A vision – a challenge

A proposal by Robert Key MP May 2004 - click here

Update 21 June 2004 - click here

Small is beautiful…

What’s your idea of a good village school? What makes it special? As a parent, what would make you decide to send your children there? Under what circumstances would you close a village school? Indeed, what is ‘education’ when it comes to village schools?

Exams matter. Tests tell us what is wrong. Academic reputations go up and down. So does the esteem in which teachers and institutions are held. Buildings may fall apart but the ethos of the school may thrive. Ultimately, the test is whether children, parents, teachers and communities believe in a school and what it is achieving.

Steven Fox was born in 1627, the second son of a woodcutter in Farley, four miles east of Salisbury. He won a place at my old school, Salisbury Cathedral School, and when he was just 13, he landed up at the Royal Court in Richmond and befriended 9-year old Prince Charles. He rose and prospered. He was by Charles’s side at the restoration of the Monarchy in 1660 and made piles of cash. He paid for one third of the Royal Hospital for Pensioners at Chelsea.

When he came back to Farley he found poverty, indignity and ignorance. So he paid his friend Christopher Wren to design an almshouse (Farley Hospital) and a church. He also founded a school. In 1867 a new National School was built – which is still in use today, alongside buildings finished just last year.

Have you been to Farley? It is a gem of an English village. Church, school, pub (very good!) and surrounded by lush country and ancient woodlands. The village school has new buildings and old, a computer suite and an excellent website for you to browse (www.farleyallsaints.wilts.sch.uk). Beyond the large playground are two acres of playing fields and a kitchen garden full of vegetables grown by the kids.

At the end of last year, Ofsted descended to inspect the school. Their job is to measure and test every school by objective national standards. Their Report was not good. But it was glowing in its praise for the ethos of the school, for teacher and pupil relations, for parental support and community involvement.

So, I wonder what is going through the minds of Wiltshire County Council and the Salisbury Diocesan Board of Education? To the latter I say, please support and encourage a good Christian school in Farley just as you did last year when Salisbury’s Wyvern College ‘converted’ to church school status.

To the County Council I say, let’s acknowledge that at Farley we all benefit from the continuing contribution this much-loved school makes to village life - 300 years on. Administrative convenience was not the reason Stephen Fox made Farley unique in England. He did it to meet the needs of the young and the elderly plus the spiritual needs of the community.

One bad Ofsted report is neither a sufficient nor a compelling reason to doubt the value of the oldest village school in Wiltshire. On the contrary, let’s celebrate and multiply the many virtues of small village schools. Let it never be said that we knew the cost of everything and the value of nothing.

Robert Key
8th April 2004

RK/SW/Cons/Schools/Farley

8th April 2004

Mr Simon Tong
Diocesan Director of Education
Audley House
97 Crane Street
Salisbury
SP1 2QA

Dear Simon

Farley All Saints School

Further to our earlier discussions, I have now spoken to the Acting Head and I have also visited the school to meet anxious parents.

Quite apart from the merits of the argument about the future of the school, please would you be so kind as to clarify the processes involved?

Parents are anxious that the minds of LEA officers are already made up and that they will recommend closure to Councillors.

Does the Education Authority have to consult before making a proposal to close the school? Alternatively, do the Councillors come to a decision and then consult on it?

What is the timing of all this? When will the crucial decisions be taken? Rumours are rife and it has been suggested that the Education Authority may decide as early as May to close the school and that it will not reopen in September. Please can you confirm whether or not this is true?

Dear Robert

Thank you for your letter. For speed I'm responding by email with a copy to Bob Wolfson.

The process of closure is lengthy and legal, and in fairness to the LEA it has been detailed to the Farley folk in my hearing on at least two occasions! However, in outline, yes, there must be a formal process of consultation leading to a decision by a statutory body called the School Organisation Committee (SOC) for Wilts. This body does the job that the Sec of State used to do in matters of closure, opening, reorganisation etc, and although serviced by the County Council is independent of it. If its five constituents (LEA, Governors' reps, CofE, RC, Learning & Skills Council) can't reach unanimity on a proposal, it's referred to the Independent Adjudicator for Schools. So, although the LEA may propose closure, it doesn't have the final decision.

However, before all that, the LEA must demonstrate how it has addressed alternatives to closure, which is where we are now. [Three sentences omitted by agreement to protect sensitive negotiations] The LEA would probably wish to undertake some informal consultation with Farley on all that, to get the views of the residents and parents who live within the catchment area.

Meanwhile, the LEA is required by statute to respond to OfSTED about its plans for the future of the school, including closure as an option, by early May - this as a consequence of Farley's Special Measures category. So there is considerable pressure to get a solution.

The current arrangements for looking after Farley via Winterslow are in place until the end of the summer term. Because of the legal process it would not be possible now to close the school in time for September even if that were the LEA's wish, although an informal federation could take place if an agreement could be reached. At the end of last term the serving Head had not resigned, and therefore no steps could be taken to advertise for a permanent replacement. His return to duty from sick leave remains a legal possibility. The LEA has a duty to provide education for those children who will be at Farley School in September - possibly by appointing a caretaker Head for an interim period. But it all hangs on the federation negotiations.

The school's financial situation is far from secure. Fewer than half the children in school live in the catchment area. It seems very unlikely that the school will be able to afford to maintain four classes in September - this was understandably a big issue for parents at the most recent meeting I attended. Parental mobility, which is already a major factor for at least half the current school population, could become an adverse influence.

These are the issues which the LEA and the DBE are trying to tease out at the moment. The people of Farley do need information, and it has been most unfortunate timing of holidays and tricky negotiations which have prevented that so far. I hope this has helped to clarify some of the main points - please get back to me if not and we could arrange for a chat here in Salisbury sometime soon?

With best wishes.

Simon
Director of Education
Salisbury Diocese
To go to the Board of Education's new website click here www.saled.org

RK/SW/Cons/Schools/Farley

8th April 2004

Venerable Alistair Magowan
Little Bailie
Dullar Lane
Sturminster Marshall
Wimborne
BH21 4AD

Dear Alistair,

Farley All Saints School

I write to you in your capacity as Chairman of the Diocesan Board of Education to express my grave concern about the situation at Farley All Saints School.

I have read the OFSTED report. No one would disagree that it is highly critical and addresses severe shortcomings in the delivery of education in that school. I was myself a teacher for 16 years so I have no difficulty in recognising the weaknesses identified.

However, I also recognise that the criticisms made by OFSTED do not justify closure of the school. Of course, the suspicion is that the Education Authority (and maybe the Salisbury Diocesan Board of Education) feel that there is over provision of primary education east of Salisbury and that the failures revealed in the OFSTED inspection present an ideal opportunity for them to close the school. I realise this is to prejudge both the Board of Education and Wiltshire Education Authority. However, there is great concern amongst the parents and the wider community that decisions are going to be taken very quickly and with inadequate consultation. In fact, I have written separately to Simon Tong about this seeking clarification of the process involved in consultation and possible closures.

I have spoken to a group of parents and Governors who I met at the school on Monday 5th April. I have also spoken on the telephone to the Acting Head and I have been in touch with both Bob Wolfson at the Education Authority and with Simon Tong at the Diocesan Board of Education.

It is quite clear to me that there is very strong community feeling - as illustrated by the very large petition which has already been raised to ensure the future of Farley All Saints.

I believe there will have to be very compelling reasons to convince me that this school should be closed. In fact, I think there are very compelling reasons why it should stay open. Accordingly, I take seriously my duty and responsibility to champion the cause of this school.

There are three reasons why I believe the school should not just stay open but should be encouraged to flourish and develop in the future.

First, in spite of the criticisms in the recent OFSTED report, there are many very positive conclusions which I believe out way the criticisms. The report says, "The ethos of the school, the care provided and its links with the local community are good. Parents are supportive and keen for their children to make good progress". At the end of the section "Standards Achieved" the report says, "Pupil's personal qualities, including their spiritual, moral and social development are good". "Standards in speaking, listening and reading are good." "Pupils attendance, at 96.3%, and behaviour are very good. They are keen to take responsibility but are given very few opportunities to do so. Their spiritual, moral, social and cultural development is good overall..." "There are good relationships between teachers and pupils."

It was quite clear to me from my discussion with parents that in spite of the current failings which have been identified, their belief in the school to which they have chosen to send their children, is undiminished. They believe it is a fantastic school with a great history, in a wonderful location and with a bright future.

