Our vision for education in our area follows broadly the 11 areas contained in Shropshire County Council Vision for a School of the Future. We will not attempt to reproduce the document here as decision makers will be aware of its contents; however we will provide here details of how each section will link to our specific aims and aspirations:

The Every Child Matters priorities underpin our vision for education in our area and are central to our philosophy.

Lydbury North School already benefits from excellent links with local early education providers. Data is transferred at pupil entry and there is good provision for children with special education needs.

Lydbury North School Ofsted reports confirm the school is appropriately staffed and managed and provides a high quality inclusive education. Lessons are well prepared and structured and systems of work are already being used in other areas in the county as examples of excellent working practice. Behaviour is outstanding (Ofsted 08) and a healthy lifestyle underpins the ethos of the school resulting in many Healthy Schools awards.

We strive for continual improvement and see no reason why this should not remain.

Lydbury North School was a Pathfinder Project pioneer in 2006 and among some of the first schools in the county to use interactive whiteboards and projectors. The Pathfinder Project was not without its drawbacks though, being one of the first schools meant that we were also ‘guinea pigs’, as a result equipment is now outdated and due to be replaced by more suitable, reliable equipment. The school is currently undertaking and IT audit to identify areas of need and prioritise expenditure.

Any future plans for the school including collaborative working will rely on IT as a tool and resource to provide sustainable, efficient and effective learning.

One of the outstanding strengths of Lydbury North School is its continual ability to employ effective and innovative approaches to teaching and learning. Recognising the different ways in which each child learns and identifying the full range of ability in any one group allows teaching styles and educational environments to be adjusted and tailored according to need.

For example the excellent Woodland Wanderers Forest School site in a nearby arboretum provides an original and inventive ‘classroom’ environment. Pupils learn without realising they are learning and the outdoors suits some children who feel constrained in an indoor classroom.

The curriculum provided at Lydbury North meets current national guidelines as an absolute minimum. Staff and governors continually strive to provide over and above the basics.

The curriculum fosters the development of pupil’s personal social and emotional skills and qualities and has recently been singled out as an example of excellent SEAL (Social Emotional Aspects of Learning) practice. Staff have been asked to attend conferences to share working ideas and skills.

This is an area in which Lydbury North already excels and looks forward to developing further in the future. Regular trips and visits supplement the classroom work. Close links with the community are valued and the following events are held regularly:

Community ‘afternoon tea’

Combined church/school/village fete

Shared learning with other local schools

Regular attendance at sports tournaments often sharing transport with other local schools.

Annual residential activity weekend for years 5 and 6 sharing with another local school.

And much more!

This is an area which is continually ongoing and an area in which we find particularly rewarding in our rural location.

The school site could be perceived to be restricted, however we feel we make the very best use of the area we have. We are blessed with an excellent, flexible, sports field which lends itself well to any manner of outdoor activities, from football to athletics. The indoor classrooms offer light airy rooms, well proportioned and a superb learning environment.

Our ultimate dream for the future would see a brand new, well resourced, multipurpose building in Lydbury North serving the whole community. We would offer preschool provision; primary education; extended schooling and a broad spectrum of after school activities; shared community use providing space for social functions adult education and other outreach facilities such as healthcare and library service.

Joined up working with our nearest secondary school is already in place, sometimes it is necessary to provide the more able pupils with secondary level work and this is always welcomed and facilitated by the key stage 3 co coordinator.

Close proximity to the nearest secondary school ensures regular visits and strong links. We see no reason why this should diminish, we highly value the co operation of the secondary school and pupils are already using the campus for swimming and other events.

Extended services are quite a new area for education in general and one which we look forward to implementing and expanding. Links with local adult education providers have resulted in family learning sessions being held at the school and the buildings lend themselves to a variety of uses.

Our current village hall is starting to deteriorate and we are working with the Village Hall Committee to see if there are ways in which we can offer joint use or shared facilities. This has the added advantage of funding being used appropriately and efficiently.

Our staff are the backbone of our school community. It is a testament to how highly they are valued in that the majority of staff have been with the school for many years, providing a committed and loyal work force.

We know that Lydbury North is NOT a failing school; it is a good school (according to Ofsted ’08), personal development and well being pupil behaviour was singled out as being ‘outstanding’.

In a letter to the pupils Ofsted inspector Judy Jones said "I could see from your lessons and playtime what a happy school this is. I was very impressed by the way you look after each other ….. You are polite and thoughtful people who know how to stay fit and healthy. You get a good education and make good progress".

