The Federation of Eppleby Forcett and Middleton Tyas Church of England Primary Schools.

 “MTS is overcrowded”- however only 74 children at the school live in catchment area and not all attend MTS. NYCC response - school should move to ONLY accepting admissions from the catchment area.  EFS have at least 2 years, at present numbers, before they go into deficit budget - then the LA may assist in allowing the school to set a deficit budget.  MTS will not be given any funding to support overcrowding as other local schools have places, even with the proposed housing development.  Any child wishing to move from EFS to MTS would need to go through the normal admissions process.  NYCC felt that one option could be that now EFS had developed a good reputation they could grow from early years upwards.  There is no proof that mixed age classes have a negative impact on pupils academically.  Discussions with existing Partnerships that run 2 schools on 2 sites may be beneficial when considering the future.  Sparsity funding would probably remain in place.  Consultation with parents is an important part of the process.  Plans for other local schools and also new government legislation for 2 year olds may mean the Eppleby pre School will have to consider thier viability North Yorkshire County Council Position

 The LA would not support an amalgamation of the two schools as this would impact on other schools in the area, creating a very strange geographical catchment area  There is no strong case for expanding MTS as there is space in other local schools  The LA fully back the Governing Body of the federation considering how best to organise the teaching and learning across the two schools to best effect particularly with high numbers at MTS and a declining roll at EFS. The LA and the Diocese have been supporting these discussions  At present no decisions have been made and the LA recommend that once the Governing body have clarity on their preferred way forward they should undertake further consultation on the specific proposals giving local people the opportunity to express their views before a decision is taken.  A number of local schools are considering whether to lower the age range of their school in order to make provision for younger children in the area. The LA are providing advice and support for governors to aid decision making North Yorkshire County Council continued…

 Any school could now lower their age range to three years with a Governor-led consultation process  There is the possibility of legislative change making it possible for schools to admit and make direct provision for two year olds – from September 2015  Consultation with Pre- schools regarding any future plans is essential.  Consultation with future parents is the key to this (numbers could be sought from Children’s Centres and Health Service) as they are the ones that it will impact on the most. Early Years Advice

 Both are Church of England schools  The best possible outcome needs to be for an excellent education for all the pupils  The preference was that EFS did not have to close as this would have a profound impact on the community  Any changes would need to be applied for through the Diocese The Diocesan perspective

 Worries of parents regarding transporting very young children.  If different year groups were taught on the two sites there would be more than one transition (if year 3/4 were taught on EFS site)  Could a unit for Art/Music be sited at EFS?-Pupil numbers funding would negate this  Dislike of mixed age and mixed key stage classes - inevitable under the present system  If more parents took their children out of EFS because of the class sizes then would it be viable as a school?  Consultation with parents, especially those who may attend in the future, is essential.  Parents at EFS having faith in finding a solution that will benefit their children (especially those in KS2) Governor questions discussed

 Financial benefits of a shared EHT 1.Finance for staffing including Leadership roles-both schools have seen leadership roles developed creating TLR (Teaching and learning responsibility) 2 and 3 posts to strengthen teams. There is generous staffing at both sites. Excellent pupil/teacher ratio at EFS and an extra teacher at MTS. 2.Funding for resources especially ICT. Both schools have new laptops and iPads that would not normally have been afforded though the budget  Financial benefits of a shared School Business Manager-shared contracts, savings on procurement, shared curriculum opportunities.  Cost of daily transportation-met by schools.  Savings on cost of transportation for Sporting events and other educational visits. Financial implications

 Academy clusters, Federation and Partnerships of schools are becoming an essential mechanism for sustainability.  Executive Headship is a common practice across the education landscape as it offers Leadership opportunities and experience as well as financial benefits.  Within the next 2 years the LA is moving to cutting its support services and will expect schools to be part of collaborative groups or clusters that are self supporting.  The Swaledale Alliance provides our schools with 1. Relevant, Local and focussed CPD for teachers, support staff, Governors and SBM. 2. The opportunity to engage in National Research and Development projects which help move the school forward. 3. The opportunity to take part in Teacher training initiatives. 4. The opportunity for staff to become SLE (Specialist Leaders of Education) or NLE (National Leaders of Education)  As a Federation we need to look at the future development required.  Small schools (under 200 on roll) are looking at Partnership/Federation as the next steps, lots are considering having FS1 (age range of 3-11). The Local and National Picture

 A school on two sites  An exemplar for early years including Eppleby Pre- School, FS1, FS2 and Year 1 on the EFS site.  An exemplar for KS2 in single year group classes on the MTS site. Why?  Best option for the children's education and development. The future – thoughts on the best option

 From September 2016 FS1 and FS2 (for both schools) will start at EFS  September 2016 Year 1 and 2 from EFS will remain on site at EFS in KS1 class  From September 2017 all Year 1 children will be taught at EFS (they will move up from FS2)  From September 2017 MTS school will be a Year 2 – 6 school (age 6 to 11)  The EFS site will be an Early Years centre - it may contain a unit for 2 years olds run by the Pre school  All Federation pupils who attend EFS will have a ‘state of the art’ Early Years provision developed through Staff expertise and LA support. This provision will be based on sound Early years practice of child led learning. The outdoor learning area provided on this secure site will enhance and develop their learning through all areas of the curriculum.  All Federation pupils at MTS will start their more formal education in small, single age classes. The philosophy of Outdoor education will be continued and further developed with the excellent facilities for sport.  Staff teams would work across both sites sharing and developing their own expertise and making sure all the pupils had an outstanding curriculum (including Forest School on both sites) How would this be implemented – some thoughts…..

 Staffing restructure  Young pupils travelling  Impact on local Pre-schools  Impact on pupil numbers at both schools Risks and worries…..

 Excellence for all children  No change for children presently at MTS  No FS2 at MTS from Sept in order to have single age classes at MTS PLUS absorb numbers from EFS.  Restructuring of staff across Federation to have Base leader on EFS site and shared leadership and management roles across the Federation.  Provision of Wrap Around Care for all on both sites (7.30am to 6pm)  Strong partnership with Pre-school strengthening their numbers and possibly employing their staff for the provision.  The school day would be structured so that the different start times would mean parents could drop off children at both sites should they wish.  Supervised school transport would be provided between the sites  Healthier budgets to provide generous staffing (small classes) and extra resources What would this mean?