The second reason why I believe it would be a serious error to close this school is because of the background and heritage of the school. This school has existed since the end of the 17th Century. It was founded by Sir Steven Fox - who played a key role in the restoration of the monarchy and is intertwined with the history of the church and Wardenry next door. It is arguable that Farley School is the oldest primary school in Wiltshire. The OFSTED report may imply that they think the children would be better off in a large school of 300 or so children in an urban environment - but those parents who have chosen Farley School would disagree - and so would I. The facilities at this school are outstanding, how many primary schools back onto open country and have at their disposal several acres of playground, garden and playing field? They are at one with the rural community they share.

The third reason why this school should stay open is that it is at the heart of the message of the Church of England in their quest to increase and enhance the role of church schools in our country. This could not have been expressed more forcefully than it was in the article in the Sunday Telegraph of 4th April 2004 featuring the Bishop of Ramsbury at Wyvern College in Salisbury together with the wise words of the excellent Head Teacher Glynis Seddon. She is quoted as saying, "we want our boys to have respect and empathy for others. We want them to challenge the view that has developed of what young males are like fuelled by what we see on Saturday nights in our city centres". At a time when record numbers of secondary schools are "converting" and becoming Church of England schools to fulfil parental demands for Christian values and better discipline it would indeed be an irony if the Diocese of Salisbury were to collude in the closure of one of the oldest church schools in the Diocese.

I would be very happy to meet you to discuss this issue.

The Ven Alistair Magowan
Archdeacon of Dorset

ReEFadeyASsSch

Mr R Key, MP
House of Commons
London SW1A OAA

15 April 2004

Dear Robert

Farley All Saints' School

Thank you very much for your recent letter about All Saints' School, Farley. I had a meeting with Simon Tong yesterday and believe that he has sent you a letter highlighting the key issues regarding the school, now that it is in Special Measures. Most important and necessary is his outline of the processes that would precede closure. In addition to Simon's comments, I would like to add several of my own.

1. No one takes any pleasure in the closure of any school. If such action has to be taken, then good, substantial reasons must be demonstrated. Moreover, the process by which this conclusion is reached must itself be transparent and understandable to all. It will be the task of the School Organisation Committee (SOC) for Wiltshire to examine All Saints' School Farley, and at this stage we await their deliberations.

2. When a school is in Special Measures, as is the case with Farley, the option of "business as usual" is not open to the school. Those who have to make decisions about its future must show good reasons why the school should not be closed, rather than reasons for keeping it open. Of course, if it can be soundly demonstrated that the school is required and can be nursed back to good health, then these arguments must be firmly articulated to the SOC.

3. Personally, I agree that it is a real sadness that a school with the history and heritage of Farley should now be in this situation. However, the arguments given above must have priority. I trust we would agree that it is not in the Church of England's interests to have failing schools. Of course we want to be and increasingly are a major player in our nation's education. However, if a failing school cannot be shown to be viable or necessary (and it is only an 'if' at this stage), then surely closure and the redistribution of resources to others is the best option. We all know that making such decisions will never be easy where local loyalty runs deep. However, I do have confidence that the DBE, in partnership with the LEA, will work hard and fairly to discover and do what is best.

Thank you for your offer of time to meet and discuss the issue. I am very happy to do so if this would help.

With every good wish

Yours sincerely

Alistair J Magowan

cc Simon long

RK/SW/Cons/Schools/Farley

8th April 2004

Bob Wolfson
Director of Education
Wiltshire County Council
County Hall
Trowbridge
Wiltshire
BA14 8JB

Dear Bob,

Farley All Saints School

Quite apart from the merits of the argument, I would be very grateful if you would explain the timing and process involved in planning the future of this school.

There is very great concern amongst the parents that the officers advising Councillors have already decided to recommend closure and that decisions will be taken within the next two months which will seal the future of the school. Is this correct?

Please can you clarify the legal processes? Do you have to consult interested parties before making a recommendation for closure? Or do you make the recommendation for closure and then consult before a final decision is taken?

Please can you let me know the timescale for all this? What are the dates of the crucial meetings when decisions will be taken?

If a recommendation is accepted to close the school, does this mean the school will not reopen for the start of the new school year in September? The uncertainty generated by current rumours is such that some parents are already making alternative arrangements for their children next September. This only makes matters worse.

I think you should be in no doubt that parents - and the wider community who I have the honour to represent - are in no doubt that they wish to retain Farley All Saints School as the best possible option for the future educational needs of children not only in the village but from the surrounding areas who chose to attend the school.

I would be very grateful for your advice.

Bob Wolfson, MA
Director, Department for Children & Education

Mr Robert Key, MP
House of Commons
LONDON
SW1A OAA

21 April 2004

Dear Robert

Farley All Saints School

Thank you for your letter of 8th April on this matter.

I am concerned that rumour is rapidly overcoming fact in this case, and am pleased to put the record straight.

Firstly, no Officer of the Council has advised Councillors to recommend closure. Nor will decisions be taken in the next two months which will seal the fate of the school.

What appears to have happened is that, quite rightly, my colleague Joy Tubbs advised parents at the meeting in March that there is a range of possibilities for the future of the school (more on these anon). She also informed them, rightly, that when a school is placed in Special Measures, the LEA is required by Ofsted to answer the question ‘is it essential to keep this school open or could its pupils be more effectively educated at (a)neighbouring school(s) which provide higher standards ?’ This is a difficult question for us in a number of cases, including Farley. I understand that at least some of those present at the meeting heard what they wanted to hear – that the LEA proposed to close the school forthwith – and as a result our mailbags have been filling.

SHOULD the LEA or the Governors of any school propose closure, the process is clearly prescribed. There is a period of informal consultation, of no prescribed length but we normally allow 6 weeks, which can be foreshortened to 4 in the case of a school in special measures. During this period, the LEA publishes and distributes widely a consultation document, inviting comment and response. Normally, public meeting(s) are also held. At the end of that period, following a decision by the Cabinet, formal notices proposing a change or closure are then published. This provides for a 6 week period in which comments for and against the proposal can be submitted (again, this can be foreshortened to 4 in the case of a school in special measures).

At the end of that time, any proposal for change or closure is considered by the School Organisation Committee. This is a body that is independent of the Council and consists of five groups of people, technically known as ‘houses’. One house represents the Anglican Dioceses of Salisbury and Bristol. The second represents the Catholic Diocese of Clifton. The third represents the County Council, and politically reflects the make-up of the Council. The fourth represents School Governors, and is made up of a range of Governors of different types of school. The fifth is the Learning and Skills Council, which normally only expresses a view if matters affecting the education of those over the age of 16 are concerned. Following debate, which usually includes presentations for and against proposals, a vote is taken. Each ‘house’ has a single vote. If the overall vote is unanimous in either direction (taking account of abstentions), it is binding and final. If the vote is not unanimous, the decision is referred to the national Office of the School Adjudicator. It is then up to the Adjudicator to make a ruling, which (s)he usually does within 6 weeks, having considered the evidence.

Just to give a context, the proposals in Wiltshire regarding the closure of the Middle Schools were approved unanimously by the School Organisation Committee. In Dorset, the proposals relating to Shaftesbury were not, were referred to the Adjudicator, who then approved them.

When considering a proposal for closure, the School Organisation Committee has to take cognisance of the School Organisation Plan. The Plan is quite clear on the Council’s attitude towards village schools. I reproduce the relevant section below:

The LEA recognises the government’s presumption against the closure of village schools, and will not normally bring forward proposals to close a village school unless it can be demonstrated that one or more of the following criteria apply:

• There is only very limited demand for places at the school from children coming from the designated area.
• Standards are low and there is low confidence in the likelihood of improvement.
• Recruitment of a headteacher has not proved possible.
• The necessary improvements to the school accommodation are either not possible or cost effective.
• The school has a deficit budget without realistic prospects of recovery.

All proposals to amalgamate or close foundation or voluntary aided schools, will be brought forward in consultation with the governing body/ies concerned.

For all schools with fewer than 90 pupils on roll, the LEA will actively encourage the governors at the schools to consider further collaboration and, ultimately, federation with one or more neighbouring schools.

The timescale is therefore quite a lengthy one, and there are several opportunities for the arguments to be heard – at public meetings, the Cabinet and the School Organisation Committee. At present, I cannot give any dates, since no proposals have been put forward, but can assure you that all such dates are made public well in advance.

The current situation at Farley is complicated by three factors. One is the absence through ill-health of the Headteacher; I understand that his health position is currently being considered, and his ability to return to the post, or not, is a matter of some significance.