The school has the overwhelming support of parents and community. Moreover it represents educational "value for money" according to the last two Ofsted reports. Parents and members of the community value the school highly and support it extensively Parents have daily contact with, and ready access to, staff; pupils are highly motivated, well behaved, and achieve good results. After school activities are many and varied offering sports, arts, gardening, foreign languages etc.

Pupils achieve their potential and have a happy, healthy and safe childhood, they experience learning that will equip them with the core skills they will need to develop and thrive in secondary school and further into adult life.

The smaller scale of everything, school, family, and community exploits neighbourhood virtues and represents an enviable model and vision for education. Respected surveys show that small village schools are the optimum educational environment for children’s social well being.

The school attracts children from outside its immediate catchment area whose parents believe in its ethos and direction.

Pre school provision is in place with close links with ‘Crowgate’ in Bishop’s Castle and the mother and toddler activity group "Lydbury Livewires" up and running.

A recent National Society Statutory Inspection of Anglican Schools Report listed the strengths as being:

Enthusiasm and commitment of the acting head teacher and clergy

Attitudes, demeanour and behaviour of pupils

Opportunities for spiritual development in religious education, collective worship and across the curriculum.

Relationships between staff, pupils and parents.

Comments in the report such as "Relationships are very good and there is a strong sense of all striving for continual improvement" and "pupils know that they are cared for, they are confident, make good progress and enjoy the breadth of school life" are observations of which we are proud.

Locally: the governors, the parents, the staff, the church, the pupils, and the community are against closure, and against amalgamation. Their arguments (which will all be found later in this document) are all evidence based and not uninformed emotional knee-jerk reactions to the proposals.

The governors of both Lydbury North School and Clunbury School have written to Shropshire County Council expressing their opposition to amalgamation.

At a public meeting held at Lydbury North Village Hall on 17^th March 2008 the community showed its overwhelming strength of feeling and there were an extremely high number of participants present, well over 130. We sincerely hope that councillors have listened to the debate and that they realise these opinions are not expressed lightly or without edification and compassion.

Countywide: When the school organisation policy was being discussed in Autumn 2007 an overwhelming 97% of countywide respondents to the original consultation were AGAINST the proposals.

We understand Shropshire County Council has made a bid for funding from this programme. The final bid must be sent in no later than 16^th June 2008 and a list of successful applicants will be published in September 2008. Capital investment funds will be available from April 2009 (if bids are successful).

Primary schools play a lead role at the heart of their communities

21^st century learning facilities delivering world class standards

Quality school environments which deliver high standards

Wide ranging programme of rebuilding and upgrading of at least 50% of primary schools in England.

Increased flexibility to respond to parents choice, expand successful and popular schools, create networks and federations of schools.

Every child and family will have access to a primary school in their locality which is a focus for local services, offers ICT facilities after hours, provides parenting support, adult education and healthcare and provides childcare 8am to 6pm.

Every school will provide first class ICT facilities.

Restructuring the primary stock to deal with demographic change, falling rolls and school failure.

The PCP documents are quite clear that funding should be used to supplement existing capital investment and not replace it or divert it to other areas.

The PCP funding may be used to reorganise primary provision and schools could be closed with consistently poor performance and/or excessive surplus places. As commissioners of schools, authorities will be looking for strategic solutions, based on consultation with schools and local people, and on rigorous assessment of local needs and priorities.

The core elements that are to be written into any Primary Strategy for Change:

The local perspective

Baseline analysis

Long term aims

Approach to change

Initial investment priorities (4 years)

When developing the long term aims and initial investment priorities for the programme the following criteria should be used:

5% of the worst condition schools to be rebuilt or taken out of commission.

At least 50% of primary schools to be rebuilt, refurbished or remodelled.

Deprivation targeted

All remaining primary school needs to be met through DFC.

Local authorities must consult on and gain wide agreement to their Primary Strategy for Change. This is an important criterion for DCSF approval. As a minimum consultation should include:

Schools

Potential promoters of new schools

Sure Start children’s centres

Parents

Dioceses

Trusts

Primary Care Trusts

Community Health Care Providers

Local early years childcare providers.

Local authorities will need to confirm that the strategy has been formally endorsed by the Council, the relevant Diocesan authorities and the majority of primary schools.

The Sorrell Foundation has set up The Young Design Centre promoting the involvement of pupils in the design of their school.

