Consultation meeting Wednesday 1 May 2019 Proposed expansion of Burlington Infant & Nursery and Burlington Junior Schools to five-form entry Matthew Paul, Associate Director, School Place Planning Charis Penfold, Director of Education Services Gareth Thomas, RBK Capital Programme Manager

Background ‘CLASP’ block at the Juniors’ – had subsided; has been made safe; is inspected quarterly Cocks Crescent redevelopment – long mooted; community co-design due to start this year Opportunity to maximise use of ££ by replacing CLASP and providing extra places for the future RBK has set aside £8m of capital funding for proposed expansion of the two schools

What’s being proposed? Expansion of the Infants’ to 5FE from Sept. 2022 Expansion of the Juniors’ to 5FE from Sept. 2025 Gradual expansion over a seven-year period: School Year group 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 Infants’ Reception 150 1 120 2 Total 390 420 450 Juniors’ 3 4 5 6 480 510 540 570 600 Overall total 870 900 930 960 990 1020 1050

Why is expansion being proposed? (1) To keep pace with the proposed Cocks Crescent redevelopment & other housing – 1,000+ units in RBK part of New Malden by 2027, including 400 at Cocks Crescent Proposed Cambridge Estate regeneration (extra 1,300 units) and Homebase development (340 units), RBK cannot rely on places being free at King’s Oak to meet needs of higher numbers of New Malden children

Why is expansion being proposed? (2) Reception places at Burlington Infant and the other three RBK schools in New Malden are highly sought after, and housing will add to already high demand – Burlington Infant has three applications for every place: * PAN = published admission number ** Coombe Hill Infant, Christ Church New Malden, and Corpus Christi   2016 entry 2017 entry 2018 entry 2019 entry PAN* First Total % First PAN Burlington 120 134 346 38.7 153 371 41.2 143 360 39.7 142 369 38.5 Others** 210 230 762 30.2 240 263 848 31.0 207 671 30.8 235 804 29.2 330 364 1108 32.9 416 1219 34.1 350 1031 34.9 377 1173 32.1

Why can’t RBK reserve places for RBK children? The Greenwich Judgement, 1989, prohibits places at any state-funded mainstream school being reserved for children living in the local authority area (or another) where the school is situated The two schools = 75.2% RBK, 23.4% Merton, 1.4% other LAs (75.8% RBK at the Infants’) Proximity to Merton boundary means that some Merton families will always be able to obtain places

How close to the Infants’ does its catchment extend? For this September’s intake, 710 metres Closest it has been in the last four years is 676 metres and furthest is 838 metres

If Cocks Crescent housing was built and occupied Assuming 400 units would have c. 1,000 occupants, and based on this year’s ‘distance’ offers: 15 Reception-aged applicants would shrink catchment to 500 metres – no offers beyond Shannon Corner 30 Reception-aged applicants would shrink catchment to 350 metres – no offers beyond Kings Avenue, none to children living west of the High Street (e.g. Sussex Place), or south and west of the Fountain

What about other local schools? (1) Christ Church: two sites; no room for expansion Coombe Hill Infant and Coombe Hill Junior: feasibility study has shown that sites are too constrained to enable full expansion from 3FE to 4FE Corpus Christi: prioritises Catholic applicants, so expansion wouldn’t be likely to provide enough places for New Malden children

What about other local schools? (2) Sacred Heart: is a Merton school so we cannot allocate places to RBK children unless parents apply for it, and many parents only want non-faith places King’s Oak: undersubscribed at present, but proposed Cambridge Road Estate regeneration and Homebase are expected to fill its places over time; not starting the 5FE intake at Burlington Infant until 2022 would give King’s Oak time to fill – the expansion proposals would only be implemented when absolutely needed

Why can’t a new primary school be created? The law effectively debars local authorities from setting up their own new schools New schools have to be free schools, i.e. not maintained by the local authority Recent free school application rounds have prioritised areas of ‘low social mobility’ and ‘low educational standards’, i.e. not Kingston! No suitable site identified

Perceived challenges of expansion Step-up from 4FE to 5FE would need to be carefully planned to ensure management of: pupil safety and movement, use of space and resources, timetabling, parking for drop-off and collection, staff parking, etc. Ensuring facilities are appropriate for the number of children and staff on site and to maintain the quality of teaching and learning Retaining each school’s special atmosphere and ethos

Perceived benefits of expansion (1) Infants’: Additional classrooms, purpose-built nursery, additional and better located toilets, space for one-to-one work Juniors’: A two-storey building replacing the single-storey CLASP block, releasing space Both schools: New MUGA each; increased and better distribution of play-space; better access to classrooms, kitchen, etc.; improvement to infrastructure of both schools

Perceived benefits of expansion (2) Larger budgets enable better economies of scale and educational benefits, because not all costs would increase in proportion to the numbers of children on roll – e.g. the schools wouldn’t necessarily need to recruit additional senior leaders or pay more for cleaning, facilities maintenance and IT costs The schools would be able to serve more families within their local community

How would the proposals be funded? For design, build, IT, fixtures, fittings, etc. – RBK has set aside £8m, made up of £5m from Government ‘Basic Need’ funding and £3m of preferential-rate borrowing For additional teachers, TAs and other non-capital items – initially from the Dedicated Schools Grant ‘Growth Fund’ and then from normal per-pupil funding (AWPU)

Possible timeline (1) Early/mid May: Schools’ governing bodies / RBK / AfC consider the proposals and comments made at the consultation meetings. If there is a consensus to propose a move to the formal consultation stage: Mid June: Children’s & Adults’ Care & Education Committee, decides whether or not to authorise the publication of statutory proposals and formal consultation upon them

Possible timeline (2) September: publication of statutory proposals, giving four weeks for responses, in writing, by closing-date in October 12 November: RBK’s Children’s and Adults’ Care and Education Committee (CACE), acting as ‘local decision maker’, considers proposals and responses, and decides whether or not to approve them

Summary Wish to replace CLASP block provides opportunity Highly probable that more places will be needed at the Burlington schools within the next five years Council has the money now to pay for expansion Prudent and highly desirable to maximise use of public money to combine replacement of CLASP and future-proofing in one building scheme No viable Plan B for providing extra places for New Malden children within RBK

Governors’ comments – duties of Governors Governors are the voluntary accountable bodies in law and as such must act collectively in the best interests of the children, ensuring the good conduct of the school and promoting high standards of educational achievement Queries/Comments/Concerns fall into three categories: 1. Quality of teaching and learning 2. Experience for pupils and staff 3. The building facilities

Governors’ concerns, issues and queries (1) Quality of teaching and learning: Lack of concrete evidence of the immediate need for expansion SEN provision New modern facilities conducive for future flexible teaching and learning Visit five-form entry schools Experience for pupils and staff

Governors’ concerns, issues and queries (2) Experience for pupils and staff: School places for growing residential development in New Malden School ethos, particularly for the younger children Staff recruitment and retention Lunchtime logistics Before/after school & club provision

Governors’ concerns, issues and queries (3) The building facilities: Classrooms and meeting/intervention spaces Breakout, play and circulation spaces Teacher and support staff staffroom space Dining room space (in addition to the lunchtime logistics) Is the allocated budget sufficient for both schools?