Secondly, it is clear that the school will need to reduce the number of classes from this September, Ofsted or no Ofsted. In effect, it has been running with more classes than were affordable, and, like other Wiltshire village schools (some of which are very successful), will need to reduce to two classes. Incidentally, it is currently funded at £2700 per pupil; by comparison, pupils at Harnham or St Mark’s are funded either side of £2000 per pupil. It is possible that this change in the number of classes will influence some parents’ views.

Thirdly, we are currently exploring whether or not a federated arrangement with a neighbour is feasible and desirable. We are doing this so that, SHOULD we go out to consultation on the future of the school, we can genuinely offer more options than staying open as a two class school or closing. These discussions are naturally quite sensitive and have been interrupted by the school holiday.

Once we are able to take them a little further forward, and we are clear on the situation regarding the Headteacher, we will be able, with the Governors and Diocese, to take the matter forward. By this, I mean that we will either go to consultation (with at least three options for consideration) or to the continuation of the school as a two-class school. I anticipate we will be in a position to do this in early May.

I hope this is helpful to you and would of course be pleased to meet to discuss the matter if that would be helpful to you.

Yours sincerely

R W Wolfson
Director, Department for Children and Education

Mplet/key20404

RK/SW/Cons/Schools/Farley

8th April 2004

The Rt Hon Charles Clarke MP
Secretary of State for Education & Skills
Department for Education & Skills
Sanctuary Buildings
Great Smith Street
London
SW1P 3BT

Dear Charles

Village Schools

I would be very grateful if you would explain to me your strategy and policy for village schools.

A large number of rural schools thrive in my constituency. They are very popular, they are substantially more expensive to maintain than equivalent schools in urban areas - which would almost certainly be much larger, too.

Does the Government wish to see rural schools continue to meet the needs of rural communities? There is considerable pressure on Local Education Authorities to close village schools, in spite of there benefits, largely for economic reasons. Do you support this policy?

I would be most grateful for your advice.

Sanctuary Buildings Great Smith Street Westminster London SW1P3BT
tel:0870 0012345 dfes.ministers@dfes.gsi.gov.uk
Stephen Twigg MP
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools

Robert Key MP
House of Commons
London
SW1A OAA

Your ref: RK/SW/Cons/Schools/Farley

26 April 2004

Thank you for your letter of 8 April to Charles Clarke asking about the Government's policy on rural schools. I am replying as I have ministerial responsibility for policy in this area.

I can confirm the Government's commitment to supporting rural communities and schools. We introduced a presumption against closure of rural schools in February 1998 and since then the rate of closure has fallen from an average 30 a year up to 1997 to an average of just five a year. The presumption against closure does not mean that no rural school will ever close, but the case for closure needs to be strong and the proposals clearly in the best interests of educational provision in the area.

Decisions about school closures are made locally by the School Organisation Committee (SOC) for the area in the light of local circumstances and following local consultation. If the committee cannot decide unanimously the proposals are referred to an independent schools adjudicator. We have underlined our support for the presumption against closure of rural schools in our guidance to SOCs and adjudicators.

You mention the financial pressures that Local Education Authorities face in maintaining rural schools. The Government's school and LEA funding system takes into account the fact that some of the costs of providing education in rural/sparse areas are higher because the scattered population means spending more on small schools and home-to-school transport. The minimum funding guarantee also builds in protection for schools with falling rolls by ensuring that they receive an increase in their per pupil budgets of more than 4%, to allow for the fact that some of their costs do not fall when pupil numbers fall.

We are aware that many LEAs are concerned about falling primary school rolls and we have responded by setting up a working group with LEAs and other partner organisations to explore the options and opportunities available to schools and communities. The aim of the group will be to develop a toolkit of practical approaches showing ways in which schools/LEAs might tackle falling rolls.

For example, an alternative to closing schools is to open them to the community through the extended schools initiative. Under this scheme school premises can be used for a wide range of services such as childcare, parent and family learning classes, health and social care facilities and sports and art facilities.

I hope that this reply is helpful and reassures you of the Department's commitment to rural communities.

Stephen Twigg MP

department for
education and skills
creating opportunity, releasing potential, achieving excellence

RK/SW/Cons/Schools/Farley

8th April 2004

David Miliband MP
Minister of State (School Standards)
Department for Education & Skills
Sanctuary Buildings
Great Smith Street
London
SW1P 3BT

Dear David,

Closure of Schools

Please can you explain for me the process involved in the closure of a school? I have consulted your website and also the website of OFSTED. I cannot find any clear advice on this.

Following a weak OFSTED report, it seems that there are plans afoot to close Farley All Saints Church of England Voluntary Aided Primary School near Salisbury. The parents and the wider local community are most concerned at rumours that the Education Authority and the Diocesan Board for Education intend to move extremely fast.

The OFSTED report was published in January 2004. It is rumoured that the Education Authority will take a decision in May to close the school and that the school will not reopen for the autumn term in September. It is not clear at what point there will be any consultation with parents or the wider community. Should consultations take place before a recommendation is made to Councillors of Wiltshire County Council? Or will the Councillors reach a conclusion to recommend closure the school and then consult the wider community?

Who will take the final decision to close the school? Would it be a) Wiltshire County Council, b) Salisbury Diocesan Board of Education, c) Education Ministers?

I would be very grateful for your advice.

Sanctuary Buildings Great Smith Street Westminster London SW1P3BT
tel:0870 0012345 dfes.ministers@dfes.gsi.gov.uk
David Miliband MP
Minister of State for School Standards

Robert Key MP
House of Commons
London
SW1A OAA

Your ref: RK/SW/Cons/Schools/Farley

26 April 2004

Thank you for your letter of 8 April about the future of Farley All Saints Church of England Primary School in Salisbury, Wiltshire.

I should first of all explain that all decisions relating to the planning and organisation of schools are taken locally, in accordance with the statutory procedures introduced by the School Standards and Framework Act 1998.

These procedures require that the proposers consult everyone likely to be affected by the change, providing sufficient information to enable all those being consulted to form a considered view. Any comments received during this period should be used to inform the decision as to whether to proceed. Should this be the case, a statutory proposal must be published by means of a notice placed both in the local press and at the school concerned. There follows a six week statutory representation period, or one month in the case of a school in special measures, during which objections and letters of support may be submitted. Where the Local Education Authority (LEA) is the proposer and no objections have been received the LEA may then take the final decision. If objections are received or the proposal has been brought forward by another party (for example, the Diocese), the proposals, representations, and proposer's comments must be referred to the local School Organisation Committee (SOC) for a decision.

This Committee usually comprises of five or six groups with local involvement in education and will include representatives from the local council, school governors, diocese, the local Learning and Skills Council (LSC) and an optional further group to represent particular local interests, for example minority communities. The Department has issued statutory guidance setting out the factors that SOCs must take into account in reaching a decision and these include the effect the change may have on the local community, its impact on the school journey, including long-term transport costs, and whether it will result in more pupils experiencing longer journeys to school and more pupils being driven to school by car. Above all, the proposals must clearly be in the best interests of educational provision in the area. This guidance may be viewed in full via the following website: www.dfes.gov.uk/schoolorg/.

If, having considered all the evidence, the SOC is unable to reach a unanimous decision, the case will be referred to the independent Schools Adjudicator for determination.

The Secretary of State can only intervene where there is evidence that an LEA or SOC have failed to perform a statutory responsibility, or have acted unreasonably when exercising any of their powers or performing any of their duties.

In conclusion there will be opportunities for local people to put forward their views on the proposal and no decision will be taken without full consultation with the local community and consideration by the SOC. I have been advised by officials that, at the moment, the Salisbury Diocesan Board of Education and Wiltshire LEA are currently exploring options for the future of the school. I would advise your constituents to review the content of the above website and, should the Diocese or the LEA decide to make any change to the school, submit their representations at the appropriate time.

DAVID MILIBAND

department for
education and skills
creating opportunity, releasing potential, achieving excellence

RK/SW/Cons/Schools/Farley

23 April 2004

Bob Wolfson
Director of Education
Wiltshire County Council
County Hall
Trowbridge
Wiltshire
BA14 8JB

Thank you for your letter about Farley All Saints School.

Are you, as Director, in full agreement with the OFSTED report?

If not, with which parts of the report do you disagree?

Has the LEA at Councillor level come to a conclusion about whether it accepts in full the OFSTED Report?

If it does not accept the report in full, with which parts does it disagree?