One of the ways in which the PCP can help deliver a change in standards is though diversity. Heavy emphasis is placed on enhancing parental choice.

The PCP provides for schools working more closely together to raise standards, preferably through networks and federations.

The Department has made clear its view that maintaining surplus places represents poor use of resources. Local Education Authorities are responsible for balancing the demand and supply of places.

It is not always practical or desirable to remove all surplus places. Authorities should allow for parental choice, accessibility of schools and possible future increase in pupil numbers due to demographic changes.

A recent letter received from the Department for Children, Schools and Families states:

In 1998 DCSF introduced a presumption against closing rural primary schools. Despite the presumption it can never be guaranteed that no rural school will ever close, however the case for closure needs to be strong and clearly in the best interests of educational provision in the area. Closure can only be justified when all parties agree and an alternative school can offer superior facilities within an acceptable travel distance.

Local authorities must consider a range of factors including transport implications, alternatives to closure and the impact on the community.

The six consultation criteria

Consult widely throughout the process, allowing a minimum of 12 weeks for written consultation at least once during the development of the policy.

Be clear about what your proposals are, who may be affected, what questions are being asked and the timescale for responses.

The statutory and non statutory guidance for making changes to school provision is contained in The Education and Inspections Act 2006 (EIA 2006) and The School Organisation (Establishment and Discontinuance of Schools)(England) Regulations 2007 (as amended by The School Organisation and Governance (Amendments)(England) Regulations 2007 which came into force on 21^st January 2008). The relevant provisions of the EIA 2006 came into effect on 25^th May 2007.

Local Authorities are under a statutory duty to ensure that there are sufficient school places in their area, promote high educational standards, ensure fair access to educational opportunity and promote the fulfilment of every child’s educational potential. They must ensure that there are sufficient schools in their area and promote diversity and increase parental choice.

A Local Education Authority must also promote diversity and increase parental choice.

EIA 2006 requires that anybody considering proposing the closure of a rural primary school must consider the following:

EIA 2006 specifically states that local education authorities should avoid consulting on proposals during school holidays.

During any closure process the local Church of England Diocese can appeal against a decision to close a particular school.

EIA 2006 provides that both the local authority and schools adjudicator are required to have regard to the statutory guidance issued by the Secretary of State when they take a decision on proposals as follows:

The Government’s aim, as set out in the Five Year Strategy for Education and Learners and the Schools White Paper, Higher Standards, Better Schools For All, is to create a school system shaped by parents which delivers excellence and equity.

The EIA 2006 amends the Education Act 1996 to place new duties on local authorities to secure diversity in the provision of schools and to increase opportunities for parental choice when planning the provision of schools in their areas. The Government’s aim is to secure a more diverse and dynamic schools system which is shaped by parents. The education authority should take into account the extent to which proposals are consistent with the new duties.

The Government wishes to encourage changes to local school provision which will boost standards and opportunities for young people. School closure must contribute to raising local standards of provision and lead to improved attainment for children and young people.

Where a school is proposed to be amalgamated the local authority must demonstrate the proposals will have a positive impact on standards.

A vital part of the Government vision is to create a more diverse school system offering excellence and choice, where each school develops its own ethos, sense of mission and a centre of excellence or specialist provision. The impact on the aspirations of parents, raising of standards and narrowing of attainment gaps should be the keys with which to unlock the diversity of the community.

The local authority must consider the effect any changes will have on the balance of denominational provision in the area.

The principles of ECM must underpin every decision. This should include considering how displaced pupils will continue to have access to extended services, opportunities for personal development, access to academic and vocational training, measures to address barriers t participation and support for children and young people with particular needs e.g. looked after children or children with special educational needs or disabilities.

The local authority should approve proposals to close schools in order to remove surplus places where the school proposed for change has:

A quarter or more places unfilled

AND at least 30 surplus places

AND where standards are low compared to standards across the local authority

All other proposals should be considered very carefully. Where the rationale for the closure of a school is based on the removal of surplus places, standards at the school in question should be taken into account, as well as geographical and social factors such as population sparsity in rural areas as well as the effect on any community use of the premises.

In deciding statutory proposals the local authority should bear in mind that proposals should not have the effect of unreasonably extending journey times or increasing transport costs, or result in too many children being prevented from travelling sustainably due to unsuitable routes for walking cycling etc. Proposals should also be considered on the basis of how they will support and contribute to the local authority’s duty to promote the use of sustainable travel and transport to school.

