad extra-curricular activities.

The Governing Body has consulted with the Local Education Authority and the Diocesan Board of Education. Both the LEA and the DBE recognise that it is the responsibility of the Governing Body to take appropriate action to address Key Issue 1. They will support any reasonable decision made by the Governing Body.

They prepared a response following our request for evidence in relation to Key Issue 1. They concluded that:

• It is the view of the LEA and Diocese that it would be significantly easier for the school to address Key Issues I, II, Ill, IV and V if all teaching and learning in the school were be to supported on the one site

• It goes on to conclude that it would be difficult to provide the learning opportunities to pupils referred to in Key Issues IV and V on a split site basis without providing ongoing additional resources for the school to address this.

• The Authority's view is that there is evidence that pupils in mixed age classes perform at least as well as those in single age classes. Mixed age classes do present greater organisational issues for teachers. These problems become all the more challenging in mixed age classes in which there are children of three different age groups. Warwickshire has a relatively small number of such classes (17 in 14 schools in September 1998), predominantly in small primary schools. Only 5 of such classes involve children in Years R, 1 and 2 as in Provost Williams School. No other Warwickshire school has a mixed age class composed of three separate year groups on a site that is detached from the main school.

• The LEA and diocese comment on the numbers, concluding that for the foreseeable future, the number at Bubbenhall will remain at around 22. They imply that they may be prepared to support additional funding requirements for Bubbenhall if the number was nearer 30.
• Similarly, they imply that any funding shortfall due to the formation of 3 single aged classes on the main site may attract additional support due to the government initiative to hold KSI classes to 30 or below.

• In essence the argument for the closure of Bubbenhall is not one of achieving financial saving but rather one of bringing about greater efficiency in the use of resources, financial and staff time. This change could bring about:

• Single age classes with smaller average class sizes across the whole school.
• A smaller proportion of the school budget spent on premises costs (and so potentially a greater proportion of the budget spent more directly on supporting pupils' learning).
• More efficient and effective use of the head teacher's, promoted post holders' and subject co-ordinators' time.

If the annex were to be closed, the associated LEA subsidies would cease. In these circumstances, while there would be a saving to the LEA, thus achieving the requirement of 'improved value for money' (i.e. the same number of children educated as effectively for less money) the effect on the school, at current levels would be at best cost neutral. At worst we would have to operate with a reduced budget.

The final conclusion of the report states" should the governing body decide to close the

Bubbenhall annex, the LEA and the Diocesan board would enable any necessary changes".

Following meetings of the sub-committee set up to deal with Key Issue 1 the full Governing

Body concludes that there are two options.

Option 1 Retaining the Annexe - Discussion

• It is likely that we shall continue to have 3 age groups in a single class at the Bubbenhall annex and mixed age classes for Reception, year I and year 2 at the Ryton site. The LEA's current conclusion is that for the foreseeable future the number at the Bubbenhall annex will remain at around 22.

• For the past two years we have received "special" one off payments but there is no guarantee that similar payments will be available in the future.

• It is clear that because of the location of the Bubbenhall annex and the existence of a well used Village Hall, that the school building serves very little other community use. However, it should be noted that the School Standard's Minister recognised the importance of the school to the survival of a rural community as a whole. "When a-school closes the village loses a vital focus. Children spend longer travelling to other schools. Young families will come under pressure to move elsewhere. School closures can have a knock-on effect on other services, like village shops, setting up a spiral of decline. This is what we want to stop."

Unless additional ways can be found to achieve efficiency improvements this option does not appear to meet the requirements of Key Issue 1.

The Governing Body would welcome views on how Key Issue I can be addressed under this option.

• If the children currently at the Bubbenhall Annex are reallocated to the Ryton site it should enable us to create 3 single age classes of around 22 pupils per class. This closure could take place in July 1 999, in which case we would need to use a temporary classroom for one class.

• The transport of Key Stage I children is a sensitive issue. The majority of children currently using the Bubbenhall Annex have been transported to the Ryton Site for their Nursery Education. Should any decision be taken to close the Annex, the LEA would bear the costs of transporting children from Bubbenhall to the Ryton site.

This is clearly a very sensitive issue with no simple solution. There are many aspects to be considered by the governors when deciding the appropriate option for the school.

The governors will need to evaluate all the issues before they are able to make a decision that is best for Provost Williams Primary.

In order to gather information we have consulted widely with other bodies. It is very important that the Governing Body takes into account the views of parents and wider community. We would welcome any comments you have on this issue.