If the minutes of meetings at which Farley All Saints School was discussed are available, please will you let me have them?

Bob Wolfson, MA
Director, Department for Children & Education

Mr Robert Key, MP
House of Commons
London
SW1 0AA

09 May 2004

Dear Robert

Farley All Saints Primary School

Thank you for your letter of 23 April regarding the Ofsted report.

Prior to commenting on this, I would just like to comment on the letter you received from Mr Rickman dated 10 April regarding the building. On this aspect, I would like to make it clear that when the Diocesan Board of Education determines to make a building improvement or extension, the local authority is no longer required to countersign any applications. Normally, we are invited to express a view but this is not necessarily taken into account. I understand that Simon Tong is replying directly to Mr Rickman and will copy you into this, but just wanted to make clear that it is primarily a matter for the Diocese how it spends its money on buildings rather than for the LEA.

Turning to your letter of 23 April regarding the Ofsted report, you asked the question 'am I, as Director, in full agreement with it'. It is not really a question of whether I am in agreement with it or not. You will know that successive governments have made clear that local education authorities are not expected to inspect their schools in the same way as Ofsted. Indeed, it is very much the case that the expectation of the local authority is that it monitors schools' progress on the basis of data and with a minimal amount of time spent in the school. In contrast, Ofsted Inspectors spend a significant time in the school observing lessons and other activities, as well as receiving a large amount of written information. Ofsted also has quality assurance mechanisms, training etc for its inspectors. There is a national assumption that its judgements are therefore based on a thorough and full examination of the school's documentation and practice.

I am not therefore in a position to agree or disagree with the detailed judgement on each of the 29 areas inspected. I am of course able to comment on the basis of the judgements that we have made, linked to the extra support given to the school as a part of the Additional Support Strategy, which do reflect the inspection's concern about the leadership and management of the school and its standards. In particular, my colleagues and I have been concerned for some time that there was insufficient internal monitoring of teaching in the school and this issue had been raised with both the headteacher and governors.

So far as 'rninutes of the meetings of which Farley All Saints School was discussed', we do not normally publish minutes of confidential meetings discussing the progress of schools. That said, we work with partners in the county in the Independent Review Group, made up of headteachers, governors and a teacher representative to monitor the work we do with schools causing concern. This group has not reviewed the work we've done with Farley but has regularly looked at how we work with schools in difficulty. This is well beyond what is expected of a local education authority and indeed I am not aware of any other that does this.

As I have indicated before, I would be pleased to discuss this matter with you in person and look forward to hearing from you in due course.

Yours sincerely

R W Wolfson
Director, Department for Children and Education

Cc: Joy Tubbs
Stephanie Denovan

• in each of the academic years 2001/2 and 2002/3 the school received 1.5 days adviser support;
• this included a half day visit to the school to consider target setting and a day for a School Development Review (SDR);
• the SDR in February 2003 (for the academic year 2003/4) noted a lack of progress since the OfSTED inspection and previous SDR. The SDR for the previous academic year had noted the need for the school to improve the quality of Strategic Planning;
• the LEA concerns noted in February 2003 related to falling roll, staffing structure and the need lo- --reduce staffing, unsatisfactory progress since the previous year's Development Review, unsatisfactory progress with the 1998 post Ofsted Action Plan 97 particularly assessment and strategic vision, lack of understanding and use of value added data and quality of teaching in one class being unsatisfactory.

• funding from the LEA to release the headteacher to secure the leadership of the school;
• funding from the LEA for link adviser and curriculum adviser support for the school;
• the agreement by governors to review the capacity of the school to maintain current staffing levels;
• agreement of governing body to explore the long temi future of the school, including the possibility of Federation.

Mr R Key, MP
House of Commons
London SW1A 0AA

7 June 2004

Dear Robert,

Farley all Saints' School

Thank you for your letter of 20 May and for the copy of your paper, 'A vision - a challenge'. Please forgive my delay in replying, but your letter had to be forwarded from Audley House, and I was away on holiday last week.

I found your paper most helpful and encouraging. Whatever the final outcome, I am sure that it is right to pursue every option and resist, wherever possible, school closures. In this respect, I think the Diocesan Board of Education is in a somewhat difficult position. I hardly need tell you that we place a high regard on due process. Personally, I am convinced that it provides not only good ways of making decisions but also proper and necessary boundaries.

Your paper touches on the very fine line that there is sometimes between a proper consultative process and an unimaginative, tram-lined approach that can often result where there is bureaucratic overload. It is important for the DBE both to be and to be seen to be good partners with the LEA. However, I would wish to offer my support to your energies and efforts. If Farley All Saints' School became a specialist centre of excellence, I would be delighted.

I do hope that, given the caveats I have made about process and partnership with the LEA, the DBE would be able to encourage 'out-of-box' thinking.

With many thanks for your cooperation and diligence in communication, may I wish you every success.

Yours sincerely,

Alistair J Magowan

28 May 2004

Councillor William Snow
Wiltshire County Council
County Hall
Trowbridge
BAI4 8JB


Dear William

Farley All Saints Primary School

You know how concerned I am about the future of this wonderful primary school. I have discussed it with you briefly. You may also have been able to catch up with the situation on my website.

My concern ranges wider than just Farley School. Looking at the pattern of the closure of primary schools in the villages of Wiltshire over the past decade or so, I am concerned that there does not appear to be a sustainable policy for our village schools. Wiltshire LEA has a clear policy on village school closure 97 and on federation of one or more neighbouring schools. In reality, apart from geography and demography, the LEA holds all the cards in its hands. Ultimately the LEA has power to withdraw delegation and take over the running of schools itself - or to close them.

The lessons of Steeple Ashton School and Steeple Langford School have been learned as far as the parents and community at Farley are concerned. As I have argued in a column in the "Salisbury Journal" and in another piece on my website, one disappointing OFSTED Report and one difficult period of staffing leading to the appointment of a new Head is not a sufficient reason to close Wiltshire's oldest primary school - a school which has been in existence for some three hundred years and uniquely founded alongside a church and Hospital (Almshouse).

The parents of children currently in the school, together with former pupils and parents and indeed the wider community of Farley and its neighbouring villages, are convinced that Farley School has a future. This is not just visionary or fanciful. The community has been working really hard in recent weeks, as Bob Wolfson and Simon Tong know. They have made very substantial progress and are fully aware of the financial implications and pressures of proposals for the future. They are very grateful for the support of Bob Wolfson who has been to the school several times, listened patiently and encouraged further actions.

The Governors of Farley School have co-opted a number of people to the "Farley School Future Group" and they, in turn, are actively engaged with the local community on a serious programme to deliver a strong future for the school, while the governing body addresses the imperatives of the school being in Special Measures as a result of the OFSTED Report. They are also actively engaging with neighbouring villages, especially with Pitton with whom they would wish to see federation. On June 18th I will be meeting Simon Tong and the Head and Chairman of Governors of Pitton School to discuss that point.

This week the Chair of the Finance Committee of Farley School has had a meeting with Joy Tubbs to discuss future budgets. As I understand it, the LEA has agreed to pay for a full-time temporary Head between now and January 2005. Please can you confirm this?

From 2005 please will you confirm that the LEA will continue to fund the Head, come what may, until September 2005.

Please will you confirm that from September 2005 onwards the school must be financially self sufficient?

The problem facing the governors at the school now is that they believe they have been instructed by the LEA that they must produce a budget by July 2004 guaranteeing they will be out of deficit by September 2005.

Please will you confirm that if the governors cannot guarantee that they can find at least £20,000 a year by July, then you will not fund the temporary Head between now and September 2005? If that is what you are saying, then it seems to me you are signalling your lack of confidence in the Farley community - and signalling your intention to close Farley School.

Please can you also confirm that if the school is to achieve viability by September 2005 it will need to have about fifty pupils on role compared to the 33 expected in September 2004.

How can they prove now, that they can get an extra 17 pupils before September 2005?

Please can you also confirm what they believe Bob Wolfson said to the governors last Monday night, that they have a five week period in which to appoint a temporary Headteacher. If they do not appoint in that time period, then the school will enter a period of consultation - effectively the closure process. Please will you also confirm that that consultation period would only need to be four weeks long?

It really does not seem to me to be fair or reasonable to give a small community like this a four week deadline to make a substantial financial commitment about what they can achieve in fifteen months time. If it is really is your intention to close this school, then please will you say so now.