In considering statutory proposals to close a rural school the local authority should have regard to the need to preserve access to a local school for rural communities. There is a presumption against closure of rural schools.

Local authorities are under a duty to show that they have carefully considered:

Alternatives to closure including the potential for federation with another local school to increase the school’s viability.

The transport implications mentioned above and

The overall long term impact on local people and the community of closure of the village school and the loss of the building as a community facility.

Taking into account of the considerations set out in the Closing a Maintained Mainstream School document the local authority must provide assurance to local communities, children and parents that any reorganisation of SEN provision in their area is designed to IMPROVE on existing arrangements and enable all children to achieve the five EMC outcomes.

All consultation documents (of which the consultation on amalgamation is one) should show how the key factors set out below have been taken into account. Proposals which do not credibly meet these requirements should not be approved.

Identify the details of the specific special educational benefits that will flow from the proposals in terms of:

1. Improved access to education and associated services including the curriculum, wider school activities, facilities and equipment, with reference to the Local Authority Accessibility Strategy.

2. Improved access to specialist staff, both education and other professionals, including any external support and/or outreach services.

3. Improved access to suitable accommodation and

4. Improved supply of suitable places.

Local authorities should also:

Obtain a written statement that offers the opportunity for all providers of existing and proposed provision to set out their views on the changing pattern of provision seeking agreement where possible.

Clearly state arrangements for alternative provision. A ‘hope’ or ‘intention’ to find places elsewhere is not acceptable. Wherever possible, the host or alternative schools should confirm in writing that they are willing to receive pupils, and have or will have all the facilities necessary to provide an appropriate curriculum.

Specify the transport arrangements that will support appropriate access to the premises by reference to the local authority transport policy for SEN and disabled children and

Specify how the proposals will be funded and the planned staffing arrangements that will be put in place.

The requirement to demonstrate improvements and identify the specific educational benefits that flow from proposals for new or altered provision as set out above are for all those who bring forward proposals for new special schools or for special provision in mainstream schools including governors of such schools.

The local authority should consider the views of all those affected by the proposals or who have an interest in them:

Pupils

Families of pupils

Staff

Other schools

Local residents

Diocesan bodies

The local authority should give the greatest weight to the representations from those stakeholders likely to be most directly affected by the proposals.

The local authority can decide to:

Reject the proposals

Approve the proposals

Approve the proposals with a modification

Approve the proposals subject to them meeting a specific condition

A list was produced by the local authority in January 2008. The document was not ‘transparent’ and it was not clear why schools had been placed in the categories they had been. For example when a school was designated for closure, and a ‘receiving’ school identified, there was no indication of why this decision had been made. Why was the ‘receiving’ school not a ‘closure’ school and vice versa.

The list produced omitted 7 schools completely namely:

Childs Ercall (although this school was already designated for closure under the previous policy)

Hanwood St Thomas & St Anne’s

Pant Bryn Offa

Longden

Claverley

Wistanstow

Condover

An example local to us is the situation regarding Wistanstow. Whilst not wishing to in any way condemn Wistanstow school, we are struggling to understand why it was not included in any list when it is only 1.5 miles away from Stokesay School which has a whopping 42 surplus places. The ‘access to education’ argument does not hold true when access to education would be incredibly easy to achieve only 1.5 miles down the road.

Clunbury and Lydbury North Schools are 5 miles apart.

Although we appreciate the 7 schools listed above have now been included in another list, there still has not been produced any evidence as to why they were not included in the original document.

Cllr Malcolm Pate stated that the school on the closure list were ‘reprieved’. There has been no clear evidence as to why these schools were treated in this way and schools on the amalgamation list were discriminated against by their proposals being continued.

The consultation document asks for comments on the following options:

Close the Lydbury North School and expand the Clunbury School to take all the pupils.

Close the Clunbury School and expand the Lydbury North School to take all the pupils.

Close both schools and open a new school.

Cllr Ann Hartley asked for the following option to be added to the document:

Maintain the status quo

Meetings have been held weekly and there have also been extra fact finding meetings with the following:

Philip Dunne MP

Cllr Heather Kidd

Cllr Peter Phillips

Cllr Nigel Hartin

Cllr Jacqueline Williams

David Laws MP (Children and Families)

Lydbury North Community Shop

Lydbury North Parish Council

Lydbury Livewires Playgroup

Lydbury North Parochial Church Council

Lydbury North Village Hall Committee

Mr Mervyn Benford (National Association of Small Schools)

Dr Ian Terry (Hereford Diocesan Board of Education)