Of course, I hope very much that this is not the case - and that Wiltshire County Council Education Authority will actively promote and invest in this highly-cherished school which has been in reeeipt of nearly £500,000 of capital investment from the Diocese of Salisbury in the past couple of years.

Yours ever,

CC
Members of the LEA
The Bishop of Ramsbury
Councillor Jane Scott, Leader of Wiltshire County Council
The Bishop of Salisbury
The Archdeacon of Dorset
Bob Wolfson, Director, Department for Children, Education & Libraries

1. The LEA has undertaken to continue to fund a non-teaching Head through the autumn term 2004, assuming of course that it is able to identify such a person. As the Head of Farley has resigned, the school's budget will technically pay the Head, but additional LEA funding will pay for a teacher for four days a week so that the Head is not required to teach. This funding is taken from 'intervention' funds and is therefore effectively at the expense of all the other schools in Wiltshire.
2. The LEA has also undertaken that, should a new Headteacher be appointed from January 2005, funding will be provided from intervention for that Head to be non-teaching until September 2005. This effectively means funding that time which the Head would otherwise spend teaching rather than the whole salary, as above, and will amount to over £26,000 for the year. I cannot though undertake that the LEA will provide such funding 'come what may'; neither you nor I know 'what may come'.
3. There is an expectation that from September 2005 the school will be financially self-sufficient. This does not mean that it will necessarily be 'in the black', but rather that there will be a viable financial recovery plan in place so that the Council can be clear that its financial support can end. It is not my understanding that they are required to produce a budget guaranteeing that they are out of deficit by September 2005 but, as I have stated above, that there is a plan showing how it will be possible to achieve a balanced budget into the future. You are correct in adducing that to achieve this the role will need to be increased, and that they will need to demonstrate this both by maintaining those pupils currently on roll and by the numbers coming forward to enrol for September 2005. To do otherwise is to potentially hand the school a blank cheque. You will know that the LEA has already put an extra £60,000 into Farley School, and has undertaken to add more than £20,000 to this. This is against an expectation of an additional £30,000 to a school in Special Measures, and continuing pressure from other Heads and Governors NOT to support those which have got into difficulty.
4. Appointment of Headteacher - Bob Wolfson told the Governors that the appointment of the Head would follow the normal pattern. This is for a two week period following the advert for applications to be received, a week or so to shortlist candidates, followed by a two week period to set up and undertake the appointment. Farley is being treated no differently to any other school in this regard. He explained that after that time we would need to consider a consultation exercise on the future of the school - as you well know, it already meets the criteria rightly set by the School Organisation Committee for such purposes.
5. Were there to be a consultation period, four weeks is the period required for a school in Special Measures, as opposed to six weeks in other circumstances. That period would not of course include school holiday time.

RK/SW/Cons/Schools/Farley

22 June 2004

Bob Wolfson
Director of Education
Wiltshire County Council
County Hall
Trowbridge
Wiltshire
BA148JB

Farley School

On Friday 18th June Simon Tong hosted a meeting with Councillor William Snow, Frank Simmonds, Chairman of Governors of Farley School, David Morgan the Headteachcr - and myself.

This was a quite excellent meeting. I am sure William Snow and Simon Tong will give you an account.

Real progress was made. There was real understanding of the different points of view. There was an explicit determination to press forward with the idea of some sort of federation. There was absolutely no doubt that the astonishing and vibrant campaign now established by the Farley and Pitton communities - for both communities recognise that all our small village schools are under threat - has changed the whole landscape of education in this part of Wiltshire so that there is a real determination to ensure the future of bolh schools.

Given these circumstances, please will you give an undertaking not to start the consultation process which might lead to closure of Farley School?

This is very important if we are to persuade parents not only to keep their own children at Farley School but to encourage other parents to send more pupils.

We have reached a very important milestone and we now need an assurance that the Education Authority will do nothing to set back the prospects of the school.

Bob Wolfson, MA
Director, Department for Children & Education

Mr Robert Key, MP
House of Commons
LONDON
SW1A 0AA

28 June 2004

Dear Robert

Farley School

Thank you for your letter of 22 June following your meeting of 18 June. As you will know, Simon Tong and William Snow have both reported back on the meeting and we have been able to have a telephone conversation about it.

The situation now is that we are progressing with the appointment process for a separate headteacher for Farley School and will see where that goes. You can be assured that we are not putting forward any proposals for the closure of Farley, certainly at present. As things progress, we will need to determine whether to put forward a consultation on the proposed federation and the form that that will take. That of course will not be until the autumn term.

I trust this is helpful and we will of course keep in close touch on this matter.

With best wishes

Yours sincerely

R W Wolfson
Director, Department for Children and Education

Cc: Joy Tubbs
Stephanie Denovan

RK/SJA/Cons/Schools/Farley

22 June 2004

Councillor William Snow
128 Bouverie Avenue
Salisbury
SP2J 8EA

Thank you so much for your letter of 2nd June about Farley All Saints Primary School.

I was most grateful to you for coming to the meeting with Simon Tong and others last Friday.

I mentioned that I had had a letter from the Chairman of Governors of Farley All Saints. I now enclose a copy of that letter — in which he challenges two points that you made in youir letter to me.

I think it is only fair to give you the opportunity to comment.

Thank you again for the meeting. It was wonderfully positive and dynamic. I believe the communities of Pitton and Farley will rise to the occasion!

Robert Key MP
House of Commons
London
SW1A OAA

17 June 2004

Dear Robert,

FARLEY ALL SAINTS PRIMARY SCHOOL

I have had sight of a letter dated 2 June 2004 to you from William Snow, Cabinet Member for Education and Youth Development. I would like to take the opportunity to clarify for you some of the assertions he makes in that letter.

Firstly, he asserts that 'Against the Council's advice, it was decided to maintain three classes at Farley'. I would be interested to see the evidence upon which Mr Snow bases this statement. As a member of the Governing Body for six years and Chair of the Governing Body for the past two years, I can honestly say that we have never received any advice on this matter from the LEA.

Secondly, Mr Snow implies that it is as a result of maintaining three classes that we currently have a deficit budget. Again, he appears to have been poorly briefed on this matter. Parley All Saints Primary school has never previously had a deficit budget. This is the first financial year in which we have been obliged to set a deficit budget; this situation has arisen not as a result of maintaining three classes but as a result of being obliged, as a school in Special Measures, to employ a non-teaching Head Teacher.

I hope that this clarifies the points upon which Mr Snow appears to be misinformed.

Yours sincerely

G A Ramsey
Chair of Governors

William Snow
Cabinet Member for Education and Youth Development

Robert Key Esq MP
House of Commons
London
SW1A 0AA

Farley All Saints Primary School

Thank you for your letter of 22 June attaching a copy of Geoff Ramsey's letter of 17 June.

I am able to respond as follows:

• The advice to the school in relation to the falling roll and the need to reduce the number of classes began in February 2003. Following a visit to the school the link adviser's note of visit recorded the financial need to reduce staffing. This need was returned to by the Head of School Support in her subsequent meetings with the Headteacher in the spring of 2003 and with representatives of the governing body.
• The school's staffing structure was not sustainable. The current deficit is not the result of employing a non-teaching Headteacher. Funding for this post has been provided by the LEA's Additional Support Strategy.

I trust this helps.

Custos:
Dr. R C Godfrey, FRCP
The Wardenry,
Church Road, Farley,
SALISBURY, Wilts, SP5 1AH

30th March 2004

Teh 01722712231

R WoIfson, Esq.,
Director, Dept. for Children, Education & Libraries,
County Hall,
Trowbridge,
Wilts BA 14 8JB

Dear Mr. Wolfson,

Farley All Saints Primary School

The village school in Farley first came into being in 1681 when the almshouses of which we are wardens were founded. The School, Almshouses and Church were built as a result of the faith and vision of Sir Stephen Fox. A child of the village (the son of a woodcutter), he had, through the merits of his own integrity and the opportunity of education, risen to become the valued friend of the King, Paymaster of the Army, and the richest commoner in the land. He endowed his home village with the advantages on which he placed the most value: a school which provided a sound education based on Christian values and also clothing and shoes for the poorest, almshouses which provided a secure haven for the homeless, again with a strong emphasis on Christian values, and "clean and sweet living", and a magnificent Wren Church for village worship. The Warden of the almshouses was also the vicar and director of the school. These three institutions have always had very strong links which continued after the original school was replaced by the present Victorian building. They stand close together.

It is with great alarm that we hear that the future of the school is in question, and would urge you to do everything in your powers to support Farley All Saints through this difficult period. The school continues to give its pupils the greatest of all gifts - that of a secure, caring and healthy childhood where they can develop their true potential spiritually academically and physically. The children show a true love of life, a thirst for learning, and a determination to care for and protect everything which is good. There is no better foundation on which to build their adult lives. Their politeness and respect have earned them a place in the hearts of all Farley's residents, and "open" events are popular and well-attended among all ages.

This school is fostering qualities which are all too rare in the 21st century, and we will do everything in our powers to ensure its continuance at the heart of our village.

Yours sincerely,

Mrs. J Godfrey

Copies:
The Right Hon. The Earl of Ilchester, Farley Mill, Westerham, Kent
Mrs. Joy Tubbs, Head of School Support, Wiltshire County Council, County Hall, Trowbridge, BA14 8JB
Simon Tong, Esq., Diocesan Director of Education, 97 Crane Street, Salisbury
Bill Moss, Esq., County Councillor/District Councillor, Long Orchard, London Road, Winterslow SP5 1BN
Mr. Robert Key, MP, 12 Brown Street, Salisbury, SP1 1HE
Rt. Hon Charles Clarke, MP Sec. of State for Education DfES, Sanctuary Buildings, Great Smith St, London SW1P 3BT

Mr Robert Key
House of Commons

8th April 8, 2004

Dear Mr Key,

I am concerned that the LEA is considering closure of Farley School without giving the school a chance to turn itself around.

The recent Ofsted report commented positively on 'reading' and 'speaking and listening' levels throughout the school but these comments were hidden in the main body of the report, whereas more negative judgements were highlighted.

The strength of 'reading' was demeaned by using LEA statistics from the PANDA report which compares the school with 'similar schools' and relies on tiny cohorts which are not statistically significant. In my opinion the PANDA statistics are unreliable as 'similar schools' is defined by the number of children who have free school meals. Clearly a school such as Farley is not similar at all to a large suburban affluent primary.

'Speaking and Listening' is not measured by statutory tests but is considered a vital precursor for writing skills and is considered to be as important as Reading and Writing in the National Curriculum. Writing levels nationally are lower than reading levels. The lack of improvement across the curriculum noted by the inspectors is surely as much an indictment of the LEA's own monitoring process and possibly underfunding which has meant staff have not been able to take advantage of training offered by the LEA because the school was unable to afford supply cover.

Such funding difficulties are typical of small rural schools throughout the country which are not deemed to be in 'Priority Areas'

Clearly the school recently has had a number of weaknesses but the Acting Head Teacher is addressing these via a comprehensive Action Plan. It would appear, however, that the school may not be given a chance to show how quickly it can improve given effective leadership.

At the Post Ofsted meeting with parents Joy Tubbs of the LEA left most parents with the impression that the school would be closing and that an attempt at Federation would be made but could not be guaranteed.

The uncertainty over the LEA's decision would appear to be causing parents to leave the school and, in my opinion, must surely be demoralising for the staff. Ultimately this will create a solution for the LEA without a decision having to be made.

I should like an immediate, firm commitment from the LEA that they will support the school through its current, short term crisis in order to stabilise the situation at the school.

Monday 19th April 2004

Mr R Wolfson
Director, Department for Children & Education
County Hall
Bythesea Road
Trowbridge Wilts BA14 8JB

Dear Mr Wolfson

Thank you for your undated letter, received Monday 19th April 2004.

I appreciate your commitment to 'doing all that is possible to maintain educational provision within the village of Farley'.

You mention that at the parent's evening Joy Tubbs and Simon Tong explained that they must consider closure based on five key features of the school:

• Educational standards - As a parent at the school for the last 13 years, I do have evidence of the educational standards. This is real evidence and not just SATS results, which as stated in the Ofsted report, have little meaning at a school like Farley. My sons have all left Farley with a sound educational grounding (yes and level 5 SATS) and most importantly a thirst for learning and an enjoyment of learning. They have all been happy whilst at Farley. They have all continued to achieve. My eldest achieved 11 A/A* passes at GCSE, he is predicted 4 A's at AS level and plans to apply for a place at Oxford for entry in 2005. He could not have achieved this if the foundations he received at Farley had been 'poor'.
  

  The standard to which he and my other two sons were taught at Farley is no different to that currently being received by my 11-year-old daughter who is still at the school. I accept the Ofsted findings that monitoring procedures are not sufficient, but that does not mean that teaching standards are not satisfactory. When we heard that the Ofsted Inspectors were coming, we all knew that they would write a bad report. The report they wrote does not represent the school that we know. We are aware that there is possibly an agenda currently in place to put pressure on smaller schools by using the inflexible Ofsted system. I have read with interest recent articles on the subject and enclose the following extracts from the Telegraph last week:

  A Norfolk school has received an official apology from Ofsted following a damning report that incorrectly claimed it had serious weaknesses.

  Staff and parents at Banham Community Primary, near Diss, were devastated by the findings of Ofsted inspector Michael Craven and his team, as they believed they did not reflect the school's consistent high standards.

  David Bell, the head of Ofsted, said the report on Banham primary, near Diss, Norfolk, was "seriously misleading"

  In 1998 the school received a glowing report praising the quality of its teaching. Its results have consistently gone up and in 2001 it received a School Achievement Award from the Department for Education and Skills.

  How familiar this sounds! The final quotation could have been written about Farley except that we received our Achievement Award last year.

  I believe that Joy Tubbs thinks that the parents at Farley are 'in denial'. We are not stupid parents. We appreciate that there are some areas of weakness especially at management level. I myself wrote a letter in 1998 to the Ofsted Inspectors at that time which was extremely critical of the Head Teacher. However, on that occasion the inspectors decided that everything was satisfactory. I was not the only one at that time who was raising alarm bells. I can only conclude that at that time it did not suit Ofsted to write a negative report. However, we also have the evidence of our own children that they are benefiting significantly from their education at Farley and that they are not all 'under-achieving'.

  • Inability to recruit a Headteacher - The LEA, Ofsted team and the system generally have put us in an impossible situation here. Our head is off on long term sick leave and by all accounts is unlikely to return; Ofsted insist that we now have a full time head due to the special measures they have inflicted upon us; we can not recruit a new head until the previous one has officially left - which Joy Tubbs said could take up to 24 months! So we are in a no-win situation. We cannot try and create stability by getting a new head and even if we could, a school like Farley could never afford recruiting one on a full-time basis. This is not the fault of the school or the children and an unfair measure on which to decide to opt for closure.
  • Low demand by parents in the designated area of the school - It is significant that the reputation of Farley is such that parents are prepared to travel away from their own local schools in order that their children attend Farley. This is therefore a positive and not a negative.
  • A deficit budget with no prospect of recovery - Currently there are problems with a deficit budget, which is not being helped, by any of the above problems. However it cannot be said that there is no prospect of recovery. There is no reason why Farley cannot move on from any short-term problems that it is encountering;
    • Peter Ward is currently addressing procedure problems highlighted by Ofsted
    • the chaos of recent years with all the major rebuilding work is now complete
    • we just need a fresh start with a new headteacher
    • some financial support in the short term
    • and Farley can once again thrive.
  • Investment needed in buildings, disproportionate to pupil roll - This is a strange one! The current investment needed is a fraction of the amount of money that has already been invested over the past 2-4 years on three major building projects. The only part of the school left that has not been refurbished or rebuilt is the Victorian classroom in the original building. From a building point of view the school is now stronger and more permanent than it has been for decades. This is a reason against closure - not for it!!
  
  In conclusion, I do not believe that the five criteria add up in any way to closure especially if you are true to your word and you 'are committed to doing all that is possible to maintain educational provision within the village of Farley'. However, we need support quickly because the present uncertainty itself makes Farley vulnerable. I believe that the LEA and Governors should be questioning the inconsistency of the Ofsted system and not letting it put them under pressure to look at closure as an option. That it too convenient and is perhaps the goal of the Ofsted Inspectors?!

  The Governors, Staff, Parents, Children and the Community are all so proud of their school. Perhaps it is time that the LEA shared this pride and joined us in the fight to keep our school?

  Yours sincerely

  Cc , The Rt Hon Charles Clarke MP, Mr Simon Tong, The Bishop of Salisbury,
  Via Email - Mr R Key MP, Mr Bill Moss, Mr Geoff Ramsey

WILTSHIRE'S COMMUNITY AREAS

Bob Wolfson, MA
Director, Department for Children & Education

Dear Mr and Mrs Rickman

Thank you for your letter of 19 April. I apologise that my previous letter to you was undated.

I do not think it helpful to take the opportunity to respond each of the comments that you have made. I can reiterate that should there be a proposal to change the structure or situation of Parley School there will be full public consultation and an opportunity to consider the points that you have made. I note your strong support for the school which is reiterated by a number of other letters that I have received.

I would however like to clarify a part of my previous letter, which was inadequate and unclear. There are currently two pressures on the local education authority to consider the future of Farley School:

1. The first is the Ofsted requirement that we consider the future of the school and whether there are other alternative schools that provide high standards and have space. This consideration is entirely independent of the second.
   
2. The second consideration is the Wiltshire School Organisation Plan. I have reproduced below in italics the section on small schools and should have made clear in my previous letter to you that there is not an expectation that the school has to achieve all five of the criteria I previously listed but just one of them. It is the case that under these circumstances Parley's future should be at least considered. In addition, you will note the reference to the expectation that federation is considered as an option for small schools wherever possible.

The LEA recognises the government's presumption against the closure of village schools, and will not normally bring forward proposals to close a village school unless it can be demonstrated that one or more of the following criteria apply:

• There is only very limited demand for places at the school from children coming from the designated area.
• Standards are low and there is low confidence in the likelihood of improvement.
• Recruitment of a headteacher has not proved possible.
• The necessary improvements to the school accommodation are either not possible or cost effective.
• The school has a deficit budget without realistic prospects of recovery.

All proposals to amalgamate or close foundation or voluntary aided schools, will be brought forward in consultation with the governing body/ies concerned.

For all schools with fewer than 90 pupils on roll, the LEA will actively encourage the governors at the schools to consider further collaboration and, ultimately, federation with one or more neighbouring schools.

There is therefore a requirement on us not to simply say that things will necessarily continue as before.

I can of course reassure you that we are continuing to work on the best possible way forward for the school and resolve some of the issues that you rightly refer to, such as the position of the headteacher.

I hope that this clarification is helpful.

Yours sincerely

R W Wolfson
Director, Department for Children and Education

Cc: Joy Tubbs
Stephanie Denovan
Simon long
Mr R Key, MP
The Rt Hon Charles Clarke MP
The Bishop of Salisbury
Mr Bill Moss
Mr Geoff Ramsey

Department for Children & Education, County Hall, Bythesea Road, Trowbridge, Wiltshire, BA14 8JB

Mr Robert Key MP
12 Brown Street
Salisbury
Wiltshire
SP1 1HE

Wednesday 31st March 2004

Dear Mr Key

Farley All Saints Primary School

Rumours abound in the village that the LEA is considering closing Farley School, which would be a huge shame both for the pupils and the village as a whole. Our daughter enjoyed five happy years there, so both as past parents and Farley residents, we would like to register our strongest opposition to this suggestion.

Not only would the children currently enjoying the school suffer, but also so would everyone else in the village - whether parents or not. The school is our focal point, with nearly every social event revolving around the school. There is a very special atmosphere in Farley, one that we really treasure and which seems to be becoming rarer and rarer in this country, one of a community that genuinely cares for one another. Farley school children are brought up in this extraordinary environment and this is even recognised in the most recent Ofsted report, which was otherwise apparently quite damming.

Clearly there are some issues that need addressing at the school and maybe it is no coincidence that this recent report follows on from the Head Teacher's recent medical problems. The core values of the school are very intact and thriving and with some reorganisation, we are confident that all issues can be resolved. There is a very willing and enthusiastic parent base that would welcome and support any changes. The loyalty of the parents and villagers is perhaps best demonstrated by our recent raising of £7,000 for computer equipment in just a few months.

The school has been here for 130 years and there should be more to determining its future than one poor Ofsted report and temporarily unfavourable cashflow. We would be horrified to think that a decision to close the school has already been made on just these criteria with no thought to the impact on our community and what we could achieve. Together we can resolve all the school's problems and restore it to its rightful glory as a shining example of what school life should really be like.

Please acknowledge receipt of this letter and please do not let them close our school.

Yours sincerely

31st March 2004

Mr R Wolfson
Director, Dept for Children, Education and Libraries
County Hall
Trowbridge
Wiltshire
BA14 8JB

Dear Mr Wolfson

Re: Farley All Saints Primary School, Church Rd, Farley.

I am writing to you as a parent of a child at Farley School. I have had children at Farley School for ten years. Although I have always lived in Winterslow, I chose to send my children to Farley because it was a small village school where the children all interacted with each other, whatever age, and because the staff, parents and community all worked together closely to provide the safe and caring environment that is there today.

Needless to say, I am horrified of the negative response by the LEA to the situation that the school now finds itself in. I am aware that Mrs Joy Tubbs had to be realistic during her recent meeting with us after our Ofsted Report, but to the majority of parents at the meeting we very much felt that the closure of the school was a foregone conclusion. Is this the case? Mrs Tubbs also made known to the parents that the LEA had in fact been supporting the school for a year, having realised that the school needed the help. If this is the case, why have we had such a bad Ofsted Report and why has the LEA not done something about our leadership and management problems, which have got to have been the crux of our failure. We have been losing children from Farley School for at least 4 years, and have needed help for far longer than a year. Why has the LEA taken so long to offer support?

It is clear that the reasons for a possible school closure are purely financial, and I accept that these are a big problem at the present moment. However, I would like to point out that with good strong leadership this situation can be turned around quickly. We are very fortunate to have Peter Ward and Jenny Purchase from Winterslow School running things for us at the moment and this is what the school has needed for some years.

I have lived in Winterslow for 13 years now, and have seen the fantastic growth of our own village school, which is now full. Winterslow is a popular village and constantly has new families moving in. Recently I know of new families to the village who have had to send their children to other local schools both in Wiltshire and in Hampshire, as they have not been able to get them into the village school. Surely Farley School would be in an excellent position to gain some of these children in the future.

I feel strongly that the LEA is being very short-sighted about the future of Farley School. We have many important and essential attributes already in place and need the chance to prove that with good leadership and management we too can become a school of excellence. We owe this to our children.

Thank you for taking the time to read this letter.

Yours sincerely

cc:

Mrs Joy Tubbs
Mr Simon Tong
Mr Bill Moss
Mr Robert Key
Rt Hon Charles Clarke MP

17th May, 2004

Mr. & Mrs N G Rickman
Salisbury

Dear Mr. & Mrs. Rickman

Farley All Saints Primary School

Thank you for your letter dated 7th May, 2004. I note its contents.

Firstly I think perhaps it is worthwhile pointing out the role that is played by the Diocesan Board of Education in the provision of accommodation in voluntary aided schools. This Board acts as agent for the school governors, the Diocesan Surveyor and his team, who are employees of the Diocesan Board of Finance, act on behalf of the governors. It is my belief that they acted in the best interests of the governors and did all that could reasonably be expected to ensure that the project was carried out in a professional and thorough manner.

There was a significant amount of disruption during the replacement of the mobile classroom with a permanent extension but this was inevitable as the new extension had to be partly on an area that was under one of the mobiles. The use of the Village Hall as temporary accommodation was a reasonable and sensible alternative and a great deal cheaper than the only other possibility which would have been the provision of another mobile classroom which would probably have added in the region of £40,000 to the cost of the project. I therefore offer no apology for the disruption that took place as I believe that it was inevitable and was well managed by the school. I do not agree that the Diocesan Board of Education should take responsibility for the period of disruption.

What ever happens at Farley School I can only reiterate that it is the intention of the Board of Education to support any action taken by the Governors which will provide for the best possible education for the children of the school in the future.

Yours sincerely

S.P.C. Franklin
Buildings and Trusts Officer
E-mail: simon.franklin@saIisbury.anglican.org

c.c. Mr. Robert Key. MP
Mr. G. Ramsey. Chair of Governors
Mr. R. Wolfson, Director of Education, Wiltshire
Bishop of Salisbury
Director of Education

Friday 7th May 2004

Dear Mr Tong

REF FARLEY ALL SAINTS PRIMARY SCHOOL

Thank you for your letter of 23rd April regarding the money spent in recent years on rebuilding Farley School. Your letter states that the ‘replacement of the mobile classrooms indicates a readiness on the part of the Dioceses and LEA to give the school the physical resources it needed in order to make better educational provision for the pupils’ and that ‘the issues the school currently faces are, sadly, more to do with the quality of education on offer within the buildings than with the buildings themselves’. The following points make it quite clear that there is a link in the last couple of years between the quality of education and the buildings.

1. The new classroom was initially intended to start in October 2002 (half term). At this point the first mobile was removed and the Headteacher’s class was ‘temporarily’ accommodated in the village hall. The day to day reality of this situation was that:
   
   a. The chairs and desks had to be removed at the end of each day and set up again in the mornings. The Headteacher mostly did this on his own, a job which took about an hour in all.
   b. There was not storage space at all in the village hall and books, papers, work etc had to be put in boxes all over the school. Teachers for safety took much of the more vital pieces of work home. The Ann Taylor Room (computer suite) was consequently a storeroom and the computers were pretty well inaccessible at times.
   c. The working environment of that class was severely below standard – very little display space, no computers in class, etc
   d. Due to the disruption for these Year 5 & 6 children, some parents did remove their children.
   
2. A large area of the garden was fenced off and there was the danger and distraction of having workmen on site during teaching hours. Piles of books, bricks and equipment disrupted the whole school. Apart from the inconvenience and the safety hazard, the school did look a complete mess for nearly a year.
3. Any prospective parent looking round at that time would have been, and in fact was, very much put off.
4. Disruption was of course expected and it was something we were prepared to live through for a short period in order to protect the long-term prospects of the school. However, no one in the school expected this episode to last for virtually the whole academic year. The DBE seemed unable to bring pressure to bear on Moulding the contractors to complete within the original 4-5 months estimate. Governors were powerless to improve the situation and naturally parents were very angry. The Staff and Governors also had to deal with all the day-to-day problems of trying to teach 3 classes in two classrooms with no assistance from the LEA or DBE.
5. We are aware that the Chair of the Premises Committee, Jane Godfrey, is extremely frustrated as the project is still not entirely complete even though the building has been occupied since September last year.
6. When first occupied in September the list of problems with the new building was like this:
   
   a. The doors did not fit
   b. IT cables were left hanging out of the walls
   c. The central heating was not installed until October
   d. The dividing screen jammed and had to be re-hung (it had been incorrectly fitted)
   e. And as I write this there is still a list of some eight items to be rectified before the contract is considered complete.
   
7. Meanwhile, during the summer of 2003 it was discovered that the floor of the Victorian classroom in the main building had disintegrated in one corner and that the walls were in a poor state. It looked terrible and was a further disincentive to prospective parents and a further morale drain on the Head teacher following his year of teaching in the village hall. The DBE promised that this could be sorted out asap but then it was put on hold until April 2004. In October we organised a party of volunteers (villagers, parents & children) to paint the ‘rainforest’ on to the walls as a temporary attempt to cheer the school up. We have recently heard that there is now no money at all this year for any building works to be carried out in the dioceses for the next year!
8. Finally, although the new classroom was only built last year, no consideration was taken for disabled access and therefore further work will have to be undertaken.

In conclusion, we feel that that the Diocesan Board of Education must take responsibility for this prolonged period of disruption that the school, children and staff have had to endure. It is not surprising that during this period

• Morale was low,
• Education disrupted,
• Parents disillusioned (to be the point that some withdrew their children)
• Prospective parents put off,
• Unnecessary stress put on the shoulders of the head Teacher

It is therefore obvious to many of us that the events of the past two years have contributed to many of our short-term problems and that we are now left with

• An incomplete building project,
• A Head Teacher who has buckled under the strain and is now on long-term sick leave,
• A large debt for our share of the building project costs which puts further stress on our budget
• Special Measures as a consequence of a poor ofsted report (is it any surprise if the education of the children has been affected by the above?)

We do not want to apportion blame, but it is clear that the situation that we find ourselves in is due to many contributing factors that have been beyond our control. We cannot alter the past but we do need the Diocesan Board of Education and LEA to be supportive now to help us restore the good reputation of this very successful little school.

Yours sincerely

Lucy & Nick Rickman

Cc Mr Robert Key, Mr Geoff Ramsey, (Via Email)
Mr R Wolfson, The Bishop of Salisbury, Mr Bill Moss

15 April 2004

Mr R Wolfson
Director, Department for Children, Education & Libraries
County Hall
Trowbridge
Wiltshire

Dear Mr Wolfson

FARLEY ALL SAINTS PRIMARY SCHOOL

I would like to offer my support for Farley School. I am aware that the LEA is currently considering closing this rural school. As a parent of a child in the school, I do not believe that this would be in the best interests of the children at the school, nor in the best interests of children who should attend the school in the future, nor in the best interests of the village.

The recent OFSTED Report praised the school for the pupils' personal qualities -their spiritual, moral and social development, for their relationships with pupils and adults, for their behaviour, for their links with the community, the overall ethos of the school and the care provided. In my opinion these special qualities and the special atmosphere that exists at Farley are as important as SATS tables.

The school is a crucial part of village life. The school, alongside the church, is at the heart of the community. The children reap the benefits of the special atmosphere at Farley School and grow up feeling secure within-their community. They grow up caring about each other and the community in which they live. We used to live in East Grimstead and when we moved to Porton we did not look at our local school as our children were happy to continue their education with friends they had grown up with. We have been happy to travel the distance to Farley for the past four years as we feel that this was the best school for our children. Our son has moved on to secondary school and is doing well academically. This is surely due to the good overall education he has enjoyed at Farley School. Past pupils from Farley School have done well in various secondary schools and many have gone on to University. They have appreciated the secure friendly family atmosphere that was important for them in their primary school education.

I am concerned that the LEA appears to have already decided the fate of our village school. I feel that this is unfair and that they have left us powerless to alter this situation. What is the LEA doing to prevent closure I wonder? OFSTED made a number of criticisms particularly about the management and leadership of the school. However, I feel that we are not being given an opportunity to correct this before the future of our school is decided. Improving our school is feasible because of the excellent attitude and behaviour of the children and the strong parental support that the school enjoys. Already we have seen excellent progress from our children this term so this must show what positive measures have been made.

It was stated by a LEA representative at a post-OFSTED meeting with parents that the LEA had concerns a year ago and began to take action. We were alarmed to hear that this intervention obviously has not worked if one considers the findings of the OFSTED inspection. Given the situation in which the school finds itself, I assume that as paid professionals, the LEA must bear considerably more responsibility than the voluntary body of Governors. Has the LEA been negligent in its duties to the school?

Please do not consider closing our school. It is clear that other larger local village schools are full and cannot even offer places to children who live in these villages. Surely it would not be satisfactory to divide our children up and squeeze them into such schools. Farley has all the benefits of a rural school in idyllic surroundings which should not be destroyed by those in authority. It is their duty to maintain such an educational establishment in a village community. A large sum of taxpayer's money has recently been spent on an extension to our school which now gives it very desirable facilities for our children. Although funded by the Diocese we have been told that this building must be used for the education of our local community which surely means a school.
Please consider the future of our children in this rural community and inform us of a positive plan for our school.

Yours sincerely

RACHEL RAMSEY (MRS)
PARENT

Cc: Mrs J Tubbs - Head of School Support, LEA
Mr S Tong - Diocesan Director of Education
Mr B Moss - Councillor

Registered Charity
No.201348

FARLEY HOSPITAL

Founded 1681

Custos:
Dr. R C Godfrey, FRCP
The Wardenry,
Church Road, Farley,
SALISBURY, Wilts, SP5 1AH

Connections with the village school in Farley:

The village school in Farley was founded by Sir Stephen Fox in 1682, as part of his plan to provide education and material assistance for the children, accommodation and security for the elderly, and a proper place of worship for his native village.

From the first accounts of Farley Hospital in 1682, the sum of £10 per annum was paid to a schoolmaster for the education of 20 children, and an allowance of 16/= per child made to the 12 poorest for shoes and clothes. To begin with the schoolroom was in the "long room" of Farley Hospital.

At some unknown date soon after the building of Farley Church (1690) a school building was erected to the west of the Hospital.

Payments continued out of the Hospital funds, changing in 1873 to "Farley National School" when this school was built to replace the original school, and including a (smaller) payment to "Pitton National School" in 1886.

These two payments, with discretionary additional payments for poor children, and also for further education of certain children in the parish of Farley with Pitton, continued until 1908 when the Charity Commissioners drew up a "scheme" for the running of the Hospital, and we believe that the Farley Hospital Educational Trust was set up. We have no records of this charity's accounts or its management, but we do know that it was formally closed about five years ago as an inactive charity with no funds.